PS3 News: FPS Fans: Obviously, Graphics Are The Most Important - PS3 News

Members Login: Register | Why sign up? | Forgot Password?

FPS Fans: Obviously, Graphics Are The Most Important

Making blanket statements about groups of fans is never a good idea. And if any offended shooter fans want to even the score, feel free to toss out some generalizations of your own. I'm a fan of old-school JRPGs, so accuse me of living in the past, liking male heroes that look like females, and heading off to cosplay conventions. Go right ahead.

Because I'm about to make an observation that is bound to annoy a great many: I look at various major sources and sites like N4G every day, and when it comes to shooters, many of the most popular headlines involve the graphical display of any given FPS title. For example, the #1 story currently on N4G is, "Battlefield 3 Native Resolutions on Consoles Confirmed." And this is very common. People dissecting videos for the slightest visual imperfection and using it as ammunition against the "other" fans (i.e., BF3 vs. MW3), the continual push by publishers to promote the graphics (EA pushing Frostbite 2), etc.

Unless a game features a blend of gameplay that disqualifies it as a first-person shooter (examples would be Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Dead Island), it really seems that graphics are the primary concern. And that's probably because shooters really haven't done anything too different in the past few years, right? Or is it just because fans of the genre are self-admitted graphic whores? Resistance 3 has gotten a ton of flak for not being as refined or polished as upcoming blockbusters, but it's a great shooter. I'm not sure why that fact is being overlooked.

Beyond the EA vs. Activision mud-slinging, it really seems as if any new FPS immediately falls under the graphical microscope, and that's all the fans really care about. Now, I could be wrong. And I'm not insulting the shooter fans for being shallow or something; I'm just wondering if the visual presentation really is most important in their minds. It's a mild, cheerful, unassuming question, so don't freak out...I just wanna know.

Tags: fps, shooters, battlefield 3, modern warfare 3, gaming culture

9/7/2011 11:55:30 AM Ben Dutka

Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter

Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on Google Share on MySpace Share on Delicious Share on Digg Share on Google Buzz Share via E-Mail Share via Tumblr Share via Posterous

Comments (61 posts)

SmokeyPSD
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 12:15:58 PM
Reply

This is a real valid question and I think it rings true from talking to people other than myself who love the genre and the visuals are the biggest draw. It even goes to console rivalry with singular games being taken apart for their visuals not just warring franchises.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

afelhofer
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 12:43:15 PM
Reply

I would have to agree.I would not consider myself a FPS fan, more of an RPG fan. But when it comes to shooters I would rather have better graphics than not. when it comes to RPGs, at least for me, its not about the graphics its about the gameplay and story.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

LimitedVertigo
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 12:44:16 PM
Reply

As an avid FPS player I don't really care about the graphics, but maybe it's because I'm an older gamer. I still find BF2, CSS, and TFC the most enjoyable FPS games EVER.

Agree with this comment 8 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

johnld
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 3:19:51 PM

i feel the same, as long as i can see fine and can differentiate between enemy with ghillie suit and tree i could care less about graphics.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Axe99
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 9:01:23 PM

Same here - I think the overly critical eye on graphics is partly due to the appeal of arcade FPS games (ArmA doesn't get as rough a run for its graphics, as that's not why fans play the game) to people in their early to mid-teens, who may not have developed as much of an appreciation for depth of gameplay or storytelling (this isn't to say that those games can't appeal to other groups as well - I'm _well_ beyond that age range, and have played ever console CoD and every PS3 Battlefield, as well as a bunch of other shooters). A great example of this is MAG - a lot of the younger crowd didn't get into it so much, and really disliked the more basic visuals, and so it ended up having an (on average, there were still kids that played it) fan base. I suspect that while BF3's getting the same graphical attention CoD is, this doesn't bother the core BF3 fans as much as the people wanting to have a go at CoD ;).

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 12:47:47 PM
Reply

i would say graphics are very important in fps becuase they are generally weaker in other areas. plus, their very nature puts the presentation up front so to speak. i think a lot of fps gamers do place graphics at premium, but there is evidence of them placing gameplay upfront as well. it's a really good question.

the competition in the fps genre is extremely tough right now and unless you have cod or halo in your name developer's need to show up with a top notch presentation just to get their foot in the door.

