Game Debate: graphics vs. content vs. combat, etc...

[JimboUK]

Can I ask why people pay for high end gaming machines? The vast majority of games are ports that can be played on console settings quite easily with a mid range PC, for people who don't think eye candy is important we do spend an awful lot of money to get as much of it as possible. Graphics are far more important to people than they let on, AA, AF, high resolutions, fancy shaders and DX11 don't improve gameplay but we must think they are important or we wouldn't be paying out hundreds extra to have them. I'm not suggesting they are more important than gameplay, I am suggesting those who think they don't matter are kidding themselves.

[marharth]

Can I ask why people pay for high end gaming machines? The vast majority of games are ports that can be played on console settings quite easily with a mid range PC, for people who don't think eye candy is important we do spend an awful lot of money to get as much of it as possible. Graphics are far more important to people than they let on, AA, AF, high resolutions, fancy shaders and DX11 don't improve gameplay but we must think they are important or we wouldn't be paying out hundreds extra to have them. I'm not suggesting they are more important than gameplay, I am suggesting those who think they don't matter are kidding themselves.

I only buy games with good graphics since they have other things in them also.

 

I would not buy a game with great graphics if the game sucked, that doesn't make sense.

 

To me, I would much prefer for game devs to go back to PS1/N64 graphics and focus on other things so they don't waste time on perfecting graphics.

[evilneko]

I don't.

 

Spend huge amounts of money on gaming rigs, that is.

 

My current desktop is one I built a few years ago for about four hundred bucks, which has received only one major upgrade in the form of a ~$100 video card. I never even bothered to change the graphics settings in Fallout 3 aside from upping the resolution when I replaced my monitor and turning HDR back on after I got the IMAGINATOR and URWL mods. (Fallout 3 has a horrible, horrible HDR implementation. Saints Row 2's HDR is much better--and actually dynamic!)

 

If I bought games based on graphics I'd be broke. And I'd also have bought Modern Warfare 2 after seeing it on my friend's computer despite how much of a PITA the game was.

[evertaile]

I don't spend huge amounts of money on gaming rigs. My current desktop is one I built a few years ago for about four hundred bucks, which has received only one major upgrade in the form of a ~$100 video card. I never even bothered to change the graphics settings in Fallout 3 aside from upping the resolution when I replaced my monitor and turning HDR back on after I got the IMAGINATOR and URWL mods. (Fallout 3 has a horrible, horrible HDR implementation. Saints Row 2's HDR is much better--and actually dynamic!)

 

Ditto - my upgrades come in once a while - standard upgrades though for general computer usage like more storage or extra RAM, when I can afford it perhaps a graphics upgrade. Should I switch out my mo/bo then it's usually no overhaul and I carry my majority of components over. example: my old C drive from 8 years ago is now a D drive for backing up data. My machine is a tidy one, but despite everyone around me thinking I spend hundreds on it -- I spend more time than money. I have 2 kids they need and require more upgrades at much more expense!!

 

 

 

I've said before about how I see gaming - it's about can I play it and not how it will look. Some games are unplayable with certain features enabled or disabled. I played Oblivion for 12 months on a 6200 (!) - it was playable and had certain issues, but upgrading to a 8800 was a smart move and it did improve my enjoyment of the game, mainly because my frame rate no longer dropped to 3 whenever more than 1 NPC moved. And yes, I did slide the settings up and enjoy the game with all settings maxed. But it didn't change the game, it just gave me bragging rights.

Edited February 19, 2011 by evertaile

[Retribution]

http://i54.tinypic.com/2ufpwmb.jpg

 

They'd better make a new engine before DA3.

[brokenergy]

The more I hear about graphics, the more I'm going to go back to texted-based adventure games. Some people are getting more hung up on graphics than on content because harping on about their new $3000 computer where you can lick the dirt is more important than the content within the game, and that's why Morrowind was better than Oblivion (okay bias there, but there was more content within it, I'm sure). Sure graphics are great to have but they are far below my list of things in a game, plus some of the comparison between game graphics is annoying at times, considering that some of them use different engines to run them.

