How important are graphics to your purchase?

[LoBlo]

Here's a hypothetical question: If the UBIsoft had not produced such high quality graphics for SH series, and instead made the game with poorer/1997 quality graphics, would you still have bought the game? Given that the actual gameplay, missions, AI is unchanged, how much did the graphics influence the decision to purchase?

I'm curious to the impact of graphics in a *subsim* has on sales.

lb

[kakemann]

I don't think I would have bought it. It depends on how bad the graphic would be... :hmm:
I think graphics are quite important when playing a game, but sometimes graphics and playability doesn't come together.

With Silent Hunter 3 (and 4) I think I got both graphics and playability! Thats great!

[zylark]

Sims (and FPS games) are about immersion. Belivable realistic imagery helps push that factor sky high. Bad graphics just suck, and certainly destroys all immersiveness.

Ofcourse, back in the day we could live with what by todays standard is horrible graphics. But that was then. There is no excuse for bad graphics in this day and age.

[d@rk51d3]

I probably would have stuck with CAOD.

[NefariousKoel]

Sometimes we forget..

Those old sub sims (and any sims in general) that we loved so much actually had some of the best graphics for their time.

The term "Immersion" is thrown around a lot but that is what nice shiny graphics do. The immersion requisite is amplified because these are sims. You should feel like you're there doing it.

[Onkel Neal]

I would be more supportive of a black and green text based subsim as long as the gameplay is good.

http://www.tleaves.com/weblog/images/articles/startrek.jpg
:p

[kakemann]

:rotfl:

Where is this from, Neal?

[swash]

It depends on the subject. If there is a game that is something I really want to play based on a subject I enjoy, I'll try it out. Eye candy is one thing, great gameplay is another. To have both is totally spectacular.

I've played ww2ol. The graphics aren't the best, but when you're online against hundreds of other players, there are limitations over the internet. I found it immersive enough with the sounds being a key factor using surround sound. I could hear someone approach me from behind and to the right and be ready for them. Having a 40mm Bofor going off in my ears next to me was a bit of a hassle since I couldn't hear sh*t. But it is a cool game for multiplayer online.

I also played one of those FPS, can't recall the name... Call of Duty or one of those. I was leading the assault through the maze of buildings and ran into a room and up to a window. Suddenly I heard the germans yelling and there was a shot fired that hit the window pane next to me. I SWEAR, I flinched! The bullet whizzing by, the spark, the puff of dust and the mark it left. I literally jerked to my right in my chair it looked and sounded so realistic.

Top notch graphics add to the immersion level as do great audio to fill the senses. Throw in a PC mounted gunpowder or cordite aroma dispenser and we'll have the smell too.

But if someone made a 1864 Ironclad game even with 1997 graphics and UI, I'd still buy it to try since it's never been done before. There was one that was going to be released, but it never was. I emailed the company and they replied that the game was cancelled due to "lack of interest":cry:

[9th_cow]

I could play gears of war with pretty much any kind of graphics
graw 2 as an example has to look realistic.

the reason being that the former suspends disbelief anyway.
the second one being based on reality should make you feel like you are there, wich it does very well. in gears i would never "feel like im there" anyway. so if it didnt look good it wouldnt matter.

the same goes for SHIV, it looks very real. wich is good in a simulation, the more realistic it apears the more atmosphere it will possess.

when playing GRAW 2 you can get kinda panicky at times, as it looks very beleivable.

if i am playing something like Prey, then when i see the planet beneath me, i dont get vertigo i just think, humm nice graphics.

so when i look over the side of my Gato i want to think, im in the middle of nowhere, all alone,or the sea looks rough, or damn look at that sunset.

and SHIV does manage that because of its nice graphics.
in short, in simulation type Games, yes it is important.
in all other games, not really.

[DS]

If it was a subsim, I would buy it. Period.

That said, I would prefer a sim with graphics a few years out of date, if I could have more complexity and a steeper learning curve in the simulation.

[Chock]

I'll take gameplay (or should that be simplay?) over graphics any day of the week.

I'd still have bought SH4 whatever, as I support pretty much any half decent attempt at a sim when it comes out, they are gettting rarer.

[KrvKpt. Falke]

i remember playing Silent Hinter 2: i thought it had good graphics, but now - when i have seen SH3 and SH4 - i dont want to come back to SH2 (looks sooo ugly ;)
So: if SH5 would look like 1997 game then i wont buy it because after SH3/4 it would be a step backward to me.

[skullman86]

Well I think the question you asked could've have been worded better and maybe what I'm thinking is what you intended to say (I could be wrong though).Basically all you said was make the graphics look like crap.The current build of this game minus graphics is not looking all that appealing IMO since nothing is gained from lowering the visuals.Had you said "make the graphics look like crap but improve the overall quality of gameplay", then it would be worth buying......

:rotfl:

If a company is going cut back on the graphics then they should put more effort into the gameplay to make it a fully functional and in depth game.

