How much of your gaming enjoyment comes from graphical fidelity?

[4K_shmoorK]

Wow, that's surprising.

Even stuff like the original jedi knight from 97 doesn't bother me. As long as the game isn't legitimately ugly, and to me that's usually down to the art, I'm fine with it.

I may or may not of spend *cough* 200ish *cough* hours in that game and was playing on PS3...

Bit embarrassing, I know.

 

[Anubis]

virtually none

 

[mysticjbyrd]

This is an interesting question, though I think you will get a very biased answer here. More importantly though, this feels like a red herring that's being passed along the internet to deflect from people questioning the poor graphics in Fallout 4.

You can appreciate lower end graphics, while also recognizing that Fallout 4s developers failed miserably to make a beautiful game! On ultra the game runs as poorly as crysis one on launch, but looks no better than skyrim. The developers were either in over their head, or were rushed to push this game out. Perhaps both?

 

[kaesden]

Good graphics can make a good game more enjoyable.
Good graphics can't save a bad game.
Bad graphics can have a bit of a negative effect on an otherwise good game, but not much for me.
If the gameplay and/or story or whatever is relevant to the game is solid, graphics are secondary, though they are nice to have them be as nice as possible.

 

[DooKey]

Wow, that's surprising.

Even stuff like the original jedi knight from 97 doesn't bother me. As long as the game isn't legitimately ugly, and to me that's usually down to the art, I'm fine with it.

I'm going to have to agree with you here. A truly good game doesn't need cutting edge graphics to be enjoyable. Game play comes first as long as the graphics are semi-modern IMO. Only games that I require cutting edge are flight sims because realism is important there. Of course all of this is IMO.

Graphics are icing on the cake when the game play is good.

 

[boozzer]

I'm going to have to agree with you here. A truly good game doesn't need cutting edge graphics to be enjoyable. Game play comes first as long as the graphics are semi-modern IMO. Only games that I require cutting edge are flight sims because realism is important there. Of course all of this is IMO.

Graphics are icing on the cake when the game play is good.

if you ask a gamer that has never play it when it was released, it will be super hard to get pass the clunky interface and graphics.

 

[tential]

This being my first Fallout game play through, I can't explain why the devs used such lower quality textures, but one thing I know Shadows of Modor was like 40+ GBs while Fallout4 was something like 22+GBs. They clearly went with lower rez textures. That's on them to explain. (The texture quality also isn't THAT bad, most likely because I play a lot of MMOs haha).

There are tons of games that use horrific texture quality, and again - that's on them. I don't know their budget, their art system, or why they chose the texture quality (even for "Ultra") that they did, all I know is for me that is the last thing I sit and stare at. I actually find it if the story and gameplay is not engaging my attention I start to criticize graphics.

I'm pretty sure Fallout4 falls into that category of highly modded game. My play through of Skyrim was years after it came out and I had so many mods to pick from. I don't even know what the base game looks like to be honest haha.

The performance hit from Ultra for Godrays is definitely high. You can run the game on High and not really notice an IQ difference but you will notice better performance. I just trumped that up to the e-peen phenomenon. Sometimes "Ultra" is just there as a "because we can."

I think ultra sometimes can add very fine detail that when you're looking for it yes it seems minimal, but details matter for immersion. But it is minimal but if I can afford it I'll make it happen.

I feel Bethesda skimped on graphics because the average gamer is happy with the level of graphics out. If you're not, they know a high res pack and mods Will fix it .

It's clear to me that the generational leap in graphics just never came this gen

 

[StrangerGuy]

If a game is engaging enough I won't be bothered by the lack of graphics.

If a game is simply piss poor, even the best graphics won't engage me.

Then it comes to the actual implementation. I far prefer the Source Engine games and Mirror's Edge immediately visible edges than the "everything is smeared with each other" bleeding edge graphics look that gives me a mild headache.

 

[UaVaj]

given no limitations. eye candy is clearly the priority then gameplay.

since there are limits. not everyone can sport quad 980ti w/ 1600p surround. given these limits. gameplay can becomes the priority (aka the excuse).