Last edited by Excelsior1 on 9/7/2011 12:58:13 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 12:48:15 PM
Reply

I'd have to disagree. I play a lot of FPS' among the other games I play. When playing a FPS' the last thing I really analyze about it is the graphics.

In a FPS' it's more so about environment and gameplay for me. It doesn't have to look great just descent. If it's fun to play with a good concept then I'm in. If the gameplay in Killzone sucked then I'd careless about how good it looks.

The main things I look for is what I'm able to do and weaponry that I can use and the effects they have..

Agree with this comment 3 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 12:59:43 PM

For you, that's true, but I think Ben is wondering on a wider basis. I mean, he's right about the way that shooters (and other action games) are analyzed at the pixel and frame level, by various self appointed experts. It's become almost a ritual for various places to pronounce what the rendering resolution is, what the frame rate is, and what visual imperfections there are. These things typically make their way into reviews of games as well.It does sometimes seem that to many players, these are the things that matter.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 4 down Disagree with this comment

slugga_status
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 1:11:11 PM

True, yet I don't believe you can place that within the FPS only realm. It just seems that almost every game that is released people speak about graphics period. I don't think it's genre specific at all..and it's sad that people put so much stock into graphics. Nobody wants a crappy frame rate, resolution, etc. Yet shouldn't our games be about gameplay?

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Oxvial
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 12:55:40 PM
Reply

FPS, history for me and it better be good because I got bored with those type of games.

Graphics are of course important but not matter how good Crysis looked that crap put me to sleep asap.

Last edited by Oxvial on 9/7/2011 12:56:02 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 11:17:21 PM

I thought Crysis 2 was very good... I haven't finished it yet though :)

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, September 08, 2011 @ 1:34:06 AM

I thought Crysis 2 was very good too! It's one of my absolute favourites this year even. How can you not dig that suit and that voice, "cloak enabled"...? :)

I guess this only goes to further prove how there can not be one universally awesome game. :)


Last edited by Beamboom on 9/8/2011 1:37:37 AM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Thursday, September 08, 2011 @ 4:17:37 AM

Great stuff Beamboom :)

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 12:57:27 PM
Reply

I think that for a lot of people that is the case. I hear (read comments from also) people who decry a game because of it's use of a 'inferior' anti-aliasing scheme or filtering algorithm. Sometimes I wonder whether the game itself is important, or if the technology of the game 'engine' is the star now?

That may be one of the more annoying elements of criticism thrown at other games in other genre. GT5 for example get's crap over it's filtering or shadows or any number of other technical compromises in the graphics engine. And these things trump gameplay or depth when it comes to deciding if the game is any good.

You could see this in yesterday's discussion of JRPGS when numerous people questioned WKC on the basis of it's graphics, calling them outdated or inferior. Obviously there were other elements to that discussion, but that particular criticism appears in many a review as well. criticism of the graphics trumps gameplay, story, control, sound, online, whatever else.

So, in the spirit of what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, perhaps graphics are the be all and end all of the shooter?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 8 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 1:40:57 PM

@highlander

yes, i think the discussion yesterday shows that some of us do hold graphics at premium. others not so much but i think we can agree we would like most games to have good graphics. i will say this. one of my favorite games of this gen was fallout 3. it's certainly no graphical powerhouse and tends to chug along on the ps3 at times...but i still loved every minute of it.

you mention gt5 getting a lot of crap for its graphical issues. that is true it does. i think some of that stems from the fact that the past gt games were known for perfection and their presentation was near perfect. so it was kind of a surpise to see those issues in a gt game. those issues are by no means game breaking nor do they ruin the racing but they were a downer for some.

there's nothing wrong with gamers wanting great graphics in a fps game or any other genre. i still think most gamers would place gameplay first combined with the quality of multiplayer in regard to fps games but graphics are almost right up there with those qualties for some people.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 1:57:00 PM

I'm not saying graphics are not a factor, but they are not, nor should bey be, the most important factor.However many gamers and reviewers show through their opinions that graphics are - to them - the most important factor. Not to defend GT5 specifically, but HD games in general that run at anything like 720p or better look tremendous compared to the games of the PS2 & 480i/p generation. It seems churlish to me to complain about minor graphical imperfections when the base level for graphics is so much higher than it was 6 years ago. And no, I'm not including PC games and graphics in this discussion because I don't see the point in comparing gaming rigs that cost $1000+ to video game console that retail in the $200-$300 range.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 8 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 2:39:25 PM

Just FYI Highlander, I was playing games with higher than 720p resolution more than 10 years ago on the PC, in fact probably more like 15-20 years ago.... and I haven't paid even close to $1000 for a PC in a long, long time...


