Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 73211	2006-10-11 08:11:00	Good Games: Gameplay or Graphics?	motorbyclist (188)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
490709	2006-10-11 08:11:00	Basically, i'm sick of certain people telling others that they are wasting time playing games with a graphics card that costs less than $400 or more. for some of us, that is a ridiculous amount to spend on something that will be worth half as much in 12 months time, when a card for half the price will still run games without lag, albeit not at max settings, and will not depreciate quite so badly... so, this begs the question: What makes a good game? Gameplay or Graphics? There are the old classics that many people still play, like StarCraft, Age of Empires II, even BattleField1942 and the original CounterStrike are getting dated now. why do people still play these despite the first two examples aren't even 3D, and are almost a decade old? simple; the games are fun to play, and fun IS the point of a game isnt it? i even installed Road Rash a while ago lol, horrible graphics/physics, awesome fun. My mate plays FEAR using a FX5600, the settings arent up very high, but it's still fun. you dont even notice the difference once you've gotten into it (and then you can make fun of the guy u just pwned, just like when you defeat an opponent while using dialup with ping >500) So why tell people who have stated they are on a budget not to bother on anything less than the latest high end card? provided there isnt any lag, why bother if you cannot afford to? now i'm not saying that looking pretty is a bad thing, but is it really necessary? please find a flaw in this argument (i'm sure you all will) I use a 128MB 6600gt, amd athlon 64 3000+, 1GB ram all on a retarded ecs motherboard. I can run most games at or slightly below max settings and still maintain healthy framerates. i got the 6600gt when they were $240 cheapest price on pricespy. i'll possibly upgrade to a 7900gt when they get around there, IF i can afford to, provided i've replaced this unstable motherboard first (obviously more important), and i'll probably try to future proof my rig by going am2 and get new CPU and RAM lol	motorbyclist (188)
490710	2006-10-11 12:12:00	I agree with everything you say. I call people who buy the vid cards around $1000 "nuts". You can just ignore the "latest and greatest" and save a great deal of $$$ - not to mention grief with some of the dodgy releases these days. I was that excited by FEAR as an example, it all looked promising but the level design was horrible. For me, framerate is the key (and I'm talking about avoiding the horrible low frame rate incidents than just the average value). I also enjoy stability - no point saying it is all good if a game craps out out every hour.. I aim for the $500 price point and usually redo the whole rig at the same time.	gibler (49)
490711	2006-10-11 17:32:00	At best I like a combination of both (I guess everyone does) but in saying that I still play games like red alert 2 (with user maps!) and the ol' arcade classic altered beast. Even drug lord that has no graphics is fun....	rob_on_guitar (4196)
490712	2006-10-11 19:22:00	Starcraft graphics are very dated these days, but the gameplay kicks the ass of most modern strategy games.	Greven (91)
490713	2006-10-11 19:38:00	for some of us, that is a ridiculous amount to spend on something that will be worth half as much in 12 months time, so, this begs the question: What makes a good game? Gameplay or Graphics? My mate plays FEAR using a FX5600, the settings arent up very high, but it's still fun. you dont even notice the difference once you've gotten into it True. Gameplay mostly but you can't go back - try playing something from the Amiga era. Oh yes you do notice the difference once you have played it on a high end card. The details, the smoke, the thick goopey blood as opposed to flat red paint looking stuff. Thats the problem, stick with medium to low cards and you don't know what you are missing and can still play the game. But see it on an expensive card and you can never stand the lesser effects again. That was the reason my friend refused to play it on his older PC all this time - until he got his new hardware. He could have, on lower settings but he wouldn't cause he'd played it first on mine. Have to say I agree, I couldn't go back now.....	pctek (84)
490714	2006-10-11 20:00:00	So why tell people who have stated they are on a budget not to bother on anything less than the latest high end card? provided there isnt any lag, why bother if you cannot afford to? I've never bought a high-end card. I always buy fairly budget cards, because while I do value graphics, it just doesn't make economical sense to me to spend $1500 on a card that'll be worth $300 in 12-months time, while at the same time I never get $1500 worth of enjoyment out of having that card compared to a a $400-$500 one. I've got a X1900 in my system right now cause I wanted to test FS X with it, but it'll have to come out soon and my 6600GT will go back in. Having said that, I'll probably look to upgrade that to something a bit better soon.	Biggles (121)
490715	2006-10-11 20:22:00	True. Gameplay mostly but you can't go back - try playing something from the Amiga era. Oh yes you do notice the difference once you have played it on a high end card. The details, the smoke, the thick goopey blood as opposed to flat red paint looking stuff. Thats the problem, stick with medium to low cards and you don't know what you are missing and can still play the game. But see it on an expensive card and you can never stand the lesser effects again. That was the reason my friend refused to play it on his older PC all this time - until he got his new hardware. He could have, on lower settings but he wouldn't cause he'd played it first on mine. Have to say I agree, I couldn't go back now..... I fully agree with PCTek here you can run games on low-mid range cards, but you don't get the level of detail that a high end card can give and I believe that the more detail in a game generally means that it will be more realistic, I don't really like those arcade style games that look as unrealistic as they come, I prefer the realistic looking ones like FEAR, Oblivion etc and a high end card does make it noticabley better (for me anyway). But it all comes down to what YOU want to spend and what level of realism YOU want from your gaming experience, when we reccomend high cards that is because we believe that you will be happy with the high level of detail/realism that a high end card can give compared to a low-mid... but at the end of the day who are we to talk? what you want is up to YOU.	The_End_Of_Reality (334)
490716	2006-10-11 20:58:00	Why do you think Xbox Live Arcade has been such a hit? Personally Ive been over at a mates place 1-2 nights a week since he got Wik, playing it, and its gone some increidbly simple 2D graphics but we've played it for the last 6 weeks for at least 5 hours a week... the game only cost like 5 bucks. Same goes for the likes of Dead Or Alive, its not the flashiest but people still like games like it!	Chilling_Silence (9)
490717	2006-10-11 23:53:00	I still play CC3 and Panzer Elite. Graphics are fine for me.	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
490718	2006-10-12 00:32:00	Silly poll. What all want is great gameplay, good graphics and cheap titles. Simple really. Oh and cheap high end graphics cards to go along with it.	pctek (84)
1 2 3 4 5