Graphics Junkies are so spoiled...

I was just looking at this trailer here: Gametrailers.com - Venetica - Debut Trailer

As you can tell, the visuals are reletivley impressive.

And yet you can see in the comments all the graphics junkies complaining, saying they resemble Gamecube and PS2 Graphics and saying it looks horrible.

Are these guys really this stupid?

That's kind of why they're called "Graphics junkies"

Graphics junkies have every right in the world to scoff at this game. They paid for systems that could display some hardcore eyecandy, and this game is NOT hardcore eyecandy.

Indeed, on something like the Wii the graphics would be relatively impressive, but seeing as how this is a 2009 360/PC affair, the graphics are woefully underwhelming. It doesn't help that the character models look like WoW castoffs.

The art style sucks. Not the graphics.

The graphics look good enough to me. Any further time improving them is time taken away from more important aspects of the game.

I've been playing GTA IV and Halo 3, I expect I little bit more from a games graphics. I guess for people who've been playing the Wii those graphics might look okay...

thats why i dont read the comments. the posters are always *******s. i dont care if the game could be ultra-realistic. the game might still be good. it really doesnt matter. the graphics are good enough to serve their purpose. i actually think it seems like an interesting concept. although i cant really tell.

i think graphic-whoring is getting really out of hand. quite often now a game doesnt even have a real trailer when its first announced. its usually just a tech demo or some sweeping shots of the environments.

Originally Posted by Zora Fisherman

thats why i dont read the comments. the posters are always *******s. i dont care if the game could be ultra-realistic. the game might still be good. it really doesnt matter. the graphics are good enough to serve their purpose. i actually think it seems like an interesting concept. although i cant really tell.

i think graphic-whoring is getting really out of hand. quite often now a game doesnt even have a real trailer when its first announced. its usually just a tech demo or some sweeping shots of the environments.

I remember a trailer for FF: Crystal Bearers that just showed the world. No actual gameplay at all.

I don't understand Graphics Nazis. Would they rather have a game that looks okay but plays like a dream, or one that looks absolutely stunning but plays badly?

Originally Posted by Daphnes

I remember a trailer for FF: Crystal Bearers that just showed the world. No actual gameplay at all.

That's because FF loves to go with movies as a trailer. That's what really brings in the fans, then they get the game and their like, huh? That was me anyway.

EDIT : after viewing the trailer, I'm honestly not that impressed. Sure they're good graphics, a bit better than GC, but compared to pretty much anything else I've played on my 360, it gets a big thumbs down. I would have wanted something gorgeous, which could be done for this game.

I agree with Daphnes, putting too much effort into graphics just slows down the production, and delays what may be an amazing game. Who wasn't annoyed when they kept delaying SSBB, and TP? I think the gaming comunity has put too much importance on graphics, everyone kept saying that the Wii wouldn't seel because of it's graphics, but it's at the top of the market because it has genuinly fun games. I still love playing all my old school 2-D games, or early 3D (Virtua Fighter!) because they are fun games, I don't realy care what the graphics look like. This is also not to mention the pricing, low price for a fun system, with a large variety of games, or huge price for amazing graphics, and not many realy good games?

Yeah! Let's keep fighting this invisible graphics-only loving enemy!

Originally Posted by Mr. Wonderful

Yeah! Let's keep fighting this invisible graphics-only loving enemy!

You'd be surprised how "visible" they make themselves.

Originally Posted by Blizzaga

You'd be surprised how "visible" they make themselves.

Yes, and alot of times it's the people who don't actualy know video games that well, and think that Halo, Guitar Hero 3, and GTA are the only games that exist. I know a few people like that

Originally Posted by Blizzaga

You'd be surprised how "visible" they make themselves.

thanks to blu-ray.

Originally Posted by Zora Fisherman

thanks to blu-ray.