Last edited by Crabba on 9/7/2011 2:40:36 PM

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 2:41:00 PM

It is my view that graphics, in a review, should be evaluated based on their contribution to or detraction from the experience as a whole.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 3:21:32 PM

craba,

The point is we're talking about video game consoles, not PCs, I thought that was sufficiently clear.

Agree with this comment 2 up, 7 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 7:56:06 PM

Highlander, hey you were the one who brough up PC, not me :) Besides, I thought we were talking about graphics, video games and specifically FPS-games, not consoles...

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 8:50:03 PM

I mentioned PCs to specifically exclude them from the discussion since at any given point in the last two decades a gaming rig was far more expensive than a game console. Sorry if you can't see that, I thought it was perfectly clear.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 11:19:41 PM

Regarding the graphical debate centred around GT5... the main gripe was why did we have these graphica problems when the game was in development for 5 years. If it was a slap dash multiplatform I would have understood, but it wasn't. It was a premier AAA title from Sony.

Not saying it isn't a good game... of course it is... but these details should have been sorted... that is what people expected anyway, well the ones that car about quality that is...

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, September 08, 2011 @ 1:49:22 AM

I don't see people saying graphics being the *most* important factor. What I see is that it is an important factor - not most important. That is an important(!) difference. Just like audio is very important too. Or as you say, gameplay, controls, etc.

And if a game has a weak spot people tend to point at that. That's just human nature :)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Thursday, September 08, 2011 @ 4:19:15 AM

Yes BeamBoom... and sorry for my bad spelling in the rush to write my original post...

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Thursday, September 08, 2011 @ 1:06:27 PM

Well Highlander, that's just not true though. I paid about $400 for my latest gaming PC, which is more than a $100 less than I paid for my PS3, and both are about equally old about now, and yet my PC is way above the recommended specs for the upcoming Rage for example.

Anyway, it was just an FYI, no need to get your feathers in a bunch :)

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

erislocker
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 1:01:12 PM
Reply

i miss the times when the focus was to make a game fun. not impress with shit that doesn't add to the fun. sure i like awesome graphics. but i love a good story even more.

i love the AC series because they have a fantastic story (truly) and the gameplay is really fun (albeit a bit repetitive in the earlier titles).

remember when all you did was pop in a cartridge, turn on power, press start, and you are immediately playing. simple, never ending fun.

same with multiplayer. it is oh-so-much more fun to play in the same room than with a headset. sure it's cool to have the whole screen to yourself, but not even give an option of splitscreen? that is the one thing that FPS have not given up yet (the split screen), but all other games seem to be giving that up...

end rant

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 1:10:28 PM

LAN parties... Not quite the same as split screen, but still 1000 times better than headsets. My wife and I both play Burnout together on occasion, or White Knight, and both of us being in the same room on different PS3s is a lot of fun, and so much better than gaming online via a headset.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 3 down Disagree with this comment

Excelsior1
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 2:05:43 PM

@erislocker

i don't know about the headset thing. some of my best gaming thrills of this gen have been when i was in a clan that all used headsets going against an evenly matched opponet that had headsets too. it's an adrenilne rush and quite addicting to go up against quality human opponets. i just find online mp sessions way more fun and lively when people are using headsets. you can always mute the people you don't like.

i do understand what you were saying. it would be even better to have the gamers in the same room but that's not always practical. when that's the case i think a headset is a good option that enriches the mp experience in general.

Agree with this comment 4 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 2:42:42 PM

Wanna have a good headset game? Make people take a shot of whiskey for melee deaths.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, September 08, 2011 @ 1:51:31 AM

I prefer to play multiplayer online with headset. Easier to get rid of/ignore the guys I don't like then. :)

Last edited by Beamboom on 9/8/2011 1:51:45 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Alienange
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 1:28:14 PM
Reply

No, graphics are not the all important feature of an fps and you should know that by simply looking at sales numbers. People buy what they like and clearly, the best selling fps is not the BEST graphics on the planet, but nonetheless, they are completely adequate and rather enjoyable.

