Author Topic: How important are graphics to you? (Read 12690 times)

Kairon · « **Reply #25 on:** July 28, 2006, 05:02:29 PM »

Style >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Graphix.

Examples:

Phoenix Wright
Secret of Monkey Island
Earthbound

...and hopefully Red Steel

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Ceric · « **Reply #26 on:** July 28, 2006, 05:32:25 PM »

WW. Be a great game. If someone would do something about that blasted water.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #27 on:** July 28, 2006, 06:02:06 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
WW. Be a great game. If someone would do something about that blasted water.

I love wind waker (Even more so than OOT) whether it be its graphical style or gameplay. The only thing that bothered me was that lame triforce scavenger hunt which felt so tacked on (sailing never did bother me though).

Requiem of Darcness · « **Reply #28 on:** July 28, 2006, 06:51:01 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Quote
Originally posted by: Requiem of Darcness You left out two comparisons though. One supports your post the other does not.

Actually, I left out quite a few others: Dreamcast, Jaguar, Turbografx, Lynx, etc.

But I don't think the SNES necessarily "won" against the Genesis. If I remember correctly, it was the Genesis which gave Sega the prosperity it would later squander and waste on other systems.

The SNES/Super Famicom crushed the Genesis/Megadrive. It was only a close battle in the US. The Genesis/Megadrive was third in Japan behind the Super Famicom and Turbographx-16. At one point the Super Famicom was selling for the equivalent of $140 for just the console and the controller, the MegaDrive was selling for the equivalent of $70 with a pack-in and it still was getting demolished.

UniversalJuan · « **Reply #29 on:** July 28, 2006, 07:17:05 PM »

Don't shoot me but I own a 360, and I understand what they mean. I have an HD set, and that was actually a factor in buying my 360. The 360 was designed to be able to output some damn nice HD images. If a 360 titles isn't doing at least 720p? My care meter is going to drop like a BRICK! (That is, of course, unless it's awesome). By contrast, when the Wii comes out. it can not do 480p and I'll still pick it up. Why? Nintendo nevre stated Wii is all about the HD. In 2007 when I get my PS3 (Yes, I'm serious. Unless the titles by then don't support my decision) I will have the same stance toward titles for it that I do with my 360.

Now, does me wanting the most out of my system designed for HD make me a graphics whore? I'll let you decide that one. Trust me I'll be here to defend myself if I hear something that fails at the sense making.

ThePerm · « **Reply #30 on:** July 28, 2006, 07:25:37 PM »

i thought games on wii ran at 480p, i like what ubisoft said "its not as powerful as the other systems, but we made some really good graphical games on the last systems, and it more powerful than those, so theres nothing really to complain about"

Ceric · « **Reply #31 on:** July 28, 2006, 07:46:30 PM »

Pa. Wheres the Shotgun.

Seriously enough I can see that reasoning. Also I think Nintendo did say that everything on the Wii will run 480p, including VC. Nintendo will just down mix it for TV's that don't support it. It can't be to hard.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #32 on:** July 28, 2006, 08:41:13 PM »

I am still of the opinion increased that screen resolution that big of a graphical leap. Yes I can see the difference between 420p and 1080i (My tv does not do 720p) but it isn't what I would call a big difference, the same goes for increased resolutions on the PC. If a game plays fine on anything above 800 x 600, I seldom try to bump it higher since I personally cannot tell much difference!

Requiem · « **Reply #33 on:** July 28, 2006, 09:11:46 PM »

This topic is not about if you can afford both graphics and gameply (ps3 - wii), it's about if you had the choice which one would pick: Graphics or Gameplay?

If you are a Nintendo fan, you would take gameplay any day of the week.

It's just how we nintendo folk do it.

Mario · « **Reply #34 on:** July 28, 2006, 09:17:04 PM »

Triforks Quest haters be damned! If you were actually immersed in the game like I was you'd already have nearly all the shards before you realised that was what you had to do next to advance.

IceCold · « **Reply #35 on:** July 28, 2006, 09:48:45 PM »

Quote
I will say this. I have a nice tv at home, 26" HDTV (no 720p though) CRT

Sounds like it would be perfect for Wii..

Quote
Quote
You left out two comparisons though. One supports your post the other does not.

The NES beat the Master System
The SNES beat the Genesis (SNES was the graphically superior, it had a 8 times the color palette, displayed 4 times the colors, and displayed twice the sprites)
Actually, I left out quite a few others: Dreamcast, Jaguar, Turbografx, Lynx, etc.

You also forgot how the GBA demolished the N-Gage..