..........
I don't think I can put up with any more blu-ray propoganda. Honestly, all this high def stuff, I have never notice that much of a difference, I'm happy with my 14" TV, I can watch TV, play games, I don't need anything more. I find it the same with graphics, yeah, good graphic are cool to look at and go "wow, that looks good". But why are they so important? Books have horrible graphics, and no one complains about them. Blu-ray, IMO, is an excuse for Sony to overcharge on all their products, and to explain why their system is so oversized and ugly.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

I agree with Daphnes, putting too much effort into graphics just slows down the production, and delays what may be an amazing game. Who wasn't annoyed when they kept delaying SSBB, and TP? I think the gaming comunity has put too much importance on graphics, everyone kept saying that the Wii wouldn't seel because of it's graphics, but it's at the top of the market because it has genuinly fun games.

When I pay four hundred bucks for a new system, there better be a damned good reason other than the company wanting money. And graphics is a big selling point of the PS3 and 360. Nothing in the game trailer for this game showed anything that couldn't be done on a PS2 or an Xbox. I'm not saying it's a bad game, but to get recognition on a big level nowadays, your game needs something new, fresh. If you don't have new graphics, or some new mechanic made possible by the new system's hardware, it doesn't mean it's a bad game or that it will do bad, it just will probably be overlooked by your average gaming consumer or other companies that rate games.

And bad graphics don't equal fun. A fun game can be something with graphics as simple as Starcraft, or something with graphics as nice as GTA4.

Originally Posted by Raunm

When I pay four hundred bucks for a new system, there better be a damned good reason other than the company wanting money. And graphics is a big selling point of the PS3 and 360. Nothing in the game trailer for this game showed anything that couldn't be done on a PS2 or an Xbox. I'm not saying it's a bad game, but to get recognition on a big level nowadays, your game needs something new, fresh. If you don't have new graphics, or some new mechanic made possible by the new system's hardware, it doesn't mean it's a bad game or that it will do bad, it just will probably be overlooked by your average gaming consumer or other companies that rate games.

That's exactly what I mean though, yes graphic and everything are nice, but why do they seem to end up being the main selling point for games? So many amaing games fail because they don't have the best graphics they could.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

That's exactly what I mean though, yes graphic and everything are nice, but why do they seem to end up being the main selling point for games? So many amaing games fail because they don't have the best graphics they could.

Well gaming's a mixed bag. There are a lot of different genres of gaming, and unlike movies, certain cultures grow from these genres, and they tend to loathe other genres. This can be pulled out even broader, in that cultures grow from each system, and this can be pulled out even broader than that, in that cultures grow from graphical preference. There are many reasons people like graphics. First of all, it's what you first see and judge, second of all, it sets the whole mood for the rest of the game. GTA4 would not have been the same had the graphics been a different style, or lesser of a quality than they now are. The story couldn't be taken seriously if Niko was running around in a cel-shaded Liberty City. But for a game like Wind Waker, it would have been a bit more awkward and darker had the game had more realistic graphics. It also would have made sailing perhaps more boring, because the colors would be less vivid and you wouldn't be as, captivated.

So graphics do affect how people judge games greatly, especially for the 360 and PS3, because they are the selling points of the system. But for the DS, since graphics aren't it's selling point, people don't gripe as much over the graphics. Same for all the Gameboys. Their selling point is their portability and fun easy going games, not usually story driven. And then the DS has the touch stylus selling point, so people judge how the stylus is used a lot with DS games. So logically, it's just how people think.

But then, there are just people who don't know ****, and want games that look cool. Some people just have ADD and want beautiful graphics to keep them intrigued. *shrug*

I like the graphics.

And from the looks of that game, it's probaly set in a huge world, with maybe hundres of NPC's. There are probably a bunch of sidequests, and many places to explore. In the vid, it says "Which path will you take?" which implies that there maybe multiple endings. And thus, the developers had to cut back on graphics to make the sidequests and world as best as they could.

People are just shallow.

EDIT: Also, it's set to be released next year. Perhaps by then the graphics will be more toned and real.