[9th_cow]

well i think its a valid question but how many games do we get now that are poor but look pretty, there is too much emphasis on graphics.

right now ive said that.....:lol:
how do you identify the enemy in a game like Il2 or SHIV if the graphics are sub par.
in simulations i guess it is a complex issue. to some realism comes from looking photo real, to others it comes from looking "realstic" and behaving realisticly. so no i dont care about FSAA, but i do want to see the thing on the horizon and think ! wow battleship!!
i dont want to see something on the horizon and think black dot, black dot, black dot, larger black dot, tree......

[GSpector]

:rotfl:

Where is this from, Neal?

To answer your question, it was an old Star Trek Sim game that actually can date back prior to the Monitor.

I actually played a version of it on a Telitype Machine (Paper print out only, no Monitor) back in the 80's and I have a slightly better version on my Palm 130 PDA.:rotfl:

[Snowman999]

:rotfl:

Where is this from, Neal?

To answer your question, it was an old Star Trek Sim game that actually can date back prior to the Monitor.

I actually played a version of it on a Telitype Machine (Paper print out only, no Monitor) back in the 80's and I have a slightly better version on my Palm 130 PDA.:rotfl:

I played it (or its big brother) in 1978 on a dumb terminal via accoustic coupler (stick the phone handset in a rubber cradle.) Was running on a Prime minicomputer across campus. It was the very first computer game I ever played.

[daft]

Most gaming is about suspension of disbelief, and simming probably more so since it does have a real world connection in that it tries to make a game out of something that is or was actually done IRL. Graphics have always added to the gameplay aspect by either its eastetical value or simply by rendering a virtual world so real it's almost life-like. Trying to disconnect graphics and gameplay and claim they have nothing to do with each other is a bit naive. Having said that, good graphics doesn't make a crappy game good and good gameplay can get lost in a muddle of poor graphics or bad art-direction. Both have their part to play in a really good game.

To answer the question, yes I would have bought it. Would I have liked it? Don't know.

[vindex]

With better graphics, playing games is growing closer and closer to the experience of watching a movie, except that it's interactive. I'm eagerly looking forward to what the future will bring. So yes, graphics are important for me.

[XanderF]

I think one only has to look at the sales of 'Harpoon 3' (abominable), the '688i'/'Sub Command'/'Dangerous Waters' series (good enough for 3 games, but not to keep the company in the genre), and the 'Silent Hunter' series (actually pretty good, sustaining a still-running series) to see the only real answer to that question.

From that set, we have (respectively) naval warfare with strict 2d interface (PERIOD, no "3d graphics" at all), primitive 3d graphics, and cutting-edge 3d graphics.

Granted, differences in era, but I think from discussions with coworkers (et al) the point stands. SubSims can be fun, but virtually nobody is going to play a game that looks outright bad by contemporary standards. The hardcore crowd will, of course, but...well...put it this way.

If you identify a given demographic (for example, one most companies target - male, 20 through 30) that you want to sell to. You figure how many of them could be inclined to buy your product of this genre, and decide you need about 20% of that group to buy it for you to break even.

Now, the die-hard, hardcore, subsessed simulation nut will be EVERYTHING that comes out. Doesn't matter what, if it's sub-related, he'll own it. He's also (generously) 1% of your market.

Which makes the economics of the situation clear.

[daft]

I think one only has to look at the sales of 'Harpoon 3' (abominable), the '688i'/'Sub Command'/'Dangerous Waters' series (good enough for 3 games, but not to keep the company in the genre), and the 'Silent Hunter' series (actually pretty good, sustaining a still-running series) to see the only real answer to that question.

From that set, we have (respectively) naval warfare with strict 2d interface (PERIOD, no "3d graphics" at all), primitive 3d graphics, and cutting-edge 3d graphics.

Granted, differences in era, but I think from discussions with coworkers (et al) the point stands. SubSims can be fun, but virtually nobody is going to play a game that looks outright bad by contemporary standards. The hardcore crowd will, of course, but...well...put it this way.

If you identify a given demographic (for example, one most companies target - male, 20 through 30) that you want to sell to. You figure how many of them could be inclined to buy your product of this genre, and decide you need about 20% of that group to buy it for you to break even.

Now, the die-hard, hardcore, subsessed simulation nut will be EVERYTHING that comes out. Doesn't matter what, if it's sub-related, he'll own it. He's also (generously) 1% of your market.

Which makes the economics of the situation clear.

Good post that really hammers home something we "sub-nuts" must accept; in order to even have subsims like the SH-series we need to accept compromises in certain areas so the game can appeal to people outside the nische market we represent. If we don't, we'll never see another subsim brought to market again.

[FIREWALL]

Need a good balance

[GSpector]

I have found the imbalance in movies as well.

Biggest grip I had was the Star Wars series.

The 1st 3 (Episodes 4-6), did not have access to the same technology we have today so it had to rely of a great story and model building.