Juan: You are one rich bastard

capamerica · « **Reply #36 on:** July 29, 2006, 05:19:07 AM »

I always thought the Genesis had the better graphics then the SNES.

GameBoy Color killed the Neo-Geo Pocket Color
GBA killed the Wonderswan, Gamepark and Zodiac
DS killed Gizmondo & Zodiac
Game Boy destroyed Lynx, Game Gear, TurboExpress, and Neo-Geo Pocket

Urkel · « **Reply #37 on:** July 29, 2006, 10:01:59 PM »

The SNES is the only system -- EVER -- that took first place and happened to have better graphics than the competition. Even then, I don't really think you can attribute graphics to its success.

If anything, it was its main weakness that may have secured the number 1 spot. Many believe that since it had a slower processor, devs focused on slower paced games. RPGs, in other words. And that's one genre the SNES absolutely dominated. And we all know how well RPGs sell in Japan.

Kairon · « **Reply #38 on:** July 30, 2006, 12:34:43 AM »

And of course, although the Genesis was sorta "ehhh" in Japan (third behind NEC's PC Engine), in America they actually tracked ahead of the Super Nes until the later years when Sega got screwed up (32X, Sega CD, the Neptune) and Nintendo experienced a second wind with Donkey Kong Country et al. So the weaker system in the 16-bit wars actually held its own for a very long time.

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Flames_of_chaos · « **Reply #39 on:** July 30, 2006, 04:14:34 AM »

Well since I own a 360 I'll throw in my 2 pennies. Graphics are good but they are irrelevant if the gameplay sucks (I'm looking at you Prey). While I do run my 360 on 720p guess what I don't see any major difference so I really never care about resolution. The only reason I bought a 360 is 1. There was games on the horizon for it that I really wanted so it waranted the purchase 2. I usually own 2 consoles per cycle and there is no way I'm paying 600 for a PS3. And with the graphics comments that the Wii produces that was stated by Ubisoft was positive then Im sure Wii can do really good graphics then I'm not concerned.

Like the most of you here Im on the style and art direction over pure graphics. And gameplay + controls and to a certain extent story is a far more important thing than graphics in a game since if the only thing your interested in a game is the graphics and makes the game fun is the graphics then Im sorry I think your a sad person.

Ceric · « **Reply #40 on:** July 30, 2006, 04:51:38 AM »

... and you beleive that FF:The Spirit Within is the best game EVER. (Oh wait it wasn't a game but it says FF and it has pretty graphics. So... its not a game even though I know the series is heading to that direction. Move Cutscene Move Cutscene Move Cutscene)

Flames_of_chaos · « **Reply #41 on:** July 30, 2006, 05:13:40 AM »

I hate that direction its garbage, Xenosaga's cutscenes actually put me to sleep lol. I prefer the style of FF in FF 1 - 6 and FF:CC.

FF: Spirits Within was an okay movie the problem with it that the story sucked and there was a big emphasis on graphics over the story.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #42 on:** July 30, 2006, 11:13:41 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Lord_die_seis
I hate that direction its garbage, Xenosaga's cutscenes actually put me to sleep lol. I prefer the style of FF in FF 1 - 6 and FF:CC.

FF: Spirits Within was an okay movie the problem with it that the story sucked and there was a big emphasis on graphics over the story.

Hey I actually enjoyed Spirts Within lol. Anyway, I am planning on rebuying a Xbox 360 (I had one back when it first came out but sold it due to lack of games) for Dead Rising, along with the new Madden (yes I like Madden, not a HUGE fan but I enjoy the series). The only time graphics really impact my buying descision is when you have multiplatform games that have nearly identical gameplay/options, that is when I buy for the most powerful system (which seems to be the PC lately!).

blackfootsteps · « **Reply #43 on:** July 30, 2006, 03:36:08 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Triforks Quest haters be damned! If you were actually immersed in the game like I was you'd already have nearly all the shards before you realised that was what you had to do next to advance.

Yeah I think I had one to go at that stage. I never saw what all the fuss was about.

I own an XBOX 360 and I play it on a 34cm tv, as a result graphical superiority is definately not an issue for me.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #44 on:** July 31, 2006, 12:06:08 PM »

I'm bored out of my skull and I still don't see a reason to buy a 360.

Everything I'd play would just feel dated and clunky by comparison to the Wii.

Hocotate · « **Reply #45 on:** July 31, 2006, 12:20:27 PM »

For the most part graphics in a game don't mean much to me. Most of the time I find myself avoiding the OMG HOT GRAFIX games because they're usually filled with too many cutscenes to show off the graphics... I also find 2D to be more pleasing to the eye in most cases, though not all.

News:

Author Topic: How important are graphics to you? (Read 12690 times)