The Energon Pub

Today my nieces were down, and we were playing some Nintendo Wii, and I decided to demo Earth Worm Jim for them, since it's on my Virtual Console. To be blunt, they weren't impressed. Back in the day I didn't care about graphics that much either, but EWJ definitely has some killer graphics, specially for the Genesis. But anyway, that got me to thinking: are graphics still a major selling point?

For me, graphics are usually the last thing I look for when I'm going to get a game. Sure, when I'm playing a game I think "wow, that looks pretty cool" sometimes(actually, did that today with Ninja Gaiden II), but for the most part, I just kind of expect it.

Your thoughts, and feel free to carry on in any kind of discussion about graphics and their impact on marketing/game appeal.

Sometimes graphics are all I care about lol. Other times, I could care less. For me it depends on the game and why I bought it. I knew the story in Crysis was going to be weak, but I could care less, when a take a look at the graphics. But in the same day I'll pick up my GBA and grind it out on pokemon for a few hours. Every now and again a game with both a good story/fun gameplay and killer graphics comes along. For me its usually one extreme or the other.

I think good graphics bring a lot of undeserved attention to a game. Take Halo for example. It's mediocre at best, yet people love it only because it looks good. That takes attention away from good games that didn't put all their effort into making the game pretty.

Graphics should not amount to anything more than a bonus. If the gameplay, sound, and story are good enough, graphics shouldn't even matter.

The pretty graphics are the only reason anyone likes Gears of War. Such a lame game...

Graphics aren't everything. I will use Wii Sports for an example as the game looks like crap graphically, but its fun as hell to play with your friends. Also latley I've been hooked on Infamous on PS3, which isn't bad looking, but its nothing groundbreaking graphically, but gameplay wise its awesome!

I really base what I buy on Review Scores more than anything. If its got a bad review I'm not going near it. Games are not like movies, and I still remember buying Mortal Kombat Mythologies on my N64 back in 1998, paying $80 for it with Christmas money, and the game sucked. I checked the review on IGN, and sure enough it was like a 4 out of 10. I figured with it being a MK game I'd enjoy it but boy was I ever wrong! I tried to take it to Gamestop to trade it in a month later, and they only offered me a dollar. A f**** Dollar for an $80 game!

But even review scores aren't everything. Its gotta appeal to me, and it can't be so challenging its not fun!

The short answer for me is I don't know.

The long answer is... I guess sometimes. I'll say that, as a child of the 70s/80s, I love those old games: Pac Man, Ladybug, Donkey Kong, Mr. Do, etc. They're awesome!

Anyway, after saying that... maybe graphics mean something. I'll say I don't buy for graphics, but they help.

I used to play Marvel Ultimate Alliance on the PS2, then bought an Xbox 360 and played it there and I much more enjoy the graphics on that system. RE4 makes the previous ones look like the graphics are just... outdated. Mind you, RE4 was a more fun game, but the graphics of the previous ones in comparison don't help them age well. I guess I like graphics sometimes. If the graphics are horrendous, then I just can't get into the game (with the exception of those old time games, heheheheh).

On the flipside, I prefer genre and story, and overall funability. MGS2 and 3, for instance, aren't as "pretty" as some of the newer games, but are still tons more fun. Duke Nukem was never as sexy as Quake, but I just loved it more. Never was a Quake fan.

I guess for me graphics help, but gameplay trumps it.

Graphics will always be a focal point in games. Especially high profile games. People have mentioned Gears and Halo. I personally like both series aside from how they look. Controls are solid, games run at a good clip. Stories are passable. However, the overall polish that the developers have put into the games in the visual department makes it just that much better. Seriously, who wants to run through an area that looks ugly? It's unappealing. Arcade games work in that regard because that is what they are. $60 games by leading developers should not look bad. Period. Would you pay $60 for Earthworm Jim nowadays? No. Of course not. Why? Because systems have surpassed that level of detail and you expect something on a new console to look good.

Anyone who says graphics don't matter need to turn their PC games to the bare minimum. Otherwise, you're not following your line of thought and are just being asinine. If graphics don't matter then you should have no problem keeping your settings there from here on...

Spoilers. You won't.

The thing with PC games is they perform better with lower graphic settings. I'll admit graphics are a factor, but it's it's usually the last one I consider.

TheMuffin wrote:Anyone who says graphics don't matter need to turn their PC games to the bare minimum. Otherwise, you're not following your line of thought and are just being asinine. If graphics don't matter then you should have no problem keeping your settings there from here on...

Spoilers. You won't.

I often do. It makes the game run a lot smoother, especially newer games. And, as it turns out, no, it doesn't bother me.

Oddly enough I get some PC games just to see my FPS. I find Crysis, or Far Cry II are ok games, but they sure are the funnest benchmarking software I've ever used