The 2nd 3 (Episodes 1-3), used so much special effects and technology that the story suffered.

SH3 was (and still is) a great sim that had to rely on more then graphics.

SH4 seemed to push more towards the graphics and in doing so, game play suffered.

I hope, like in the SW Episode 3, they can finally balance Graphics, Game play and Story to make SH5 a lot better.

[U-Bones]

I have found the imbalance in movies as well.

Biggest grip I had was the Star Wars series.

The 1st 3 (Episodes 4-6), did not have access to the same technology we have today so it had to rely of a great story and model building.

The 2nd 3 (Episodes 1-3), used so much special effects and technology that the story suffered.

SH3 was (and still is) a great sim that had to rely on more then graphics.

SH4 seemed to push more towards the graphics and in doing so, game play suffered.

I hope, like in the SW Episode 3, they can finally balance Graphics, Game play and Story to make SH5 a lot better.

Lot of truth there. Functionality and attention to detail get trampled in the purely visual world. Ducks no longer have to quack.

If I had to chose between working 2D and broken 3D ? For some elements its no contest - the 2D radar station of SH2 is vastly superior to the 3D joke of a station in SH4. The message box integrated into the hud in previous sub sims were vastly superior to the stupid, detached, floaty, layered thing, that gets in the way of everything (in default resolution), message box mistake in SH4.

Of course, the purely visual elements are no contest in the other direction, and explain why we excuse non-quacking ducks... remember the goofy DD bow shots with either 0% 15% 30% AOB ?

[MaxT.dk]

I was always much more into GFX instead of the gameplay... I'm a webdesigner after all :smug: But I've gamed 2D games on Commodore too. You know... Times change, so does the tech. progress. Why keep with the stone age graphics? Progress, my friends, is the key! :know:

[Bane]

I'm a graphics whore, no doubt. Can I say that? :hmm:

Still though, there has to be gameplay to back up the graphics. If a game looked as good as Jessica Alba in 'something more comfortable' but was as exciting as mowing the lawn, well, sorry Jessica. :cry:

Actually, games are sort of like women. They can't be all flash and no substance nor vice versa. If she's great arm candy but can't hold a conversation she'll be fun for a short while, but not in the long term. If she isn't that attractive but has a great personality you'd never know because you wouldn't bother trying to get to know her.

See what I'm saying?

[jerryt]

I would be more supportive of a black and green text based subsim as long as the gameplay is good.

http://www.tleaves.com/weblog/images/articles/startrek.jpg
:p

Good God! :o Is it bad that I remember this?

[gg.]

Graphics are important but are not all...
SH 4 has good graphics but is terribly full of bugs, so that SH3 (with GWX) is not so beutiful but has still a better gameplay.
At the end of the day, I think SH4 has also a graphic engine not fully optimized (it has too high hardware requirements)... It is an unfinished game we paid as a finished product...

[9th_cow]

I am still not convinced gameplay in SHIV suffered because of the graphics ( a seperate group will work on graphics in developing a game)

I think it suffered because as always it either wasnt tested , or was done so by yes men. breifly at that to meet the ever lowering standards ( ok i take that back, look at most games, crap and buggy and short. this is a hugely complex game and for it to work aswell as it does given the modern so called standards games are released in SHIV was still a remarkable achievement)

there was also some stupidity involved.
1 and 1.1 air radar detects boats.
1.2 they "fixed it" now it doesnt detect boats or planes....:damn:

you can not blame the people that made the game look so nice, for it being coded by someone who didnt feel like testing his/their work.

and i just got struck by this thought, ever think its the casual gamers that are making consesions to the hardcore crowd ? rather than the other way around ?
might explain why the hardest parts of the game such as manually gauging speed, are the faultiest. as theyre not needed for casual gamers, only for that 1% of sad old folk like me who like to look at bow waves, and play with spreads. :arrgh!:

[Sulikate]

IMHO, graphics are a important part on the immersion factor (as someone already said), and therefore, needed. I don't see the fact that the Silent Hunter series is a simulation as an excuse for outdated graphics.

[Safe-Keeper]

I bought Dominions 3, which has graphics out of the eighties, so yes, I would.

[Iron Budokan]

I like purty pictures. I also like good gameplay. Call me fickle.

[perisher]

I will take game play over graphics every time. I want my boat to act like a submarine much more than I want it to look like one. I do not believe that graphics are essential for "immersion", if I have to think more like a submarine captain then the more likely I am to think that I am a submarine captain. I can easily get immersed in a good radio play and the graphics on the radio are awful.

[Sailor Steve]

As much as I hate to admit that I'm hooked on the 'eye candy', the truth is that if it weren't for the awesome feel of being there, I'd still be playing Aces and SH1. There are a lot of other factors involved, such as SH3's ability to start from historic ports, but even those needed help from mods.

Graphics aren't everything, but they are a deciding factor for me in this case.

[the_belgian]

To keep it short;
"No decent grafics,no decent play"
:know: