Since when did graphics whoring become so widespread?

Muzman on 5/10/2009 at 02:55

Quote:

Moments after the Gforce 1 was released I'd say. (or whichever one it was that had AA first)

swaaye on 5/10/2009 at 03:39

Graphics don't make or break anything for me, but I know they do for others. Frankly I enjoy playing oldies and seeing the old graphics.

Re:Mirror's Edge PC

I recently picked it up for $6. :):)

Was a good time. Kinda quirky. The Physx effects are generally useless and not even very apparent, and slow the game down at times.... There was one spot where there was this interactive ground fog that was pretty cool though. But even at 1360x768 (i play on my TV) these added effects would take my 8800GTX from 60fps to chunky too often and they weren't worth that.

I've never seen the game on a console.

The PC version has rather robust FSAA support too. It supports the CSAA modes of my 8800. Looked quite nice. Very clean. The world's clean art style goes well with AA.

IMO FSAA should be in all games. Make concessions elsewhere for it if necessary. I think FSAA adds a ton of cleanness to games. Extra polish if you will. Did you guys know that N64 games frequently had edge AA? Ya, go look at those polys in Goldeneye or Mario 64 again (for ex). Now we just get more plastic normal mapping and more bloom and more etc.

The PS3 and 360 can handle it fine but the tech just doesn't have any priority for some reason. 360 in particular is designed to be able to use AA quite efficiently but it requires some consideration from the programmers.

Quote Posted by Yakoob

People like things that look pretty. See: Everything in human history, ever.

this.

EvaUnit02 on 5/10/2009 at 04:21

Quote Posted by Subjective Effect

When Assassins Creed and GTA4 came out there were PS3 and XBox360 comparison videos. Its that kind of small difference that I'm talking about, not (another example) HL vs HL2. These small things seem to matter a lot to some people. Ghostbusters was another example. I saw the comparison shots and whilst I could see the difference it meant nothing to me.

On this particular point of yours, what's there to get? Early on PS3 would often get bad unoptimised ports of 360 games (and still do to an extent, eg Condemned 2, Ghostbusters, Silent Hill Homecoming, Tomb Raider Underworld), such as Splinter Cell: Double Agent, The Darkness... and Assassin's Creed. I certainly don't want to get shafted and left with a gimped version of a particular game.

Comparisons like that help make the consumer make informed purchases. Case closed.

belboz on 5/10/2009 at 04:33

Well computer games magazines seem to rate a game high if the graphics are good, and dont seem to really care wheather the gameplay is actually any good anymore.

EvaUnit02 on 5/10/2009 at 04:41

Quote Posted by belboz

Well computer games magazines seem to rate a game high if the graphics are good, and dont seem to really care wheather the gameplay is actually any good anymore.

Dude, making broad generalisations like that is pretty dumb.

Koki on 5/10/2009 at 05:33

Quote Posted by belboz

Well customers seem to buy a game if the graphics are good, and dont seem to really care wheather the gameplay is actually any good anymore.

Fixed

june gloom on 5/10/2009 at 07:01

Eva, I think wormrat is calling you.

Renzatic on 5/10/2009 at 07:30

Quote Posted by 37637598

If graphics whoring wasn't important, we would still be content with our atari 800's. Mr.Robot might have a sequel by now.

I'm still waiting for the sequel to (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKrL7uE5Gz4) Ollie's Follies myself.

Thirith on 5/10/2009 at 08:52

For me, graphics are a means to an end. If they make me feel more involved, more *there*, then that's a good thing. While the PhysX additions to Mirror's Edge didn't change the gameplay, they did give me more of a "being there" feeling. The viewing distance (and, at its best, the lighting) in Armed Assault does that as much as the bells-and-whistles visuals of Call of Duty 4 or Crysis.

At the same time, though, I can imagine that playing the game on a 42" HD LCD could also pull me in, perhaps even more so than when I'm playing a slightly better-looking game on my computer.

I agree that there's a lot of silliness when it comes to computer game graphics - the average gamer as much as the mainstream publications seem to be all about bells and whistles, much more than about style and art direction. For me, Shadow of the Colossus is as gorgeous as (and more interesting to look at than) Call of Duty 4, but the average person will look at SotC on a big screen and go, "Ugh, eye vomit." That's never been better or different for as long as I've been playing games.

However, I don't think this should translate into some sort of reverse snobism. I'd be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy Crysis, CoD4 or Assassin's Creed because of the visuals. To be honest, there are a couple of games that are fairly mediocre in terms of gameplay that I still enjoyed a lot because of the graphics - just like I'd say that Psychonauts' gameplay was relatively average, but the game was fun and massively enhanced by the writing and voice acting.

In the end, it's similar with games as with women: yes, I usually find those women sexier who have brains - but a) it doesn't hurt if they've got the looks to go with the mind, and b) I still enjoy looking at a beautiful woman who might not be mensa material.

Ostriig on 5/10/2009 at 11:53

As usual, Thirith is right on the money. Good graphics can help further immersion, to facilitate suspend disbelief, even when they don't provide for any tangible gameplay benefits. While matters of graphical detail aren't that much of a big deal, they're not entirely of no consequence either. To give another parallel, you could've probably gotten District 9 across just as well if the aliens were actors in rubber suits, but I'd definitely say it stood to benefit from the quality CGI.

Putting gameplay above eyecandy and not panning a good game for having poor visuals doesn't mean you have to go to the other extreme of completely discounting the perk of technically advanced visuals. And while other matters take precedence, distinguishing between platform-specific versions of a game based on visuals is, still, a valid point. Invoking it as a selling point is perfectly fine, under the right circumstances. For instance, if, hypothetically, a game was exactly the same over the 360 and the PS3, which you both owned, but the former had slightly better AA going for it, I think it'd be a no-brainer to buy that one.

By the way, why are we using the whole X'' HDTV example for consoles in this thread? Yeah, it's typical to have your console hooked up to the livingroom TV, and your PC to a 20something'' monitor, but there's really nothing stopping you from hooking the PC up to the HDTV and enjoying Mirror's Edge with the best of both worlds.