Why is everyone so concerned with graphics?

[SoloGamer]

Saying that it needs to look good enough to play is being jaded. By that reasoning if a game looke like a 2600 title but had amazing gameplay you probably wouldn't want to give it a chance.

"Good enough to play" basically means "I can tell what's going on and who is a friend/foe." It's not being jaded at all.

Going off your 2600 example, "Good enough" would be something like Pitfall, where it's easy to tell what each pixel is supposed to be, as opposed to E.T., where it's just green blobs on the screen.

[DarkeSword]

Why does how the game looks at all whether it be realisitc or just a good art direction is so important to gamers is beyond me. It didn't used to be, but since technology has given game developers the ability to make a game look however they want it seems to have become the first thing a gamer looks for and judges the game on. Very very sad IMO.

I'd rather have a good game with good graphics than a good game with bad graphics.

And if a bad game has good graphics, you can be assured I won't be playing it for long.

[Brycepops]

Saying that it needs to look good enough to play is being jaded.

So...you're basically saying that we should all have the same standard when it comes to games? Being human, we have the ability to set our own standard of what we like and what we don't. If someone doesn't like something because of how it looks/plays/feels/whatever, that's their business and you shouldn't try to convince them that their opinion is wrong. We were given free will for a reason.

[VCR Channel]

...but since technology has given game developers the ability to make a game look however they want it seems to have become the first thing a gamer looks for and judges the game on. Very very sad IMO.

If you're walking through a store and you see a game demo set up, what's going to be the first thing you see?

If a game looks good, then you may consider checking it out. Once you start playing it, that's when you start looking at the gameplay aspect. If a game looks bad and you haven't heard anything about the game, you're not as likely to try it out.

[sephfire]

See, this is where you start throwing opinions around like they were facts. Crysis I'll give you, but many people consider CoD4 to be fantastic. I got sucked into the multiplayer for weeks, and I don't even tend to like Call of Duty games.

And I understand what you mean about the graphics drawing people in first and the gameplay second. It's unfortunate that it happens that way, but it also makes sense. The graphics are the first thing you see. Before you even take control of the character in the game, before you've had time to get used to the controls and the gameplay, the game's first impression is always it's graphics. That's one reason why developers try to put so much work into them: first impressions are important.

It's still unfortunate that so many people will judge a game based on that first impression alone, but what are you gonna do.

[Zombie]

Saying that it needs to look good enough to play is being jaded. By that reasoning if a game looke like a 2600 title but had amazing gameplay you probably wouldn't want to give it a chance. Video games are simply a way of interacting with a visual cue, usually on a screen. Sure we can make those visuals look incredible now a days, but more often than not that seems to be the main focus of a games design in modern day. Look at games like Crysis and COD4 as prime examples. Crysis looks incredible yes, but it's gameplay is terrible. The wow factor of bullet wholes in leaves only lasts a few minutes after that you realize theres no AI, all the weapons are the same, and the game offers no replay value. \

I just wish developers wouldn't focus on how good a game needs to look so much and focus more on the gameplay. I don't see that happening very much now a days.

I just don't think i'm getting you at all. I've played plenty of games from this generation that look fantastic and play great. Cod 4 is an example of this.

[Dhsu]

Any game that isn't Mega Man or TFC sucks because they aren't Mega Man or TFC.

[alt.slack]

To be perfectly honest it IS possible for bad graphics to ruin a game because it DOES physically hurt for me to look at games like TFC and HL because they LITERALLY make me nauseous and I have to stop after 15 minutes or so. Which is a shame because I really want to play through HL at least once, but it just doesn't seem like that will be possible when I literally feel like throwing up by the time I get to the end of "Unforeseen Consequences."

I feel sorry for you that your eyes must really be that bad, or you're really just that unwilling to give great games a chance because they don't have shader 3.0 support.

Honestly, when did you start playing video games if a game that recent looks that bad to you?

[alt.slack]

Any game that isn't Mega Man or TFC sucks because they aren't Mega Man or TFC.

When did I ever say that? I'm just using those as good examples of putting gameplay before graphics.

[DarkeSword]

I feel sorry for you that your eyes must really be that bad, or you're really just that unwilling to give great games a chance because they don't have shader 3.0 support.

Stop that right now. I've seriously had enough of your bullshit with shit like this. Quit it with the insinuations.

I gave this thread a shot because I thought people could discuss stuff nicely, but it looks like you can't do so without making insinuations and assumptions. Thread over.