You know, I've never once been made to eat crow. (Assassin's Creed 2 topic)

[Don Chipotle]

So basically, if you say graphics don't matter, go ahead and play Atari 2600 games for the rest of your life. See how quickly you get bored. Graphics are just as important as any other part of a game. Banjo Kazooie: Nuts And Bolts wouldn't be nearly as great if it looked like crap. It would still be solid gameplay wise, but having the graphics and visual style of every world look amazing, it really ramps the game up.

[Lancet Jades]

Graphics should be at the level necessary to portray what needs to be portrayed. Many more action-oriented games need better graphics because detail and the environment is especially important (such as GTA, and probly many examples you mentioned). Others, like RPGs, not only need less in most cases, but at least in my opinion many today have excessively detailed graphics that go way overboard from what they need to most effectively convey the content.

But then again, there are people out there who think GTA4's graphics "suck," so yeah.

[Don Chipotle]

RPGs with great graphics help get me way more involved in the story. Tales of Vesperia had a terrible story, but the graphics were very well done and helped bring the world to life. Mass Effect also looked really good, but it stuttered at times when it came to framerate and texture pop in. Valkyria Chronicles looks fantastic and the graphics go a LONG way to making that game one of the best PS3 exclusives out there. RPGs can totally benefit from having great graphics. There's no reason they can't have good stories and good graphics.

[Lancet Jades]

Originally Posted by Don Chipotlé

RPGs with great graphics help get me way more involved in the story. Tales of Vesperia had a terrible story, but the graphics were very well done and helped bring the world to life. Mass Effect also looked really good, but it stuttered at times when it came to framerate and texture pop in. Valkyria Chronicles looks fantastic and the graphics go a LONG way to making that game one of the best PS3 exclusives out there. RPGs can totally benefit from having great graphics. There's no reason they can't have good stories and good graphics.

I never said they CAN'T have "nice" graphics. My main point is that the graphical level has to depend on the game itself. Better graphics do not always mean a better game. Godo games can have lesser graphics, and shit games can have the most fuckawesome mindrapingly orgasmic ultra-realistic girl on girl twelve-inch double-ender action ever seen. ToV is actually one more current RPG I actually like the graphics of. There are some for PS2 that I don't care for the graphics of as much, although usually for much varying reasons not 100% on topic here.

And I say again, there are people who think GTA4's graphics "suck," to give you an example of both why Yvl and others dislike graphics to some extent, and of the sort of people that actually exist who drive those of us less concerned with appearance further towards extremism.

[Don Chipotle]

Originally Posted by Lancet Jades

Better graphics do not always mean a better game.

But to say that they don't matter is idiotic. These days, you expect games to look pretty good, but when they don't people jump on the 'GRAPHICS DON'T MATTER' train because they don't want to admit faults with their precious game. I can admit that Dragon Age doesn't exactly have award winning graphics and it has, on occasion, made me want to play it less than my normal five hours.

[Yvlla]

Originally Posted by Don Chipotlé

It doesn't predate the Sands of Time Prince of Persia series. Nor does it predate games like Tomb Raider, which this game basically cops the climbing style from. Uncharted did the same, but they did it better. And we're talking about AC2, here. In a game where they tried to make so many improvements, why did they not even try to make the climbing way more like other, better, games in the genre.

It's made by the same goddamn people who did Prince of Persia. They're allowed to use their own concepts. And last I checked, Prince of Persia and Tomb Raider (which sucked hardcore btw, especially the climbing system) were not Uncharted, inFamous, Prototype, or Batman, so why bring them up?

Originally Posted by Don Chipotlé

I only did them because I thought I would get achievements.

And this is a flaw in the game because...?

Originally Posted by Don Chipotlé

Don't give me the bullshit about graphics not mattering in games. Because that's horseshit. Graphics are an important part of video games, and bad graphics lessen the game as a whole, just like a bad story or bad gameplay would. If graphics didn't matter, why would companies spend so much time getting the hardware right? Why would they make games specifically for the HD market? Why wouldn't they just release graphically shitty games? Because graphics matter.

That's not the point and you know it. ACreed 2 had sufficient graphics for what it needed to do. Sure if it's sprite-based or an atari game then I could see why you would have problems with it, and you would be right to criticize it if the graphics got in the way of gameplay, but this game is more or less on par with any other game this generation, and calling it out on this minute a detail is plain shallow. Whether or not a game is graphically enhanced stopped mattering in the PS2 era. Sure it was great when we were moving out of 32-bit or 64-bit graphics into 256-bit graphics, but nobody gives a shit anymore.

I mean, sure, it's nice if it's pretty, but criticizing a game for graphics that're on par with everything else this generation just doesn't fly.

[Don Chipotle]

Originally Posted by Yvll

It's made by the same goddamn people who did Prince of Persia. They're allowed to use their own concepts. And last I checked, Prince of Persia and Tomb Raider (which sucked hardcore btw, especially the climbing system) were not Uncharted, inFamous, Prototype, or Batman, so why bring them up?

