Do Graphics Matter?

[Secura]

I for one was shocked when i first saw the beauty of IV and loved the way it looked compared to any other GTA game, then RDR was realeased and everyone can easily see the improvement graphicly. However the question i pose to the forums is this, are graphics important?

 

Could R* simpily just keep the graphics the same in V with minor improvements or none at all? The reason i ask this is graphics in the modern era of gaming seem to mean a lot less. That is not to say thay having Great/amazing graphics is bad it just doesn't seem to stand out as much now days when a game has great graphics.

 

 

So would you not mind much of a change in graphics? or do you hunger for a CRYSIS like GTA? I think that this would be an intresting thing to discuss and debate so i leave it to you do Graphics matter?

[xxcyylonexx]

I wouldnt mind if they werent a big improvement. Graphics arent a big deal to me but it would be nice if they were better of course. RDR graphics would be fine.

[visionist]

I will admit, because I don't play other games in general I want GTA to look and especially sound as authentic as possible. The limitations of hardware rear their ugly heads when it comes to huge seamless worlds.

 

I still can't shake off that next-gen IV render that Christian Necula made. Sometimes I stare at it picking out all the details and daydreaming...

[WhistleBlower]

A videogame has to be fun to play. Vice City might have dated graphics, but it's still the most enjoyable game in the series for me. Current-gen sandbox games like inFamous might not have Crysis-like graphics, but it's still fun to play. So if you ask me, gameplay will always be more important than graphics.

[Kwandilibro]

While I wouldn't put all the stress on GFX as much as gameplay and such, I like to look at it like this.

 

Just because she's nice doesn't mean you want to f*ck the ugly chick. At the same time, just because she's hot, doesn't mean you want to marry the dumb chick who also f*cks your friends, brother, and employers.

[Chimpso]

While I wouldn't put all the stress on GFX as much as gameplay and such, I like to look at it like this.

 

Just because she's nice doesn't mean you want to f*ck the ugly chick. At the same time, just because she's hot, doesn't mean you want to marry the dumb chick who also f*cks your friends, brother, and employers.

IT's different when you are f*cking or marrying a chick. This is a video game -.-'

[DylanMcCoy]

doesn't make much of a difference for me, 'cause I'm still using a regular definition TV, so I can't tell much of a difference anyway

 

but I feel like IV had good enough graphics that I'd by happy even if they didn't change them at all.

[Duxfever]

Graphics, IMO, only matter to the point where ugliness distracts playability.

[Finn 7 five 11]

WHo the f*ck cares about graphics? Graphics should not be the epicenter of the game, maybe not even a focus,i could care less if GTA graphics never advanced passed the III Era, it is a nice thing to have, but in the long run it doesn't mean sh*t, better graphics = less other fun things to do, i want gameplay same as everyone else, who cares about some graphics tweaks, i just hope they lighten up colors a little top make the next game less of a strain on the eye, even non a plasma with the setting right up GTA IV was hard to see.

 

[LuisBellic]

I dont care about graphics as long as they aren't some sh*tty game-boy graphics.

Edited January 19, 2011 by LuisBellic

[trantula_77]

I tend to disagree with most of the posters on this topic, more so now than if you had asked me a year and a half ago. With the length that there has been no GTA the graphics better be freaking spectacular.

 

In terms of actual playability, I think it allows for deeper immersion than having an in game TV, in game internet or bowling subgames. I would much rather have all that garbage taken out and add better graphics and sound. While IV was an astronomical leap for open world gaming, there is still so much that we have to look forward to.

 

I still value physics and playability of activities more than graphics, but a well designed, visually appealing city adds a lot to the replayability. I'm still finding new spots in GTA and enjoy the city but there is still room for improvement.

[cp1dell]

When I first got GTA IV I loved the graphics. But as I played it more, the fun factor increased and I hardly noticed the improved graphics and was focused on the gameplay and the things you could do like cover, and the physics.

