And here we are, back to the graphics discussion. While there are great numbers of gamers out there that swear up and down that graphics are all that matters when it comes to new games, there are just as many that say that graphics don’t interest in them. As I’ve said here before, I wouldn’t consider myself to be in the first camp, but every now and then something catches me by surprise.
Well, it looks like Bethesda’s Peter Hines, the company’s VP of marketing, has called everyone’s bluff. Here’s what Hines had to say on the most recent OXM podcast when talking about Skyrim:
“There’s a lot of people who say graphics don’t matter. To them I usually say ‘you’re lying’… [People] will look at a screenshot and make a snap decision: ‘that looks awesome’, or ‘I’m not interested’. So if you can make something look amazing just at first glance, it’s so much easier to get them.”
From a marketing standpoint, it seems like the man has a point with the latter half of the statement. However, I’ve always maintained that you need more than that to hook somebody once the first visuals have been released. People are quick to pick up on whether or not a game will have any staying power.
What do you guys think? Are gamers lying when they say graphics don’t matter? COME AT ME WITH COMMENTS, BRO.
Source – CVG
Doesn’t Minecraft disprove this? Its 8-bit if I recall.
Graphics do matter, just not in the ways that people typically say. If a game has super realistic graphics, to me that’s when they don’t really matter. If they have a great art style, be it the pixelly goodness of VVVVVV, the cartoonishly cell shaded Windwaker, or the terrifying inner corridors of Dead Space 2, how high the texture resolution or poly count it’s not going to matter if the art style isn’t great.
I don’t particularly like when he says that anybody who doesn’t find the same things attractive in game as he does is just lying about it though. When I look at a game, the first thing that I check is what the gameplay is like. Almost every game this generation is beautiful, so graphics aren’t really all that special anymore, I need a game with substance. What draws me to a game now is what neat things I can do in the game, how the controls will handle, if I can coop with a friend or if it’s just a singleplayer adventure, if there’s lots of unlockable content or replay value… graphics are very low on the list for me, and if a game has God-awful, terrible graphics, gameplay can save it for me.
To me, that makes graphics pretty unimportant.
I will say that he is right for when it just comes to sales. They have a brand name that will bring in the hardcore and those who know it, the graphics brings in the other guys who would not heard of it initially. But for my money’s worth I am definitely looking for gameplay over graphics but I think that Bethesda has anything to worry about as far as that is concerned.
I think a good game matters more than graphics.
What are we suppose to say with Halo 1. For me its still my favorite halo game of them all, even if Halo Reach has a much better graphics engine.
Graphics don’t, art direction does.
I’d take TF2 over most Brown N’ Bloom “realistic” shooters any day.
Graphics matter. If the games ‘best graphics’ are “crappy” but thats how they are meant to me, no one will complain (for the most part). If a game can be played at 100000fps and have amazing lighting effects that only a super 9000 graphics card can produce, then graphics matters.
To be fair graphics does matter. People dont want ugly or low tech games. They dont have to be top knotch crysis amazing but they have to be good. My take is that it matters more to players when something can be played at _____ setting and they cant make it reach that setting. Then it becomes a big flame.
Graphics are good for getting sales, like someone earlier said. It has nothing to do with game quality in the end.
But many people care about graphics. So I guess it matters to some.
Sure, I guess, in the initial run. But like, Crysis, it’s pretty, but it has done nothing to tell me it’s worth any investment in the long run.
I guess the better distinction to make is that no one likes BAD graphics. When you can see tearing and clipping it can really pull you out of the experience, but as mentioned above, it’s about the art style. TF2 and Crysis can’t be “compared” graphically, one goes for realism and one knows it’s place and sticks to it’s cartoonishly-awesome approach. But neither have “bad” graphics, they convey what they’re supposed to in a clear fashion.
I’ve never bought a game from screenshots alone. Maybe what he’s saying is “A picture is worth 1000 downloads” XD
Graphics are a bonus. Origins looks ugly as fuck, but plays divinely. Crysis 2 is the inverse of this.
CoD4, Uncharted 2 and Wind Waker are all examples of games with great graphics and gameplay. Graphics can give a game character, but at the end of the day: I pay attention to them due to their gameplay.