You clearly have not played recent Tomb Raider games because the climbing did not suck at all. Tomb Raider has come a long way. And the climbing in Prince of Persia was leagues better than the climbing in either AC game. The very first one had better climbing, and that wasn't even Ubisoft. The game owes much to older games, and when newer games perfect the system, to have a game take a step back is a glaring flaw. Why did I bring them up? I bring up inFamous and Uncharted because the climbing in those games are very similar to the one in AC and AC2, except in Uncharted and inFamous it is done better. Batman I brought up for the combat. Prototype for the free run. All of the games, save Uncharted, are sandbox games and all of them, save Uncharted, play similarly.

And this is a flaw in the game because...?

It's a flaw in the game where they present you with stuff to do, but give you no reason to do them. Why put it in the game if there's no reason. It's not fun. They don't seem to get the concept of side missions in sandbox style games. It's not advancing the genre nor is it perfecting it, it's just existing by itself and doing nothing. Just because you have bullshit races and courier assignments doesn't mean that you are giving the player freedom to do whatever. They don't do anything from a gameplay perspective and removing them from the game would've had no change at all, so why bother programming them when they could've better utilized their resources.

but this game is more or less on par with any other game this generation

It's cute how you believe that.

I mean, sure, it's nice if it's pretty, but criticizing a game for graphics that're on par with everything else this generation just doesn't fly.

Graphics are always criticized in real review publications, why is it such a big deal if they aren't up to par with other games released this year? It looks like ass compared to most PC games, and even compared to other high-end titles. Parts of the game's city may be better, but the character models and the textures on the ground and grass and water leave MUCH to be desired.

I don't know why you're so offended that I mentioned graphics.

[Yvlla]

Originally Posted by Don Chipotlé

The game owes much to older games

So does, uh, every game in recent history.

Originally Posted by Don Chipotlé

It's a flaw in the game where they present you with stuff to do, but give you no reason to do them. Why put it in the game if there's no reason. It's not fun. They don't seem to get the concept of side missions in sandbox style games. It's not advancing the genre nor is it perfecting it, it's just existing by itself and doing nothing. Just because you have bullshit races and courier assignments doesn't mean that you are giving the player freedom to do whatever. They don't do anything from a gameplay perspective and removing them from the game would've had no change at all, so why bother programming them when they could've better utilized their resources.

So you're saying it's less a game because they gave you more stuff to do than you needed to do?

Originally Posted by Don Chipotlé

I don't know why you're so offended that I mentioned graphics.

Because, to quote you, "You're part of the problem." Except this problem is less about a difference of opinion and more about the future of gaming itself. When people criticize the graphics, the developers think "We need to sink more money into graphics to satisfy the consumers." And I dunno if you read up on this, but the money they spend on games is slowly overtaking the profits. Developers shouldn't need to feel pressured into spending $5 million on a game that can be enjoyable with a $500k budget.

That, and it really is extremely shallow, and you should be able to find something better than that to criticize the game over if it's half as bad as you say.

[Lancet Jades]

Originally Posted by Yvll

Because, to quote you, "You're part of the problem." Except this problem is less about a difference of opinion and more about the future of gaming itself. When people criticize the graphics, the developers think "We need to sink more money into graphics to satisfy the consumers." And I dunno if you read up on this, but the money they spend on games is slowly overtaking the profits. Developers shouldn't need to feel pressured into spending $5 million on a game that can be enjoyable with a $500k budget.

This is exactly the main issue. Graphics on par with current-gen systems' capabilities cost excessive amounts to produce, taking time, money, and attention away from other areas of game development because today's gamers, by and large, seem to not only expect, but insist on top-of-the-line graphics. As I mentioned, I've seen people say GTA4'a graphics suck. SUCK. Not they aren't as good as this gen is capable of (which is true). Not that they could've been refined a bit. That they outright SUCK. THAT is the attitude which is the bane of gaming anymore. That anyone out there could look at GTA4 and say its graphics are so bad it detracts from the game (which is what "sucks" means) is ludicrous.

For newer developers looking to make it into the industry (which is irrefutably a good thing that any gamer should want), the graphical requirements seem an impenetrable barrier to breach, as they lack the resources to put out anything that wouldn't fail horribly on most systems due to graphics alone. It restricts them to focusing more on things like XBL Arcade and the DS, which don't necessarily have the scope and graphical requirements things like PS3 and 360 do.

Now, to revisit something you said last night:

Originally Posted by Don Chipotlé

Don't pull this shit. Graphics are important, otherwise games would all do what the Disgaea series does and release sprite games.

Actually, it's because if other games tried emulating Disgaea's visual look, they'd be scorned for having "shitty graphics," and no one would buy them. At least not the people which devs seem to pander to graphically, such as Halo fray boys and "mature enough for mature games" 12 year olds.

This entire attitude of "if the graphics suck, the game sucks" will be the downfall of the industry, because of the sheer amount of time and money top-of-the-line graphics consume vs. polishing ANY other aspect of the game at all.

[Mina]

Graphics matter as much as gameplay to me. A good game has both.

Also, I figured I was better off not even renting this one.