 

The only graphical issue I have with games are jagged edges, and in GTA IV the grainy shadows. But if you look closer, the "grainy" shadows are actually pixelated shadows with an umbra and penumbra.

[.Ryan.]

 

WHo the f*ck cares about graphics? Graphics should not be the epicenter of the game, maybe not even a focus,i could care less if GTA graphics never advanced passed the III Era, it is a nice thing to have, but in the long run it doesn't mean sh*t, better graphics = less other fun things to do, i want gameplay same as everyone else, who cares about some graphics tweaks, i just hope they lighten up colors a little top make the next game less of a strain on the eye, even non a plasma with the setting right up GTA IV was hard to see.

So let me get this straight just because a game has good graphics that automatically means there's less fun things to do? Have you even played RDR, The Assassin's Creed series etc?

 

A game can have good graphics aswell as fun features, or do think there's some sort of block that hinders developers to add the so called "fun" stuff everytime they decide to update the graphics?

 

I've played many, many games with a great balance between graphics, and gameplay, and I know not everyone will agree, but GTA IV is one of those games that got the balance right.

 

Graphics aren't my biggest priority, but we're in a different time compared to 10 years ago. Now everything's about high definition, and whatever. Developers should atleast try to keep up with the current technology. Why shortcut yourself when the consoles/technology developers get to work with are much more powerful then a decade ago?

 

It's like buying a new Rolls Royce only to find out it's got technology from 1999. Would you still buy it? I don't think every game should have artistic, jaw dropping graphics, but graphics should at the very least be up to date.

 

This may sound a bit picky, but if GTA IV had upscaled GTA III era graphics I don't think I would've bought it. Mainly because I wouldn't want a game that looks 10 years old on a current gen console.

 

I've always said that gameplay is timeless, but graphics aren't. If no one cared about what games looked like we would still be playing games that look like Sonic The Hedgehog. IMO it's more important than some people let on.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Miamivicecity

[jnzooger]

 

I dont care about graphics as long as they aren't some sh*tty nintendo graphics.

Clearly you do, since the Wii has better graphics than the Xbox or PS2.

 

Ontopic: I still play Atari 2600 and Apple ][ games. So, no, graphics do not matter in the long run. It's all about the game. Stories, controls, legacy... these things mater WAY more.

 

 

 

I've always said that gameplay is timeless, but graphics aren't. If no one cared about what games looked like we would still be playing games that look like Sonic The Hedgehog. IMO it's more important than some people let on.

Absolutely can't argue with this. We can still play those games, because we have no expectations about what they will be. On the other hand, take 2 games that are exactly the same, same gameplay, same controls, etc, and the only difference is the graphics, you are going to pick the one with better graphics. In the real world, it doesn't work this way, because every console has something that the other one doesn't. (Like in the case of GTA IV, assuming you have both consoles, PSN or Live. You end up picking based on your friends, even though the 360 version is higher resolution internally.) Edited January 19, 2011 by jnzooger

[Finn 7 five 11]

 

So let me get this straight just because a game has good graphics that automatically means there's less fun things to do? Have you even played RDR, The Assassin's Creed series etc?

 

Uh-uh i didn't quite say that, if a games company spends more time on graphics, then usually there will be less time spent on gameplay, some games do have a nice balance, but games that try waay to hard on graphics sometimes sacrifice fun factor.

Maybe i wouldn't want III Era Grahics, but i don't think making graphics any better at this point matters to me, maybe better faces, and trees, but the rest doesn't really concern me, there is already loads of detail on walls and footpaths/roads and such in games already, i don't think we need to go much further.

[K^2]

This is really a rather subjective topic. To me, graphics matter, but with a caveat. First of all, if the game was made back in the day, I forgive any problems due to tech limitations. Secondly, graphics should never come before gameplay. Again, if the tech dictates a trade-off between graphics and gameplay, gameplay comes first.

