Graphics, are less more?

Sain · Post by **Sain** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:33 am

Do you prefure games with Oblivion-esk graphics, or more like Morrowind, or like Arena or Daggerfall. Do you like lower graphics, or do you not care, but like the less lag, or is lag a price to pay for good graphics? *Sorry about screwing up the poll, I was tired -_-*

DesR85 · Post by **DesR85** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:57 am

Personally, I don't mind any type of graphics, as long as they can run smoothly, look good and programmed properly. Whether it can run on a wide range of machines, that's for the devs to decide. What I really don't like is how great/decent/bad a game engine look but performs like crap on all machines.

Even if the game is powered by a flawed engine, I will look at the other aspects of the game to see if it's worth playing it or not. Take GTA IV for example. Sure, the RAGE engine was badly programmed, but I was still able to enjoy the game from start to finish and get decent performance out of it with the right settings.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:05 am

I'm not going to vote because your choices are too black and white. But, I will answer you here.

My own feeling is that over the past several years games have focused far too much on pretty, shiny graphics while dumbing down game play and progressively dissolving a well written story and interesting NPCs. The result? Vanilla Oblivion, which is kind of like a vapid model on the cover of some tawdry magazine.
It's all looks, fake looks no less, and not much of substance underneath.

However, that being said... while my focus in adding Oblivion mods has concentrated on removing the hand-holding and making the world less sterile, I have also downloaded graphic replacers. Why? Because, in a game that depends so heavily on visuals for atmosphere, improved graphics provide greater immersion.

In older games, however, that focus on story (PS:T for example), graphics don't really matter. Though, I actually like the graphics in the old Black Isle games, but that is an aside

Sain · Post by **Sain** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:34 pm

If you were to vote, what would you "add" to the poll.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 12:54 pm

"Lower graphics" seems to imply that the person choosing this actively wants poorer graphics. Just speaking for myself, I don't want that, I just simply don't consider high-end graphics important. I can settle for 3-year old graphics easily, because it's a low priority for me. But that's different from specifying "lower graphics," if you follow me.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 1:39 pm

Sain wrote:If you were to vote, what would you "add" to the poll.

How about something along the lines of "Graphics are not a priority, but can contribute to a game in some situations"

Siberys · Post by **Siberys** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:21 pm

I voted for "Doesn't matter" but agree with Fable that High-End graphics are not and should not be a priority.

I do like what a few select games are doing these days, creating standard graphics for the game but adding an optional "Elite textures" package to the install. That seems a little more reasonable than simply making the game with only graphics for the latest $5000 machine.

However I do realize financially that's an awful decision, making two sets of graphics for a game with only one game price.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 2:29 pm

I see your point, but think $5000 is just a tad of an exaggeration...

I had my gaming machine custom made in a local shop about 18 months ago. It flawlessly plays The Witcher and Oblivion with the settings maxed... and I can assure you, I definitely did not pay anywhere near 5K...

Sain · Post by **Sain** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:24 pm

What I ment by lower graphics means less lag, which Is big for me because most of my games do lag, and, I personally like lower graphics. Makes the game eaisier to be funny, and I prefure not to take a game seriously, and to laugh at it.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:34 pm

Sain wrote:What I ment by lower graphics means less lag, which Is big for me because most of my games do lag, and, I personally like lower graphics. Makes the game eaisier to be funny, and I prefure not to take a game seriously, and to laugh at it.

Except that graphics are considered a matter of heightening immersion. If you laugh at the game, you're outside it: you lose the immersion. I'm not suggesting all games should be made for immersion; after all, the graphics in adventure titles such as Grim Fandango aren't built around immersion, but art. Still, if I were to play, say, Europa Universalis III, or BG2, I wouldn't be looking to laugh at the visuals. I'd want a sense of relaxing myself into their respective worlds.

mr_sir · Post by **mr_sir** » Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:43 pm

I like decent graphics on a game but went for doesn't matter as it doesn't bother me if a game doesn't have state of the art graphics - the gameplay and story are far more important to me.

Ronan · Post by **Ronan** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:22 pm

I do admit that I like good graphics. The problem is that I don't update my computer often enough and can't always play the newest game. That being said I do value games that while being made aren't as pretty as they could and so more people ( me) can play them without buing a new computer.

I still think that graphics along the level of Fallout are good enough as long as the game isn't a FPS. If it's a FPS I'd like it to have good graphics for immersion.

GameBanshee Forums

Graphics, are less more?

?Graphics, more or less.

Graphics, are less more?