Only a dev that can't get a grip on what makes the best fps the best is going to start drawing attention to its graphics in HOPES that that is what the fans want. Creating an artificial hype as it were. This is quickly seen for what it is though and the gameplay always beats out the illusion of graphics equaling a better game.

Besides, have we forgotten what the release of the multiplat FFXIII brought to the internet? FPS are certainly not alone in having some devs and misguided fans/haters touting graphics as the end all.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 1:45:45 PM
Reply

I think games in general this generation are measured by graphics due to the more powerful consoles (relatively speaking). FPS happen to be the most popular genre this generation, I think thats why it seems like FPS fans are graphics whores.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 2:06:08 PM
Reply

I believe it is like this because typically the most impressive graphics are found in shooters. That has made gamers associate fps with awesome graphics.
Myself included. I like most genres including FPS, but I kinda *expect* to get impressed when I insert a new fps into the ps3. I do not have anywhere near the same expectations with other genre games.

That being said, for me personally I rate the artistic creativity and originality higher than framerate and resolution. That's why I still rate BioShock as my best fps experience so far this gen, with Crysis 2 as a good 2nd.

But I gotta say my first impressions after just a couple of hours with Resistance 3 today is very, very good. I do not rule out the possibility that it will move Crysis to #3.


Last edited by Beamboom on 9/7/2011 2:09:51 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

kevinater321
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 2:16:24 PM
Reply

I don't think graphics are the biggest factor when deciding to buy a game. I think it depends more on how tight the controls and how fast and fluid the gameplay is. After all, Call of Duty outsells killzone. Buy hell it sure helps to have a pretty looking game..

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 2:32:07 PM
Reply

Thank you for saying Dead Island is not an FPS.

There are a lot of issues at play here. I'll just say an FPS damn well better have great graphics because the gameplay is severely limited anyway. If she's dumb, she better be pretty.

The other is that this is the fuel for the console war, if one game is even minutely graphically superior than the other on the lens of truth you get fanboy explosions. They need ammunition to keep shooting you know? And FPS games are the hollow point bullets.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Temjin001
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 2:32:19 PM
Reply

N4G, hehe, yeah, articles of any nature, usually the emotionally charged types, can make the headlines there. And not to be a hypocrite, I've posted an article there that hit around 1100degrees, not about graphics, but something that could probably be considered just as equally wasteful in time.

But anyway, I'm not going to be disagreeable. I do think graphics matter a lot for FPS games, and just most action games in general. I think in the case of this BF3 news, it's been something of a hot button issue because everyone knows that DICE has been showboating BF3 with high end PC presentations. Most of what gamers have had to assure them of the quality of the port has been by DICE's word alone. Just as DICE didn't just come out and reveal on the onset that BF3 would be 30fps (headline topping news, remember) or if BF3 runs at a sub 720p resolution (704p is nothing to sneeze at, CoD is what? 550p) gamers want confirming evidence as to just how representational BF3's console offerings will actually be.
BUt anyway, yes, I think in games that aren't nearly as story driven, or nearly as methodical, and are also about immersing oneself in a virtual setting, especially from the first person, graphics do matter a lot.

Last edited by Temjin001 on 9/7/2011 2:33:37 PM

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 2:45:38 PM

It saddens me that we sometimes have to stoop a bit to get those hits, but at least our actual body of material is often superior to what you find elsewhere.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 2:46:28 PM
Reply

Maybe graphics don't matter much, CoD still looks really outdated.

Agree with this comment 6 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 6:13:37 PM

Absolutely. That's what I'm sayin'. If graphics were -the- most important part, CoD would not be king.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 2:51:36 PM
Reply

Well, graphics may not be the most important thing, but it sure IS important. For example, that's one of the biggest selling points of Killzone 2 (and 3) and even one of the greatest games of all-time, Uncharted 2. The fact that these are great games also obviously just make them even greater.

I'm not in any way a FPS fan, but if I'm gonna play an FPS I'll play the best-looking ones which is why I'm a little bit interested in Battlefield 3. I'm sure there are examples of games with great graphics but are still bad, but great games with great graphics make them even better, and well that's one of the core strengths of the PS3, no pun intended..

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

sirbob6
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 3:41:14 PM
Reply

I'd say that graphics are very, very important because they help with immersion.