 

On the other hand, when I see a game with good gameplay, but one that has poor graphics when technology allows for something far better, I feel that the game was half-assed, and that gets in the way of me appreciating the game. There are exceptions. There are occasionally some phenomenal games that have very poor graphics simply because of budget limitations, or whatever. But as a general rule, if the graphics are poor compared to what they could be with more effort, I am going to pass on the game.

[nonyashblob]

graphics are important

i think gta ought to pride itself on having the best graphics and storylines in videogames

[ugotsmoked]

I want realistic graphics, when I shoot someone in the head shotgun, I want it to look like scanners when that guys head exploded.

[phantom2510]

I honestly hate it when people only talk about the graphics of a game. Yes, they are important. Yes, they may make a game easier to play and less of an eyesore, but at the end of the day, like most of the people on this board, I think the gameplay matters much more.

 

My dad is a casual gamer that tries to act like he knows what's up, and when a new game comes out, he goes, "Oh, look at those graphics. That game must be great." Then he goes out and drops the sixty bucks for the game, brings it home, plays it for maybe five minutes, then decides the game is crap. After that, he moves on to another game that plays just like it, but looks slightly better.

 

It drives me crazy when people only talk about graphics in a game (no hate on this thread, just in general). I do agree with Lightning Strike that the game did look very good, but when people like my dad keep comparing GTA IV to their precious car-racing games with admittedly superior graphics (They don't exactly have to focus on gameplay, do they? ), it gets annoying after the millionth time the comparison is made.

[ugotsmoked]

of course like everyone else, I want great graphics and great gameplay. I dont recall anyone saying you cant have BOTH.

[AussieDude]

Stunning Graphics can add to the game play tremendously

[Darrel]

If Gta IV didnt have the great visuals, it wouldn't have got the enormous praise it had. Its stunning.

 

I cant count how many times in Gta IV or RDR, that i have just watched the beautiful scenery.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Darrel

[super_slav]

If they made sa in the GTA IV era i would rather compromise 20% of the graphics and go for draw distance but if they recreate vice city i would keep the graphics.

[australiadreamin]

of course like everyone else, I want great graphics and great gameplay. I dont recall anyone saying you cant have BOTH.

true

[eastcoastboy17]

The way i see it is if the graphics are ugly but the gameplay is alright then its worth buying for me, But other than that it matter because were in the generation where graphics show alot about the game next to the gameplay, but i will make an exception for the next gta .

[LuisBellic]

I dont care about graphics as long as they aren't some sh*tty nintendo graphics.

Clearly you do, since the Wii has better graphics than the Xbox or PS2.

 

I edited my post alittle bit. I put game-boy graphics instead.

[WhistleBlower]

If Gta IV didnt have the great visuals, it wouldn't have got the enormous praise it had. Its stunning.

 

I cant count how many times in Gta IV or RDR, that i have just watched the beautiful scenery.

Thank you for unintentionally pointing out how overrated GTA IV is. You can tell a game is lacking in gameplay when all of the praise goes to its visuals. Also, I can understand Red Dead Redemption having beautiful scenery as I myself loved the atmosphere, but GTA IV? Seriously?

[.Ryan.]

Nope. It still would've got praise for its story which IMO is the best in the series, even placing above VC.

 

[DarrinPA]

I agree with WistleBlower. For me "Do Graphics Matter?" no - it's just bonus if they are good. If the story and gameplay are compelling and I feel immersed in the game then I don't even notice. But I'm not feeling IN the game, then it's just a display of visually stunning pictures that don't matter.

 

If a game is getting nothing but praise about it's graphics I am sort of apprehensive that the story and gameplay is not worthy of praise, which is a concern. But I wouldn't let good graphics scare me away, they can serve a purpose.

[junkpile]

good point. looking back, after playing GTA IV, SA looks really crappy...and previous GTAs...

but still, games with worse graphics are still fun.

 

could mention plenty of games...

 

I take Yakuza 3 f.e. it's a PS3 game, graphics are really old...but still, this game can easily compete with GTA IV.

 

I don't necessarily need better graphics...I don't mind an improvement though.

Gameplay, story and shape gotta be fun.