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.


: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"

[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.....
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]

Originally Posted by kakemann

: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: