Great Graphics Can Sell Me on a Game.

Why is it that the core gaming community cannot admit to themselves that great graphics can sell them on a game. 1313 for example, and watch dogs, look awesome and while I have no idea how they will play I'm very excited to try them because of how great they look. I mean wasn't it the same with Crysis a few years back? Great looking games are like Hot girls, (and guys I suppose to be politically correct). While looks don't necessarily correlate to the overall quality they do garner attention and they make you look past some of the faults until it becomes too much.

because they need a reason to justify that purchase of that $800 pc

For me I don't look at a game and buy it simply for the fact it looks pretty.

I mean sure Star Wars 1313 looked pretty cool, but it looks like it has the same Uncharted gameplay with the covering, shooting and climbing. Just in a Star Wars setting and looking a lot prettier.

One of my favourite games of all time is Deadly Premonition, so that should tell you whether graphics sell me to buy a game or not.

Graphics are misleading aren't they? The brain thinks that because the graphics have improved, you presume that gameplay has or will have more depth, but we're left with games that look pretty, but all the player is doing is interacting with several corridors and box rooms. Bleh. Visuals can't sell me on a game. Sometimes it is nice to have a good looking game, but still. I think if gaming never got visually better from this point I wouldn't mind. I remember when people's mouths would water over like PS1/N64 graphics, but it always looked like shit to me.

because they need a reason to justify that purchase of that $800 pc

I disagree, I'm interested in Watch Dogs not because of the graphics (which I don't find particularly impressive, or 1313's for that matter) but because of the potential gameplay and concepts they're tackling. The visuals certainly don't hurt in increasing my interest in a game, but it's not one of the main factors.

I liked Watch Dogs for the sliver of a chance that it was something besides a generic 3rd person open world game. The fact that it is a next-gen game (and it is) gets me excited because I'm a hardware geek. And yes, great graphics can immerse you in a game even more.

People hate good technical presentation for the same reason they hate proper levels and mixing on albums and high quality film on movies; because of The Man.

I like good technical presentation just like I love good art style or good sound design or good performance or good gameplay. People just want to be pissy little douches so they accentuate the negative.

Great graphics definitely get me interested to some degree but if the gameplay/story/character itself doesn't deliver, I'm out just as quickly (which is why I didn't care for God of War 3, for example).

I have a moderately powerful PC and I can honestly say I have never bought a game because of the graphics. The most intensive game I own is probably the Witcher 2 and I bought that because it was a deep, solid RPG experience. I would have loved it just as much if it were a 2D sprite based game. That said, graphics can add to the experience, I'm sure the story wouldn't have been quite as engrossing without the detailed facial expressions and such..

But the fact people will buy games like Crysis just because of how they look is pretty mind boggling to me.

@ZeForgotten: wait what?

I only play text adventures an ASCII roguelikes.

I am very excited by graphics or art styles, I won't deny it, but they won't make me buy a game.
I'm way more forgiving in terms of graphics than I am in terms of gameplay.
 
I still play a lot of older games on my Gamecube, I greatly enjoy GBA titles and my pc can usually barely handle games, yet if the gameplay is good I will buy it regardless.
Graphics are just not as important to me.

Great graphics may impress me but if the game play is crappy or doesn't interest me then I won't get it. I like games for being fun not for their graphics. Hence why I play old games today along with new game.

Aesthetics > Graphics

A good art style and graphic fidelity are much more important to me then photo-realism. That Zelda concept video for WiiU back from E3 2011 impressed me more then Star Wars 1313 ,and Watch Dogs impressed me because of gameplay not because of the graphics.

Graphics alone never sell me on a game. Art style might pique my interest, but it's the mechanics, story, and other elements that get me to buy a game. Usually if a game has a "super realistic" looking graphical style I'm actually usually more suspicious of the game.

800 dollar PC? Try 1100 dollar graphics card with nearly 200 bucks of aftermarket cooling attached. That's what you'll need to max something like Star Wars 1313.

Great graphics have a certain value to them, but at the end of the day that's not what draws me in. For instance, neither Skyrim nor Deus EX HR have great graphics when compared to the likes of Battlefield 3, but given the choice which ones do you think come across as the better single player game? Yep, the former two. They're both worth playing through several times because the gameplay itself is really, really good and the graphics are only as good as they need to be. Battlefield looks very, very pretty but at the end of the day it's mostly an interactive movie where you pop out of cover and shoot things a lot.

Don't get me wrong, games like that are important to the industry because they really push technology in great ways and are fun in their own right, but the uber linear "cinematic" experiences don't really deserve to go down in gaming history as one of "the greats". They don't really do anything for level design, they don't do anything for gameplay mechanics, they don't advance gaming anymore than Avatar advanced movies.

So, at the end of the day, I'd rather have acceptable graphics and an engaging and interesting game than I would great graphics and a competent game. Sometimes we get both (Crysis 1) but hardly all of the time.

800 dollar PC? Try 1100 dollar graphics card with nearly 200 bucks of aftermarket cooling attached. That's what you'll need to max something like Star Wars 1313.

Great graphics can make a good game even better. They can't make a bad game good. 
 
