How big does the graphics in a game influence your opinion? I've played on an Xbox 360 for three years and a Wii for eight years now, and I've learned that graphics can only influence me so much. Sure, better graphics make a better game, but at the end of the day playability and content will make a game.
No influence whatsoever. Do I enjoy it when it's good? Sure, but if a game focuses on how it looks more than how it handles, then it's a bad game.
>>319797189
So this is the power of the wii....
>>319797353
>Star Wars Battlefront 3: The Post
>>319797515
How so?
>>319797475
Not gonna lie, even for Wii, Black Ops looked pretty bad. At least you could customize your reticle and name at any time.
>>319797568
Battlefront 3 is regarded as a bad game due to the lack of content and unbalanced gameplay, along with several other issues. But at the same time, it has objectively great graphics and sound.
As long as it isnt ugly early 3D poly, ASCII or 70s pixels I'm ok.
>>319797189
barely any effect.
I started gaming with 8 and 16-bit consoles, got really into it with PS1 andN64, and still play some of those classics yearly.
the most important thing in visuals are the cohesive style and good art-design. Gameplay, story, and even audio-design rank much higher in the importance list for me.
>>319797806
So it's the exact opposite of my post. Great, good, excellent.
>>319797806
>lack of content
are you ducking retarded ?
>>319797871
Allow me to rephrase: Battlefront's only real selling point is "Muh Stah Wahs" and the graphics. But because everything else about sucks ass, Battlefront 3 can be described by your post.
>>319797189
>How big does the graphics in a game influence your opinion?
I've been a PCfat all my life so graphics are largely irrelevant as long as the game runs well. Like sure it's great when a game looks nice but framerate > graphics every time.
>>319798171
>Allow me to rephrase
No, I got it. It's the opposite because I said "gameplay good, graphics bad" while you said "in this game, graphics good, gameplay bad." That's what opposite means. Feigning verbosity does not make you literate.
>>319798094
>Only four maps
>Eleven guns
>Out of the nine game modes, only three are played regularly
>No campaign
>No space battles
>Only six heroes and villains
>>319797189
Not that much, if it's good looking it will be a nice thing but I'm fine even otherwise.
Keep in mind that I don't include in this messy graphics, glitches and things that don't make you understand what is going on on your screen, I'm fine with essential and dated graphics as long as they are clear, meaning that the artistic direction is good.
I also want to point out that Wii had some good graphics on it, surely not on par with PS3, but I love to compare Goldeneye on Wii with the one on PS3, the one on Wii aside of SD wasn't really that far from the PS3 version, but devs on Wii were generally lazy
>>319798446
oh I thought you were talking about bf3
yeah battlefront 2015 is ducking shit
>>319797189
Obviously I'd prefer if something looked graphically superior, but I'd easily choose gameplay over graphics any day of the week.
>>319797189
It's great to have great graphics but they aren't necessary. I prefer the game to run well and be fun. As long as the graphics don't look lazy (Fallout 4) they don't bother me in a negative way.
The graphics depend entirely on the game.
The most important part is that the game successfully conveys what it tries to do. Graphical power does play a part of that. Do I think Bloodborne could have gotten across its gothic, moody, nightmare world on last gen? Sure, but it wouldn't have gotten through quite so well. Seeing every cobblestone, coffins stacked on eachother, tombstones everywhere and how sickly everything looks is fantastic.
It's all about using what you got, stuff like Wind Waker and Killer7 still looks fucking amazing. You can't fight with the technical limitations, you just sort of have to dance with them.
I played Black Ops on the Wii and I fucking liked it. At least with the CCP.
They honestly did a very admirable job of making pretty much the entire game run well, even if the graphics are PS2-tier. Multiplayer worked quite well.
It matters alot. I had a 360 throughout last gen and my cousin had a ps3. I went to stay at his house to study with him a month or so and I was playing games that I'd already played on 360, on his ps3. The difference between the two was fucking sickening. It was like the 360 version was running on high and the ps3 version was running on very low. It was like this for the majority of games I played on ps3. Absolutely disguising.
Maybe if I'd never played those games before on 360 I might have found the ps3 versions to be ok. I knew the ps3 suffered from devs being lazy with ports but I didn't expect it to be that bad. Bayonetta was horrible on ps3.
>>319797189
If the art style, or appeal of the game looks fine then I'm good. I do like to play am amazing looking graphical game every now and then, but 95 percent of what I do enjoy is not what people would find amazing.
Like megaman zx, halo 4, gravity rush, Mario Galaxy, muramasa. None of those are pushing any kind of limits, but I visually love how all of them look to me.
Gameplay and music trumps raw graphics for me in the end.
Not really I mean as long as the frame rate is decently consistent. Which is why i'm currently enjoying devil's third. Not the best looking game. but it certainly a lot of fun. I played cod on my wii primary for the wii mote controls which in my opinion made it better.
>>319797828
>As long as it isnt ugly early 3D poly
Fucking this. I can't stand that way early 3D games look, and for this reason I can no longer replay a lot of the N64 and PS1 games I loved as a kid.
Art style is more important to me than graphics. I love it when both are done very well, but a game with great artistic design will be more appealing to me than one with tons of realism but dull asthetics.
Of course, both take a backseat to gameplay, music, and other things.
