I was recently looking over the numerous threads on here filled with people belittling the idea of great graphics, in favour of a better story or game play. Sure, I understand this.. but the entire Gameplay>Story>Graphics argument is flawed and does not encompass the entire video game experience as a whole. (I will elaborate on my view point below..) I was just a moment ago trying to reply to a thread about this very issue, but it was locked due to the amount of console bashing that was happening before I could voice my opinion. This thread is NOT intended to bash consoles or bring up the PC vs. Console debate in the least, it is merely here to act as a survey of sorts -- just to be clear.

I will use, for reference's sake only, a quote I found in an older thread on a similar issue, and if you look through some of the other threads relating to graphics, you'll likely find very similar arguments with all sorts of derails back and forth from topic to topic, unfortunately. This thread, however, I wish only to be about personal opinions on whether or not graphics are important to YOU while playing any given game. Those of you in favour, this may be due to the increased immersion it provides, etc., and should not include opinions on why you think consoles are crap, and why PC's pwn, or vice versa. If you disagree with a pro-graphic approach, I want to hear why. Let's keep this as civil as possible, and in light of that, the quote I am going to use will be left anonymous. (My apologies to its original author, do not take this as a direct attack if you recognize your statement here. I am only using it as an example amongst many others I have seen, in order to demonstrate the varieties of viewpoints and my arguments against some of them). Hope I've made myself clear so far, so without further adieux, here is where I stand:



These are A L L important aspects of a video game. I would rather play a game with great graphics and a great story as WELL, over a game with poor graphics and just a great story. What is wrong with ensuring technology and "eye candy" is up to date with the cutting edge, while still maintaining a strong story line and game play mechanic? It would take JUST as long to implement a previous version of Direct X, etc. over a newer version into a game engine to ensure its visual depth is as robust as its intended story. Game play and story alone does not define a video game, you also have to traverse a 3-dimensional world in order to experience the story. If it isn't as believable as it could be graphically, unless done on purpose and it was the intention of the art team to begin with (WoW, for instance), the immersion factor will suffer accordingly. All elements of game development work together and complement one another. If graphics don't matter, why not just stick with the old NES and we can all play Zelda? It had a fantastic story, great game play for its time, so why should we have to improve technology to make video games better, right? Wrong. We owe almost all developments over the years leading to the modern technology we see today in our video games to the fact that developers pushed the envelope and engineers decided to manufacture more powerful components. That's like saying the Lord of the Rings movies should have been shot in a basemant somewhere, who cares about how the world is presented? Why did they need to hire a CGI team in the first place when they could have just painted a dog black and gave it a lizard mask, slapped some wings on it and called it a dragon.. the contradictions in all these arguments you guys bring up are astounding. All advancements in tech ensure the immersion factor can advance along with it. Write a damn good story, absolutely.. who doesn't want a great story to experience in a 3d world? At the same time, why not make the world as visually stunning as possible for those who have the option.. how will that ever NOT benefit the experience as a whole? What.. in the world.. is wrong with that?

:poke:

I don't care if it has Morrowind graphics it has the depth to match.

But in today's market, and with the technology available, it would be ridiculous to approach a new sequel in a franchise with that mindset. Sure, a lot of people would play it, but the experience as a whole would suffer in immersion. Would you rather play a new TES game as an "evolution" to its predecessors, or have that same great story with even better graphics than we've been seeing so far? Depth is also a visual component. Why not just read a book then?

If they are at least as good as Oblivion+ Quarls Texture Pack...it will be fine for me. :foodndrink:

They matter to me, but they are not the end all be all.

I just want it all, plain and simple. If they need more time for that, I'd be fine with it......as much as it would kill me to wait being the impatient person I am at times. (You should see me pace in front of the window when I am expecting a new hardware delivery. :ahhh:)

You do reach a point at which a downgrade in graphics doesn't net you production time. The immersion would be just fine... did you feel like Oblivion lacked immersion because of the graphics? They blew me away at the time. Daggerfall did as well. If I played a game like Daggerfall now, I would certainly think the graphics were dated, but it wouldn't impact the immersion. You tend to notice flaws in the gameplay rather than graphics.

Why don't you watch a movie if all you care about is graphics. I hear blu-ray is nice.

I still (after more than 20 years) play the hell out of http://www.nethack.org/common/index.html. Just take a guess how important I think graphics are.

When you meet a person, you go by the looks at first. Looks is the first impression.

Graphics is the first impression as well for games. You go by the graphics first.