 

[boozzer]

given no limitations. eye candy is clearly the priority then gameplay.

since there are limits. not everyone can sport quad 980ti w/ 1600p surround. given these limits. gameplay can becomes the priority (aka the excuse).

ahahah, it is an excuse isn't it? ahahahaha damn so spot on. :thumbsup:

 

[Creig]

How much of your gaming enjoyment comes from graphical fidelity?

Well, let me put it this way. If HL3 were released tomorrow using the same engine they used for HL2, I would be first in line to purchase a copy.

It's always gameplay > graphics.

 

[poohbear]

a mix of both, but i'm most certainly a graphics enthusiast! I thoroughly enjoyed Ryse simply cause of the gorgeous graphics and simple gameplay/plot (others hated it despite the graphics, so meh). When you have gameplay, story, and graphics, it elevates the game to legendary status.

 

[dogen1]

I may or may not of spend *cough* 200ish *cough* hours in that game and was playing on PS3...

Bit embarrassing, I know.

Actually now that I look fallout 3/nv are kinda ugly in general, but especially on 360 and ps3

 

[Ventanni]

When I was young, I used to think visual fidelity was "the thing" that made my gameplay. As I got older, I realized it wasn't. Played through most of the latest Thief game at minimum and enjoyed every bit of it.

 

[Cerb]

When model A has a very high detail, and model B is super duper fuzzy, in a 1st/3rd-person game (like the wall one foot away from the camera), it breaks my suspension of disbelief. They should all approximately match, even if it means extremely high detail textures for basic scenery and clutter. The actual fidelity itself, however, is secondary. Sadly, some of favorite games suffer a lot from that, at least before extensive modding .

 

[Qwertilot]

Well, graphics can be fun and all but I've spent quite a while at times playing ascii roguelikes
(Think they're plain better for that sort of game than trying to build in graphics actually.).

Of course a nice, coherent, (semi) abstract art style can also be worth any amount of notional real world style graphical fidelity.

 

[Timmah!]

Actually now that I look fallout 3/nv are kinda ugly in general, but especially on 360 and ps3

OFC its fugly. So was Skyrim, even with all the mods to increase texture resolution and stuff like that it looked awful. Never understood people who thought its good looking game.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I want different things out of different games, but in general:

30% Graphics
30% Gameplay
20% Storytelling
10% Difficulty
10% Replay Value

 

[Red Hawk]

This argument again.

My belief is that it doesn't need to be such a ham-handed dichotomy.

Yeah, this.

I don't think it's a question of "how much". My position is that I get enjoyment out of high graphical fidelity in games, period.

 

[CakeMonster]

Graphics is still very important to me. So I value and appreciate it highly.

BUT there's a reason I'm not playing 97% of titles out there. My tastes are narrow and no matter how good looking a game it I'm not going to play it if it doesn't suit my tastes. "Ugly" and outdated graphics I will tend to avoid, but if it has a good art style it doesn't matter to me how low the system requirements are.

 

[CakeMonster]

As an interesting anecdote, when I fired up Dragon Age Inquisition for the first time (PC), I thought to myself... "Wow, I could actually imagine not being particularly bothered if graphics didn't move on from this for 10 years".

That's a first.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Yeah, this.

I don't think it's a question of "how much". My position is that I get enjoyment out of high graphical fidelity in games, period.

This question has no right answer, its just for conversation's sake.

 

[DeathReborn]

The only times graphical fidelity impedes my enjoyment is early 3D titles like System Shock, Deus Ex. For some reason I can't stand the graphics anymore in those type of games but I can play old NES, Master System, Atari etc titles without issue.

 

[flopper]

With so much of the discussion upon new releases being focused on graphics, I thought it would be interesting to see what people here value most in a game.

Can a game have potato visuals and still be considered 'good' or even 'great' in this modern age?

Battlefront, best visuals and audio in a game.
gameplay sucks.

Fallout 4
visuals are like 1980 and totally crap engine.
sound ok,
gameplay is great.

Gameplay comes first.
if that sucks you cant wrap up a turd in gloss and call it good and smelly.

dragon age inq
superb visuals, audio and gameplay.
really enjoyable.
only game I played that allows one to actually enjoy the visuals with the gameplay.

 

[tweakboy]

Quake 3 .....graphiucs blow, but its fun to play ,,,,,,,