I'm a sucker for pretty graphics; that was the main reason I bought my Xbox One. That said, one of the best gaming experiences I've had recently was playing 13 year-old games with friends on a ps2, so go figure. I think there are different games for different purposes, and that graphics matter to some and not others. In my opinion, any game that you'd tend to play on your own, that tries to immerse you in it's setting, needs good graphics to do that properly; whereas more casual games that you might only play for an hour or less, or with friends, don't. This is of course a generalisation, and there are exceptions; but those are kind of my expectations when it comes to games.
Just trying to point out that I've heard people say that Graphics were the only thing that mattered, when in fact it wasn't.
Graphics are like a person's looks. You can enjoy them for what they are, but it's not great when they are the only thing that a game/person has going for them, and you will probably move on to another game/person with better graphics/looks after a short time.
Remember what I said about people thinking Graphics were the only thing that mattered? That is ignorant thinking.
It's not necessarily ignorant. Different people just like different things. Maybe they only want to look at pretty pictures.
That's kind of self-contradictory; if good graphics were all it took to make a game enjoyable, then by definition, we would we be entertained by games that focused only on graphics, and think them good games.
Which translates as, "I don't think graphics are the most important thing, so obviously if other people think they're the most important thing then those people are wrong." What I'm trying to say is that different people are capable of getting the same level of personal satisfaction out of completely different things. There aren't these totally objective markers for measuring what's "good" and what isn't, or at least, there aren't any that I know of. You might love what somebody else hates. Does that make them wrong? Not obviously, at least. You might think something somebody else loves isn't all that important. What can we learn from that? You figure it out for yourself. See what answers you can come up with. That's probably one of the more properly analytical things that has ever been posted on this forum.
I do agree with the fact that it depends on the game what the graphics should be. But Even if it was some sort of hardcore game, it can be viewed as a casual one since most have never played a certain game type and play on normal for getting used to it. I do this, regardless of type. But Graphics do have their limitations, such as causing lag on a console that couldn't even handle the fps. 360 and ps3 had a hard time handling it, as they only ran at a limit of 30 fps. The devs lacked intel about this issue and yet still released it. Also I do appreciate both eras, even though people hate the ps2 graphics, those were the ones that were groundbreaking for their time, and still are regardless of what people believe.
The thread topic is called : Have the gamers forgotten? People are giving their different answers / opinions, I have never understood the need of people on any forums who post a thread open for discussion with their opinion yet try to keep convincing the others that their wrong, It's good to have a discussion, would you prefer if everyone just agreed with you here? and I am pretty sure everyone here has agreed that graphics aren't everything, just that some like them more than others do. Some people like playing pong, don't understand what this thread achieves.
There's a lovely amount of awareness in this post, so I couldn't not quote it for truth. We all like different things for different reasons, and it's beneath us to bludgeon other people into submission.
This was just a case of miscommunication, I'm not making people submit to anything. These are just my own views and suggestions, not to change what other people should think. Games are judged these days by the graphic alone, but its the games merits that need to be looked at. This may be a bit off topic, but just an example: Say I wrote a story, and nobody cared how I felt about what they say. They base their judgment on grammar alone, and not what the merits are inside it. So in short, look not for what a game looks like, but for what it offers. FFX had a lot to offer, such as a great story, characters, plot, mechanics, and graphics that surpassed past games. I do look at the merits that each game has, not just a simple thing that could bring it down. The turn system was a great implementation, a change from the time based turns of Final Fantasy - Final Fantasy 9. This gave time for players to think, instead of thinking on the fly. Glitches were non-existent, and I have yet to see a single one. Games now have more glitches than in the past, we face bugs that cause corrupted saves, and freeze the game, and finally errors where you get booted out of a match. So saying the past games were the worst offenders isn't true at all. For every patch made that fixes an issue, more will arise in its place.
Do you have any evidence to support that? I'm not trying to be needlessly argumentative or anything, but I don't believe games are judged by graphics alone; not by professional game critics, or by the majority of gamers. It kinda seems like you're arguing against an opinion that very few people actually hold. Just in the interests of fairness, I'll submit this review of Forza 6 as evidence for my view; notice how the game gets only 3/5, despite their praise of it's graphics? Most people are capable of looking at a game objectively, and determining it's merits in the way you suggest. You could argue that there is a problem in that the game itself seems to be putting a lot of it's eggs in the graphics basket, but the way I read it, your point is that people shouldn't be judging games based on their graphics, not that games shouldn't be produced with a focus on graphics.
I get what you are trying to say but you are kinda leaning into left field a bit much with graphics thing, whether it be good intentions or nor. I'll agree about the games you are talking about though. I personally loved FFX to death. I also agree that glitches and crashes are not as abundant back then as now. But you also have to take account for the non-gaming part of a game too, if we are going to talk game issues. What if the disk was scratched? I may not play properly. It's not something everyone worries about, while it is annoying when it does happen. Issues will happen with games no matter what. While it may of not been glitches as much back in the day, it could of been something with the electronics of the gaming cartage. See how that is a pointless endeavor to bring up? But with innovation comes new grounds and issues. We learn as we go. Nothing can be prefect and no one thing can be focused on too much. That's actually a good observation there. If anything that brought the point across perfectly, really. Though there can be also those who maybe not interested in the game too. I, for one, am not to fond of the Forza games. Do I think it's a bad series? Not per-say. But does that change what others think of it? Nope.