 

Consider the recent DA2 to TW2 example (since people really love to compare DA2 to TW2 :dry: ), sure TW2 has better graphics than DA2 but people are comparing graphics on different engines and hardly seems fair. A better example is TW to Kotor, both of which use the same engine. Both looked (personal opinion) the same in quality, when it comes to graphics and atmosphere. Sure I agree that DA2 is lagging behind in graphics compaired to others in it's catagory (including ME3) but that's an engine problem that either could be fixed with a massive engine upgrade or a new engine from scratch (which is not easy).

 

Anyways, this thread really reminds me why I hate console vs PC threads (even though it isn't). It's precisely the graphical argument that drives me up the wall. Sure there are some bad console to PC ports but the same could be said for some PC to consoles as well.

[evertaile]

@brokenergy

 

::APLAUSE:: take a bow sir, bravo! Well said.

 

 

 

[Marthos]

Can I ask why people pay for high end gaming machines? The vast majority of games are ports that can be played on console settings quite easily with a mid range PC, for people who don't think eye candy is important we do spend an awful lot of money to get as much of it as possible. Graphics are far more important to people than they let on, AA, AF, high resolutions, fancy shaders and DX11 don't improve gameplay but we must think they are important or we wouldn't be paying out hundreds extra to have them. I'm not suggesting they are more important than gameplay, I am suggesting those who think they don't matter are kidding themselves.

 

 

Good points Jim

 

I did spend a lot of money on my last build, I wanted a rig that could handle anything I chucked at it, and it does. I'm also continually building rigs for other people and never once have I been asked for an "average" machine, they all want the fastest thing they can get.

 

Good graphics are important to me, I love the look of a well polished game on a big screen (and the sound of it through a big home theatre setup too), but if the gameplay and the storyline are pants then good graphics don't mean jack and vice versa.

 

For all those folk that say "you don't need good graphics to enjoy a game" you're quite right up to a point, I've enjoyed some games that have had poor graphics, but I'd have enjoyed them a whole lot more if the graphics had been good and the games looked more polished.

 

Nowadays, with the resources and technology that game studio's have to hand, I don't see any reason why we can't have a good spread of everything, good story lines, good game mechanics and decent graphics.

 

The modders on these site's for instance, are coming up with some fantastic stuff for our games, surely the so called "professionals can do the same.

[evertaile]

Nowadays, with the resources and technology that game studio's have to hand, I don't see any reason why we can't have a good spread of everything, good story lines, good game mechanics and decent graphics.

 

The modders on these site's for instance, are coming up with some fantastic stuff for our games, surely the so called "professionals can do the same.

Time is a major issue, especially when most funding for a game's development comes not from the developer but independent investors and the publisher, who expect a return profit within a strict timescale. Moreover, larger teams are required to cover all those bases -- more people = more paid employees. Modders have not only more time, but more time to spend on individual concepts and points - also we that mod a game do so free of charge, the only cost being that large amount of our own time. Owning a game engine is a good start for a standardised level of graphics, but developing one from scratch is costly and lengthy - hence the need for many developers to use a decent middleware, but that takes with it the expense of not only liscencing it, but also paying for it to be tweaked to specific genre, or having several in-house employees capable of working the engine code - an unnecessary pre-development cost. Storyboarding can be done in-house too, but for a decent and engrossing plot, some may want to hire professional writers, ie. Clive barker (terrible games) - again, extra out sourced cost.

 

So, to surmise a few reasons why we can't have a good spread - time and money...and time is money in most cases, ergo, money and more money.

Edited February 20, 2011 by evertaile

[Marthos]

All very true, well put.

 

But some game studio's seem to manage ok, where as others do less well, to put it mildly :confused: