I don't get graphics...

You don't understand the obsession with them or you don't get the continious upgrading of graphics engines?

For me it's mainly about the artistic style. Some older games are visually more appealing to me than some of the "next gen" games. A few that come to mind are Baldurs Gate and Final Fantasy 8.

There are things you can look for.

Realistic shadows, that actually follow the moving object.

Lights, which you can place and match to the shadows.

Figures that actually have a lot of mesh to them, as opposed to your basic boxy figure covered with a 2D painting that is shaded to look like 3D. This usually only works from one angle.

Skies with clouds that aren't all the same and move realistically while the figures move.

Figures that aren't all the same--a lot of times you'll realize after a while that all the models are actually a very small number of variants, like "the fat guy" or "the broad shouldered hero" or the "bosomy chick."

Any sort of moving object that glows or gives off its own light. Look to see if the light is cast realistically on other objects as the thing moves.

Look off in the far distance and see if there's a point where the world just sort of stops, or if it seems to go on forever. This is often really obvious in long dungeon hallways.

A lot of games either take place all on one height, or just move up and down in a very limited height range.

Any or all of this combined at once on the screen is probably the largest test of your graphics quality. A lot of computers can handle one big ugly monster, but when you get multiple monsters, the game either slows down or things start to look not completely right.

The only time I find myself caring about graphics is when a game lags or when I can't tell surfaces apart. Most of the time, it's not an issue to me, but it is sure nice when a game looks real pretty, too.

But, to me, a game is about the gameplay. And a game doesn't have to be 3-D to be graphically phenomenal--just look at Muramasa.

Whether graphics impact your enjoyment of a game is one thing, but there is certainly a noticeable difference, to my eye, at least.

Great pics but we have a rule against hotlinking. Get yourself a Photobucket account (or similar) and upload from there, or post the direct links. Cheers.

Do you see a difference between this

http://i.testfreaks.com/images/products/600x400/154/half-life-2-the-orange-box-53990.449434.jpg

And this?

http://chrisevans3d.com/images/crysis_high_res/crysis8.jpg

LOG said:

Really? I see alot of links and images all over the site.

Is this: http://www.starcraft2.com/images/new...reeScripts.jpg okay to link.

I see no difference between those two images, apparently there's supposed to be some sort of improvement...

Click to expand...

Really. But there's no alarm bell that goes off when people do it so it's hard to police.

What you did is fine because I have to click on the link which takes me to the host site.

But if you put img src tags around that link, the photo would display here, from the host site and we'd be using their bandwidth without going to their site. It's not the end of the world but we do have a rule against it. At the very least it's just good netiquette.

Zoombie said:

Do you see a difference between this

http://i.testfreaks.com/images/products/600x400/154/half-life-2-the-orange-box-53990.449434.jpg

And this?

http://chrisevans3d.com/images/crysis_high_res/crysis8.jpg

Click to expand...

Those games aren't contemporaneous. I would be more inclined to compare two releases displaying similar levels of graphics technology where a discernable difference was still possible. A better example would be Red Faction II and Half Life 2 being compared side by side, especially as the original titles of both franchises were so blocky.

Well, JJM..er...LOG said he can't tell difference between any graphics. While the graphical improvements of one game to the next from month to month seem small, the increasing fidelity is more obvious when you compare them over a longer period.

<shrugs>

Graphics are, just like gameplay and audio, one of the tools game designers use to make good games. It is not more or less important than any other...but as we are a eye-dependent species, it is easier to judge the graphics at a glance than it is judge the gameplay or the audio.

I'm sure everyone can tell the differences in graphics when you bring longer periods of time into the equation. Compare Pong with Super Mario Bros then on to Crysis (yeah, I've missed out quite a few steps there, but still...), and the improvements are obvious.

And you have heard about the surround-sound audio enhancements on games now, right? That'll be the next big thing in gameplay, when you can tell the direction of an enemy just by the audio... No game has quite convinced me of the abilities of that kind of audio immersion yet, but it's too new to dismiss.

...surround sound is not new, I got that for Doom 3 and it was scary as FUCK!

Too bad my surround sound speaker set was too clunky to take to college and I had to get a Bose USB speaker thingy. If I could, I'd get surround sound again because I really do love the sense of immersion it gives.

Footsteps NEVER sound like footsteps. I laughed most of my way through Thief: Deadly Shadows's "creepy" stages because the audio was nothing like it should have been. A game series which everyone still believes - wrongly - relies heavily on audio. Splinter Cell (all of them so far) has some really awful audio elements, and the visuals can break if you angle the camera just so. As soon as gunfire sounds like gunfire (or even a car engine sounding right...) games will be so much better.

Well, movies often have folie sound effects that don't sound like what they are supposed to sound like. For example, Indiana Jones' gun is a fucking CANNON mixed with two rifles!