If TES is supposed to catch new players that have never played a TES game before; graphics will most likely be what would drag them into these series at first.

In my opinion, gameplay, story, lore, etc are no big issues for Bethesda. They're the best darn game company I know at this.
Graphics look kinda good (in today's standards). I think they can look better though.

Nevertheless, graphics do matter. Just as gameplay and story and lore and whatever else in the game do.
It adds a lot of atmosphere. And it can make the playthrough a whole new experience...
Rather than being satisfied by your mind of the great gameplay and story and lore, graphics satisfies your eyes

Just my opinion of seeing on this matter

People who say "No" are only joking themselves. Of course they want good graphics. Plus, if you have a console or a decent PC, then why wouldn't you want good graphics? Yes, I do take gameplay over graphics, but I want them to be up to date with today's standards. Just saying, I wouldn't buy the game if the graphics were on, let's say, par with BF1942.

i hope they're better yes. mostly for the cause that id be disappointed if they werent, since my expectations are theyre improved. helps me enjoy the game more the first times i play it. gives alot of wow-moments at first

Graphics, physics, effects, AI and other calculations ADD to the gameplay itself.

It's like not saying effects are not important in a star wars movie imagine if the originals or the new ones were all the effects are done with paper cut outs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shZzYkpl5Nk

^this.

Also guys remember it's not like the writing or other departments handle graphics, physics ect. Theres separate departments for a reason and also i PAID A [censored]TON of money for my pc and i really want a reason other than arma2, crysis, stalker, metro2033 ect to justify the cost. If you say no your lying to yourselves of course you want dx11 effects.

They matter, but they're not going to make a bad game good (Metro 2033).

Of course graphics are important (who doesn't want to look at nice things?), but they are definitely below gameplay and story in terms of importance. From what I've seen (albeit not from moving images) the graphics look great as they are.

For new games on the Xbox 360, yes graphics matter. I'm a "graphics-[censored]".

That being said, I still frequently play the N64 and never bore of it.

At the bare minimum, the bar is expected according to where the last game set it.

I did the same thing for hours when I was expecting my new i7 setup, haha.

I agree, graphics are not the end all be all, for me either. But they play a key role in defining how much immersion the game will inevitably have. My argument is against all these notions that DX9 is fine, and that a refined "gamebryo" style engine is sufficient. We've had too many titles already showcase refined tech, it's time for a step up. The amount of evidence, though premature in its foundation, has several of us PC users believe that DX10 or DX11 will not be included, and that is definitely misleading and upsetting. I'll elaborate further with a comment I posted in a separate thread, which is on topic and relevant more so here.

of course they do

Ouuhh oh, that's what she said.

Well if I want graphics, COD has amazing ones

Graphics do not matter to me one bit.

I remember being completely immersed in a dos adventure that solely used ASCII symbols.
A § was a necklace etc..

Its probably because I am old, but to this day I find Morrowind graphics stunning.

I don't just care about graphics. I merely hold them just as important as story, lore, game play, etc. All of these elements define a video game and its level of immersion. Sorry if you took that as an attack, or sarcastic poke/insult.

I think graphics are important for the immersion aspect. But gameplay, story, sound, and the feel of the game are the most important. I always felt Oblivion graphics were awesome for the time and even now, but the controls, gameplay, combat, etc.. kinda let me down. Seriously though I loved Oblivion and spent hours on hours playing it, but I always hoped for a better feel of the game.

By the way I played Oblivion on console so maybe that's why the controls svcked but meh...

Yep. At least somewhat.

http://www.toy-tma.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Legend-of-Zelda-NES.png

But, extremism for the luls aside, Graphics do matter.

I've been thinking of at least having a go at trying to make a game in a game engine (finding the right one is obviously [sarcasm]very[/sarcasm] fun), and one of the biggest things that I've been looking for is graphics. And here's why: When you can implement all of the cool stuff AND good graphics, it makes it 100x better than if it's all the cool stuff but then it looks like http://image4.play-asia.com/350/PA.63792.002.jpg compared to games being released looking like http://images.uesp.net//a/a4/Markarth01.jpg.

Our sense of sight is the one that we rely on the most, we're a highly visual species. It's natural that we want to make it look as good as we can.

Oh, sure. I remember the days when Hexen or Doom looked amazing, but as the visual standards of game technology advance, so do our opinions of what is "acceptable" for next-gen or current-gen technology. It is an evolving process, and I think all elements of a video game (during development or playing them, respectively) are just as important as the other. That's all.