How Do Graphics Shape Your Experience? - News
by VGChartz Staff , posted on 12 November 2011 / 4,535 Views
Graphics have been glorified throughout all of gaming's lifespan. While gameplay always prevails in the end, leading up to a game's release is a different story. It seems all gamers can talk about are how good or bad a game looks, even if it has no bearing on how the title plays. Graphics have been such an important aspect in the consumer's eye that for nearly every single console released has focused on visual updates. And from there, that's how they are marketed as well.
Right now we're at a bit of tipping point. Graphics still have a ways to go, but we're getting very close to the point where the miniscule differences simply won't matter. If the console market hopes to survive, they have to find different ways to create experiences for consumers that are marketable. As of right now, no feature can really be sold like graphics can be, thanks to just the nature of visuals being able to be experienced by everyone across a wide variety of mediums. Whereas something like online functions or motion controls require the player to actually experience them themselves. Outside of the marketing factor though, I do wonder if games will eventually lose something once we really hit the limit, considering we won't have that yearly upgrade to further impress us. For me, I'm not sure anything will change.
I was looking into picking up a copy of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, and was trying to decide between the PlayStation 3 version and the Wii version. Honestly, the Wii version was more appealing if only for my personal preference of the Wii Remote and Nunchuck controls over dual analog controls for shooters on consoles. A friend of mine started complaining saying I'd be alienating myself from the graphical experience everyone else was having, and therefore it wouldn't be worth my time. For me, graphics play a different role in a game. Instead, they lay the foundation for the visuals of an area, but only act as a first impression. Afterwords, I'm too focused on the game itself to really note the visual intricacies of the backgrounds and, instead, my mind just sort of fills in the rest based off that initial impression of the art style or the environment. In-taking every single visual element for hours on in would simply be impossible for me.
I'm aware that I'm honestly more of an extreme factor here, where graphics are just sort of an afterthought. Obviously for everyone it is different. I was curious how much your gaming experiences are effected by graphics. Do you need everything to be pixel perfect, or are graphics one of the last reasons you pick up a title?
More Articles
Well with Graphical Masterpieces like God of War III, Uncharted 3, Killzone 3, Metal Gear Solid 4, and others... it's hard not to expect moderate to great visuals in most modern games. But, if the game is fun then visuals good or bad shouldn't matter.
""Graphics have been glorified throughout all of gaming's lifespan. ""
errr
"in recent years"
sure, before graphical masterpieces were noted as such, but ugly games could be fun too. Now, they are just not deemed to be considered.
I personally play a game were it'll be more fun, not where it'll look nicer...that includes having a decent size community for multi-plat games, so in your MW3 example, I wouldn't have picked Wii (I'd have picked PC actually but that's beyond the point). On the other hand, I wouldn't play a mariokart clone elsewhere even if it was better... cause the people I play this type of game with have a wii and not HD consoles (or PC), similarly, before kinect, I wouldn't have tried a partygame outside the wii, for portability reasons.
Let's call it like it is. They're called "Video" games. The visuals are a big part of the experience....to an extent. As long as I get an accurate representation of what the developer is trying to convey, that's awesome. If I get a cardboard cut-out of a flood destroying an entire city--that sucks. I don't consider myself a graphics whore but I do like to suspend my disbelief and gasp in awe of these virtual worlds. Great graphics help accomplish that feat.
Ive always said graphics dont make a game
graphics matter enough that you really are missing out on the wii version unless you really want the meh multiplayer and the wii motion controls. ( why would u want them though)
the differnce between 360/PS3 version of games are usually unnoticable unless you see them side by side, but the 360vs wii you can tell instantly.
graphics mean little, but when its painfull to look at ( resistance 1 comes to mind) its a little harsh, its like going back and playing Morrowind, though a great game, its out dated and didnt age well at all.
Your problem would be a non-issue if they just included Move controls in the PS3 version of MW3. That way you would have ALL the content, pointer controls, and pretty graphics.
Errr... there's probably a reason 'they' call them VIDEO games. No?
But I'm sure lots of people wouldn't mind Commodore 64 level graphics or maybe no graphics at all. There was a software publisher back in the 80's - Infocom - selling text-only games. For some reason, I haven't heard from them in a while but I'm sure that the text-only market is thriving these days. Because no one needs graphics. Not really.
Dude, I'm sorry did you just say "MW3 for the Wii"? Seriously? That's what you're going with? And you put that in writing? Well on the bright side, you can have a senior citizens gaming night at your house. It'll be sweet. Wii-MW3, Wii-fit, Wii-music, a case of Ensure nutrition shakes, prune juice and some butterscotch candy. A Wii party rocks into the "wii" hours of 4:30 in the afternoon.
Btw Ben, there is such a thing as PS motion controller. That way you can still have your motion-controller fun and you can look at yourself in the mirror without feeling shame ;)
There is a lot games with a great graphic in PS3, 360, and PC. But still can't beat mario kart wii, wii sport, mario wii. I had ps3 and wii, i prefer to playing re4 hd than re5. Why? U know why.