I've played enough games (as I'm sure most of us have) to almost instinctively block out a graphics-based sales pitch and look at the game itself. If it seems interesting, then I will appreciate the graphical fidelity after that.

@Giantstalker: I thought 1313 was running on a 680.

@connerthekewlkid said:

because they need a reason to justify that purchase of that $800 pc

Played Crysis on my $500 PC, which was more capable than the $700 PS3. Sooooooooo, yeah.

@believer258 said:

Great graphics have a certain value to them, but at the end of the day that's not what draws me in. For instance, neither Skyrim nor Deus EX HR have great graphics when compared to the likes of Battlefield 3, but given the choice which ones do you think come across as the better single player game? Yep, the former two. They're both worth playing through several times because the gameplay itself is really, really good and the graphics are only as good as they need to be. Battlefield looks very, very pretty but at the end of the day it's mostly an interactive movie where you pop out of cover and shoot things a lot.

Don't get me wrong, games like that are important to the industry because they really push technology in great ways and are fun in their own right, but the uber linear "cinematic" experiences don't really deserve to go down in gaming history as one of "the greats". They don't really do anything for level design, they don't do anything for gameplay mechanics, they don't advance gaming anymore than Avatar advanced movies.

So, at the end of the day, I'd rather have acceptable graphics and an engaging and interesting game than I would great graphics and a competent game. Sometimes we get both (Crysis 1) but hardly all of the time.

Deus Ex actually looks great with ENB, so does Skyrim. I'd also argue that if Skyrim had looked as totally shitty and fugly and boring and drab as Oblivion, many would have ignored it. I never would have purchased it day one.

@MordeaniisChaos said:

@connerthekewlkid said:

because they need a reason to justify that purchase of that $800 pc

Played Crysis on my $500 PC, which was more capable than the $700 PS3. Sooooooooo, yeah.

@believer258 said:

Great graphics have a certain value to them, but at the end of the day that's not what draws me in. For instance, neither Skyrim nor Deus EX HR have great graphics when compared to the likes of Battlefield 3, but given the choice which ones do you think come across as the better single player game? Yep, the former two. They're both worth playing through several times because the gameplay itself is really, really good and the graphics are only as good as they need to be. Battlefield looks very, very pretty but at the end of the day it's mostly an interactive movie where you pop out of cover and shoot things a lot.

Don't get me wrong, games like that are important to the industry because they really push technology in great ways and are fun in their own right, but the uber linear "cinematic" experiences don't really deserve to go down in gaming history as one of "the greats". They don't really do anything for level design, they don't do anything for gameplay mechanics, they don't advance gaming anymore than Avatar advanced movies.

So, at the end of the day, I'd rather have acceptable graphics and an engaging and interesting game than I would great graphics and a competent game. Sometimes we get both (Crysis 1) but hardly all of the time.

Deus Ex actually looks great with ENB, so does Skyrim. I'd also argue that if Skyrim had looked as totally shitty and fugly and boring and drab as Oblivion, many would have ignored it. I never would have purchased it day one.

On PC or consoles? Note that I've really only seen the console versions of both and I'm talking about vanilla graphics. The past three Elder Scrolls games have all had many mods that made them look better, so Skyrim on a PC can look a lot better than it does with a vanilla install. Vanilla Skyrim can look pretty from far away but when close up a lot of things look really flat and angled instead of natural.

Neither game can hold a candle to Crysis or Battlefield 3 or games like that, though.

What sells me more on graphics is how the art direction is handled. Watch Dogs was mentioned, and although it does look technically impressive, what impressed me was the style of the game, how everything had this neo-futuristic vibe to it. The part where the character was walking through the club and the servers had those weird boxes on their heads; I thought that was pretty cool. But as for the graphics vs gameplay debate, it's rather pointless to argue as both features are symbiotes of one another.

@MordeaniisChaos: but the console is 6 years old how old is the PC?

Graphics don't sell me on games, Star Wars looks impressive but its gameplay just seems boring.

I do have a nerdy curiosity for experiencing new tech, be it graphic or otherwise.

But great art will sell me a game much faster than great tech.

the graphics can be mediocre but the story awesome. thats why people still buy old games. they have better stories.

@believer258: Fair enough, but vanilla Skyrim on PC looks pretty good, considering. Specifically the assets and crafting of the world is more detailed, varied, and natural looking, which was my main point. It's a more interesting and believable world.

Also, even with a ton of mods, nothing makes Oblivion look any where near as good as Skyrim, even on the consoles.

@connerthekewlkid said:

@MordeaniisChaos: but the console is 6 years old how old is the PC?

The PS3 wasn't 6 years old when it cost $700.

Meh.

I learned from Final Fantasy demo's, NFS demo's and Call of Duty demo's that just cause the graphics are nice and shiny, doesn't mean I'm going to be remotely interested in the game.

Give me a good story, depth, replayability and gameplay anyday. Gnome sayin'?

A great artistic style can sell me on a game on occasion, but never the technical capabilities. 
 
And I don't care how many polygons Star Wars 1313 is pushing, I can't see myself buying another Star Wars game in my life.