Viewing Thread:
"Dress to impress"

I am not one to judge on looks, if I were I wouldn’t be getting Paper Mario. So why do developers feel the need to lavish such a long time on a games graphics?

Well why does an author make the front covers of their books look good? To attract the eye of the customer, to make people stand up and listen. Yes graphics add to the atmosphere but lets face it graphics sells games.

When we look at a magazine or Internet picture of a video game we don’t go “Wow that sound is amazing” or “the handling is spot on”. The reason why is because we can’t deduce how the game plays and sounds like from a picture we can only compliment on the look, the graphics. Paper Mario looks odd may not be gorgeous but how many stopped to look? Zelda’s new look is the same, the game will play the same as always but all Shigsy had to do was radically change the graphics (and improve in my mind) and everyone including the media went mad! It was even in the news.

So to help create hype graphics are good but even after a games released I hear “isn’t that games graphics amazing!” that sickens me, graphics mean nothing to me but I’m not the only person in this gaming world and graphics are vital to the majority of casual gamers so in order for a game to succeed in this ruthless and unforgiving industry a game will need to dress to impress.

Body Harvest is graphically awful but its superb mix of shooting and driving makes for awesome games playing. Despite this it didn’t sell! Would it of done if the games graphics were smoother and more detailed, the far unsuperior Turok 2 released at the same time received much more of the Christmas sales and that games graphics was absolutely gorgeous!

If Body Harvest did look as well as play like a dream it would of got the response it deserved so it is important that developers do lavish development time on the look so it does do as well as it should. So I hope that in the future all games come equipped with superb visuals.

Dringo

Sometimes crap graphics hinder the Gameplay.

(Again, don't mistake crap for basic!)

I go for both. If the graphics are crap, and I mean crap, not necessarily basic, then I won't buy the game. If the gameplay isn't there I won't buy the game.

Anyway, Nintendo have always given us both good graphics AND good gameplay.

I don't think anything needs to change.

Not exactl gameplay is vital but graphics is what pulls in the punters.

Graphics over gameplay - that's what this is all about.

I'd go for gameplay, personally. If you can't enjoy playing it - what's the point?

Would of sold better with good graphics.

I loved Worms United better than Worms 2 despite Worms 2 having better graphics, sounds and more weapons.

Some thing to do with the style of the game.

September 30th.

You can always push the graphics further on the same platform than you can the gameplay features.

Do you think that the SNES could handle games like Super Mario64?

They didn't create the N64 just to have better graphics, but to produce better games.

Ah well, I suppose that's just the view of a Playstation fan, as it really is only the graphics that have improved there. ;-D

No, seriously, it's not for graphics but processing, like more intelligent AI why we get new platforms.

Paper Mario has been confirmed for an October release, hasn't it?

Why do manufacturers release new hardware? The old console still play games, don't they? The fact is they release new hardware so the game scan have better graphics and that's proof why games have better graphics. Lots of gamers (pity) judge games by how they look. I myself fell into this trap once (Ridge V) and so the games need to look pretty so they can shift a load more units, and keep the developer afloat.

Simple.