Graphics are one of the most important imo. I still prefer 3d environments to explore over the 2d side-scroll-type games (not that 2d is horrible). 2d side-scrollers appear to be sticking around, however. I thought they would mostly be a thing of the past by now...
Graphics aren't the deciding factor for me. I am going to get saints row the third. It is not a looker but it has crazy style and flair to it. But the wii multiplat thing is something else. Call of duty on wii is not up to the other versions not just because of graphics but because not enough time goes into it and that leads to less modes and graphical issues. Not to mention the online. Graphics don't matter, but the game has to be pretty good without being pretty.
I say the same thing every generation that graphics don't matter. Yet I'm still buying games like BF3 and Skyrim and being wowed.
Golden eye for example is one of the best games I've ever played but when I really think about it, when was the last time I played it and wasn't drunk?
It's hard not to want to play games with better graphics.
Well Graphics are cool but I had way more fun playing FFX over FF13...
Errr... there's probably a reason 'they' call them VIDEO games. No?
But I'm sure lots of people wouldn't mind Commodore 64 level graphics or maybe no graphics at all. There was a software publisher back in the 80's - Infocom - selling text-only games. For some reason, I haven't heard from them in a while but I'm sure that the text-only market is thriving these days. Because no one needs graphics. Not really.
Graphics are what makes the VIDEOgames
All human beings are visual beings, meaning, one of our most influential sense, and the one we rely the most on, is our visual sense. I'm by no means saying that graphics, or physical beauty is the most important thing.
What I am trying to say is that we gamers like to think that we are above that. I have always told myself that "graphics are not important, gameplay above all", but the truth is, that graphics matter, and they matter almost as much as gameplay.
I have come to terms with that part of myself, it wasn't easy, but I'm ok with that now. Like with food we eat with our eyes first, same with games. It is the visuals that catch our attention, and once we get our grubby mitts on those delicious games, graphics (and just as important, the right artistic direction) help with immersion.
Gameplay is the most important aspect of a game, but not by much. Think about some of our favorite games, specially if your a PC gamer. Games like the original Deus Ex, one of if not the greatest games ever, but I have tried, countless times to pop it in and give it another go around, but I just can not, get around how ugly it looks. The gameplay still holds up, but my GOD does it look like crap.
Same with one of my favorite trilogies ever, the Marathon trilogy. Great story, perhaps the greatest story on a FPS, great pacing, gameplay still holds up nicely, soundtrack is pretty good, even by today's standard, but the visuals are a major road block for me, just the fact that I have to READ the story, makes me cringe.
It doesn't make us bad people, or bad gamers, it just means that we are what we are, visual beings.
Art > Polygons.
Wii games look indeed worse than HD games, but games like Mario Galaxy and Zelda: SS have incredible artstyles and stand almost next to them.
In the end, I'd rather have a beautiful, artistic world, than a gray, dull, place.
Personally I only care about graphics for racing sims. Even then, many more factors play a bigger role (like what cars are in the game, how has the physics improved, what's there to make it fun and stand out).
After sims, I expect any AAA title on the PS3 and 360 to look good, I really don't care if it looks "the best" because next gen every game we have now will look bad. However I do want an experience which is beautiful to look at, and generally good looking AAA titles are well made as well.
That said, I never limit myself out to the less graphically powerful, more artistic games. Catherine for example, is my most anticipated used game to buy this fall (I played it at my friends house, and I loved it. I just never buy full priced games unless it's a AAA title which won't come down in price for a long long time). Fallout: New Vegas Ultimate Edition also falls in this boat.
As for Wii, games for Wii go in the same boat as Catherine. If they're good I'll play them, simple as that. Really hoping they localize XenoBlade and The Last Story.
As for a multiconsole game on Wii and the HD systems, I'll get the game on an HD system. The controller interface isn't too important to me, and on PS3/360 my friends will actually want to play with or against me, and I will actually have friends online.
I still think Megaman X2 has best graphics.
I would rather play a shooter with the Wii remote + nunchuck than with the dual nipples of the PS3. I wouldn't buy Call of Duty, though, as the likely lower frame rate will ruin my aim but I am totally satisfied with Goldeneye to the point I have no interest in getting the HD version.
Graphics and gameplay go hand in hand. You can have a great game with crappy graphics and a crappy game with great graphics. The best games are a combination of the two. A great game with great graphics is what everyone should aspire to. The Wii IMO ruins the experience of most games because the graphics are crap. If you take the same two games, BF for example and play one on the PS3 and one on the Wii, the PS3 experience will be better due to the bump in visuals. They do have the same style controls as well.
i own both PS3 and Wii and play them both equally as much.I would prob buy MW3 on PS3,but thats not to say the Wii version isnt good either,in fact they did a good job with reflex and black ops.On another matter,im playing rage at present and loving it.Its a great looking game,but how i yearn for the Wii pointer controls instead of dual analogue,with the customisation options of the Conduit games.Thats how fps games should control.