However, gameplay and controls come out ahead of it. If a game is boring and doesn't feel right then no matter how pretty it is it will still suck.

Agree with this comment 5 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ignitus
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 4:50:54 PM
Reply

If graphics were the most important thing in a FPS Killzone would be the king, yet it sells fewer than the PS3 version of COD.

Fun gameplay comes in first than graphics in my book and it seems (sales wise) that I'm not alone.

Agree with this comment 3 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 8:00:35 PM

Ok, so if gameplay would come first, why would Call of duty beat Killzone?? IMO Killzone 2 is a heck of a lot more fun to play than any CoD game, and looks a LOT better doing it, and still sells a lot less.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Ignitus
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 8:47:04 PM

I don't know for sure but I guess it has to do that in your opinion Killzone is better than COD but there are a lot more PS3 gamers that think otherwise and buy the COD games over Killzone.

BTW, I haven't played a COD game at all but I don't think 15 million+ gamers can be wrong.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Thursday, September 08, 2011 @ 1:19:09 PM

That's because it has nothing to do with graphics, or gameplay but whatever is the "popular" game that all the other kids play, which means CoD, or Halo right now in this world where everything must be about multiplayer.

What's "wrong"? Then I guess 2b Chinese can't be wrong. So the millions of people who choose Killzone over CoD are wrong?

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Doppel
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 5:49:22 PM
Reply

Constant Framerate is, in my opinion, is the most important in a first person shooter. Having a constant locked framerate makes it much more comfortable to play.

30fps is nice while 60 is very good.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 5:59:12 PM

everything better be 60fps on PS4

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Qubex
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 11:21:36 PM

Yes... I hope we are not "cheated" again about a fully fledged capable HD console.

But this time I have learnt my lesson. I won't purchase the PS4 day one, I will let it settle in for at least 6 months to a year. See the technicals and how it performs before climbing in like I did the PS3... paying a hefty price to be like one of the first in Singapore to get one.

I won't do that again...

Q!

"play.experience.enjoy"

Last edited by Qubex on 9/7/2011 11:22:03 PM

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Underdog15
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 6:12:41 PM
Reply

I disagree. Some people do, yes. But they are ignorant to what makes games great. Graphics that are excellent certainly do deserve praise! Absolutely they do. But that is not the most important factor.

However, what I am really disagreeing on is the idea that FPS fans and the genre itself hold graphics as the highest and most important point.

If that were true, then why the aech ee double hockeysticks is CoD the best selling game of all time, let alone best selling shooter. No one in their right mind would say that CoD is the pinnacle of graphics engineering. Yet, it is easily the go-to shooter of the generation.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

jimmyhandsome
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 6:18:26 PM

Word. You could say the same thing about the Halo series.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 8:51:59 PM

CoD thrives on continuity and customer lock in, MW2 and Call of Duty build on the previous Call of Duty game, and MW3 will build further. gamers who play through one, and play shooters with their friends often move as a group, and once they fixate on a given game franchise, they stick with it rather than try something else.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 1 down Disagree with this comment

Beamboom
Thursday, September 08, 2011 @ 2:02:45 AM

It is true what High say about multiplayers often moving as a group. Once you become part of a community you want to continue being in that community.

Is psxe the technically best community site on the web? Hardly. Yet, here we are! ;)


Last edited by Beamboom on 9/8/2011 2:03:15 AM

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

clockwyzebkny
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 6:14:57 PM
Reply

Graphics are very important in current gen games in general but I believe FPS games get scrutinized the most when it comes to graphics. Any first person game that comes out is set to have you feeling immersed in the world first hand. Games with poorer graphic presentation, unfortunately gets overlooked even if it's agreat game.

I cannot lie, sometimes i feel like a graphics whore. I worship some games for their incredible detail but it's usually a game that has the complete package ie: Uncharted series.

Most of the times, fun is the biggest factor for my enjoyment of a game. Perfect example. : GTAIV vs SR2. GTAIV's graphics were pretty good and technically better but SR2's fun factor was way better which made me enjoy the game and even the graphics more.

I've read the Resistance 3 review and although i've been put off frrom the series before, I've mae the decision to give R3 a try even tho the graphics may be "lacking" in some areas.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Lairfan
Wednesday, September 07, 2011 @ 6:17:59 PM
Reply

If this were true then nobody would buy CoD.

