How do graphics impact game enjoyment?

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Hey, all.

I've always been fascinated with folks' willingness to spend $300 or more on a PC component almost exclusively devoted to not just the playing of games, but the quality of displayed graphics. For instance, Battlefield 2 seems to have very weak system requirements (you can get an adequate card for ~$50), but it is often cited as necessitating 7800GTXs (for maximum enjoyment, apparently).

But how far do graphics go? Can you not enjoy a game if it is not realistic? For that matter, are even the best graphical games even close to realistic? Why not just play these games at low settings?

Forgive my ignorance. The most graphically-intensive games I play are LotR and Star Control (the originals--not sequels).

 

[neegotiator]

Graphics defintely go a long way in setting the atmosphere and immersing you in the environment. But they definitely don't make or break a game, i still get some starcraft in every once in awhile. Heck I'd even play Star Control II again (which was the best of the series) if I could

 

[Inappropriate4AT]

Because while some people are casual gamers, others spend hours a day playing their games, and a few hundred dollars for something they put so much time into isn't a big deal to them.
It's like putting a CD player/stereo system in your car even though those parts aren't necessary to make the car move.
You can play games at the lowest settings possible on cheap graphics cards, but they don't look anything like the developers intended them too. If you don't mind spending the money to make the game run faster and look better, then why not?

There's also a pretty big difference btwn the way a game looks on its lowest settings and the highest. Imagine watching a DVD, then cutting the resolution in half and compressing it to fit on a CD-R and watching it over again. It'd look like pure grainy pixelated sh!t compared to the high quality original DVD you just watched. Same thing with a game in 8x6 on the lowest settings compared to a higher resolution with some AA and AF thrown in the mix. We like our games to look clean.

 

[mezrah]

Originally posted by: Inappropriate4AT
Because while some people are casual gamers, others spend hours a day playing their games, and a few hundred dollars for something they put so much time into isn't a big deal to them.
It's like putting a CD player/stereo system in your car even though those parts aren't necessary to make the car move.
You can play games at the lowest settings possible on cheap graphics cards, but they don't look anything like the developers intended them too. If you don't mind spending the money to make the game run faster and look better, then why not?

There's also a pretty big difference btwn the way a game looks on its lowest settings and the highest. Imagine watching a DVD, then cutting the resolution in half and compressing it to fit on a CD-R and watching it over again. It'd look like pure grainy pixelated sh!t compared to the high quality original DVD you just watched. Same thing with a game in 8x6 on the lowest settings compared to a higher resolution with some AA and AF thrown in the mix. We like our games to look clean.

Yeah...I agree with the above. I am what I would call a casual gamer. I might game an hour or two a few times a week (now that I'm married and have a kid on the way that may change). For my needs, my system below suits me just fine. I can play any game at 10x7 without any problems (for the most part). I would much rather play a game at 12x10 without any AA/AF than at a lower resolution with the those settings cranked. Also, I feel that if I upgraded my system at this point, it would only involve me being able to turn on AA/AF at 12x10 in the games I currently play. I find games like Half-Life 2 (and its mods), Far Cry, Battlefield 2, etc all enjoyable at my current settings and have no intention of upgrading until I really need to (which will probably be if I decide to jump on the Vista bandwagon after they get a service pack or two out)

Edit: Judging by the OP's sig, I would say at this point in time you may just want to pick up a nice midrange card to carry you through for a while (6600gt or x800gto)

 

[crownjules]

A great game will fully immerse the player into it's world. This is a whole package deal - not only graphics but sound, story, gameplay, etc.. By no means do graphics make or break the game but they are often a very important component. Unless the game is specifically designed to look and/or feel anything but realistic, graphics are often the key input that help us establish a game's "reality".

No amount of awesome graphics can cover up an absolutely terrible game. Make it nice and pretty but gamers will cut right through it and if there is no enjoyment, there is hardly any game.

 

[lozina]

Yeah graphics can be very important to immersion which will allow one to get really into the game. I used to be more vocal against the trend of hyping graphics so much because in many cases the developers spend so much time and effort on producing the ebst looking game that the gameplay or AI winds up limited, which to me is more important. I still kinda feel that way but I'm realizing more how important immersion is and graphics play a big role in that.

I usually avoid the cutting edge technology because of their price premiums they command. Right now I have a nVidia 6800 series card which I bought a little after the 7800 series came out. With my card I can play modern games full graphics settings with no problems- like Battlefield 2, Age of Empires III, FEAR... Once the next generation nVidia cards are out and people are buying them for ridiculous prices I'll buy a 7800 card for half the price or less of what people paid for them originally and I imagine I'll be enjoying the latest games at highest settings as well.

 

[fishbits]

You're asking how visuals affect video games? Apply that to other experiences. All other things being equal, is it better to watch a movie on a large, quality hi-def set, or a 13" black and white tv? Would smearing a thin film of vasoline on your glasses make your theater-going experience better or worse? Listening to an album on a CD from a hi-fi system, or on an old tape in a ratty boombox with a few blankets thrown over it? Why do you think movies studios spend so much money on sfx, instead of staying with men in rubber suits with the zipper showing and pie-pan ufos wobbling on strings?

Yes, visuals are important to a primarily visual medium. Agreeing on that, higher quality is better than lower quality. This is suprising? You actually don't understand this? It doesn't mean that there aren't games that are great with poorer visuals, but most folks would rather have the complete package. As for what people spend on it, why let that bother you? Are you on other forums complaining about what people spend on fashion, literature, or cars? "OMG, can't you do with a cheaper dress/ paperback book/ stock rims?!?!" Three hundred bucks spent for something crucial to a hobby every year or two isn't exactly unheard of. Some spend less, some spend more, more power to them. Have your fun and let them have theirs.