I think its more to do with what type of gameplay it is right now. Most FPS fans nowadays only care about military-style FPS's. The only sci-fi shooter that sells anywhere near the amount an average military shooter sells is Halo, and that may start to drop as CoD, BF, and MoH get more and more popular.

The other thing most FPS fans focus on is how accessible the shooter is. If it takes too long to get used to, most people will just throw it out and go for something easier. That's one of the big reasons why CoD sells so much yearly.

And as for graphics, well, I think only if they're truly groundbreaking (like BF3's) will they be a major selling point. And even then, it still matters what kind of shooter it is (Crysis 2 only sold 2 mil overall, BF3 will more than likely sell 5 mil +).

Agree with this comment 2 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

___________
Thursday, September 08, 2011 @ 3:43:10 AM
Reply

and youre any different?
its not only FPS fans, its FREAKING EVERYONE!
theres a reason why technological masterpieces but boring as hell games get so much praise, yet bloody awesome fun games but buggy as hell get poor games.
look at KZ, uncharted, GOW, GT, RE, LP2, GTA all really well received games that were boring as f*ck but really puuuuurdy.
up against games like driver, bodycount, just cause 2, saints row, K&L, wanted weapons of fate, WET, dead of rights retribution, dead island, all not the best looking games, but were 100000 times more fun then any of those puuuuuuuurdy games!
hell dead island is the perfect example, every single review i have read the only complaints i have read is its buggy and it does not look as good as it should.
thats it!
so a game deserves a 6 just because it has a little texture pop in, and does not look like uncharted?
give me a f*cking break!
THIS is exactly why were drowning in nothing but shooters!
all people give a 2 hoots about is how good a game looks, which is why developers are spending much less attention on story and gameplay.
theres a reason why you could count the amount of games with a really well written complex story this gen on a single hand!
from ps1 and ps2 though you would need to chop down the amazon rainforest to list them all!

Agree with this comment 1 up, 2 down Disagree with this comment

Highlander
Thursday, September 08, 2011 @ 10:59:39 AM

Uncharted was boring?

fzzzt...there goes your credibility.

Agree with this comment 1 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Crabba
Thursday, September 08, 2011 @ 1:26:37 PM

Except Dead Island looks like just another shooter, with a couple of tiny RPG elements thrown in for good measure, and that's your definition of a great unique game.

Then you say "developers are spending much less attention on story and gameplay" and yet you say Uncharted is boring.. yeah ok.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

sirbob6
Thursday, September 08, 2011 @ 2:50:13 PM

Crabba, don't let World hear you say that.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

D1g1tal5torm
Thursday, September 08, 2011 @ 9:07:09 AM
Reply

Everyone expects all games to have superior graphics. It's expected as standard on the nextgen machines we have today.

And that is why graphics is never the MOST important criteria for ANY game.

Personally, for FPS, it's about map/level design, flow, tactics employment/AI etc.

Graphics should just be THERE; not only with FPS, but all games nowadays.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

DeathOfChaos
Thursday, September 08, 2011 @ 1:49:38 PM
Reply

I think since all FPS games are pretty much the same thing redone over and over, graphics are the only thing they have left to differentiate each title. Most FPS games nowadays have little to no story, have the same general story if it does, and the fact that it's in a first person view, that pretty much takes away the whole individuality, in my opinion. There are certain gems like Portal that take the formula and make a real change, something new and inviting that all the others don't have, but that's rare. Oh well, right? No body in the trigger happy sense really cares how similar all of them are, they'll buy it up regardless because the title is different than the last one and in all due respect... that's truly the only thing different about them

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Gravelight
Thursday, September 08, 2011 @ 2:53:20 PM
Reply

I believe that the reason the graphics are so important is mostly because people want to relate to what they see in real life and get the feel of actually being there without actually being there. It makes it that much more exiting and it really shows the talent the developers took to create the game. To project yourself into the game by making it seem as real as possible is the most sought after achievement by many gamers I think.

Agree with this comment 0 up, 0 down Disagree with this comment

Leave a Comment

Please login or register to leave a comment.

Our Poll

Will the PS4 continue to outsell the Xbox One?
Definitely. Microsoft has no hope.
Probably, but it will be a tight race.
I doubt it; Xbox One will come back.
No, PS4 will falter over the years.

Previous Poll Results