Graphics or Performance, Your thoughts! Created 18 years ago2006-02-14 11:18:05 UTC by Rimrook

Just leave your thoughts about what is more important, graphics, or performance. This is for a reference paper due in an hour and 30 minutes, so please leave some notes so i have references to write a paper about.

why?

I THINK graphics in a game are quite important because it gives the game a feel of realism.

think of half life 2 with blocks as people

on the other hand nobody likes a game that lags too much like in cs if you have lag it is almost imposible to kill someone

50-50 easy

I think that if I had to decide which is better, I would choose Performance. Take the XBOX 360 for instance: It has obscenely good graphics, but not one of the games released has made me want to get a 360 :. If you take a game like Counter Strike 1.6 Versus Counter Strike: Source. The major fan-base is for 1.6 simply because it is more fun. I got Source, and played it for about a week, and then went back to 1.6, becasue source doesn't have the same good feeling.
I agree with D_man HL2 would be nothing without its great graphics, but the performace is truly what counts.
I take if from a mapping perspective: I first think about my layout, and whether the map will be fun to play before I add the bells and whistles. Not everyone maps this way of course, that is why most custom Source maps have crappy gameplay, people get too caught up in making them look pretty or realistic.
I think I've said enough. Hope this helps your paper rimmy.

Edit: Just thought I would add that Games like PacMan, Donkey Kong, Mega Man and Super Mario Bros. are still fun even though they run on an 8-bit system. That shows that graphics aren't the sole decider in the quality of games.

Visual [-------[JC]-------] FPS

It's pointless to me to play a FPS if your computer cannot run it at least over 20 frames per second, but on an other game it's pointless too to play a game that would look like 10 years old first 3D games, with 4-8 cubes on the screen...

awsome. if you guys are feeling more nice, you can go here.

http://twhl.co.za/forums.php?pgt=1&action=viewthread&id=10397&pg=1

The debate is not performance vs. graphics. People will always complain if one of them is given more importance. Let me use Doom III as an example: People complain that performance wasnt so great, specially if we consider that most of the game is dark and has no big open areas. Graphics (textures, models etc) are nice, with its consequent hit in performance. So far so good. Now imagine what would have happened if there were less world and model polygons and crappy textures. People would have complained that the game should've been better, even if that version had a great performance!!
Engine scaleability plays a big role here. Adjustable performance is the key to making everyone happy.
(I thought this was an important Source engine feature, but the difference between running HL2 in my computer @1024x768 with max effects and doing the same thing @640x480 is a meaguer 6 fps in most maps... )

Of course. But I was talking about performance in Source, not HL1 engine.

Its simply really,

If a game has amazing graphics but as a result has poor performance its unplayable, if a game has great performance but poor graphics it is still playable.

Performance is a building block for games, graphics is an added extra.

Im not saying graphics are not important because they are, but only one of them makes the game unplayable without the other!

I'm indifferent on the matter but I'd rather have the performance myself. When HL2 came out my PC was less than half what it is now and I had to play it on the lowest settings but it was still a great game.

I'm also a frequent player of HL1. The performance is top notch, impossible to get any better on the old engine, but the graphics are severely outdated but its a playable game. One of the best.

I'm not going to say graphics make no difference because thats not true. If you went out to the shops and bought a game today you'd expect almost photo-realistic visuals and an interacitve physics system and whatever else. You'd hardly fork out ?35 or $45 on Lemmings or Star wars : X-Wing nowadays. But they are still playable games.

Performance is one of the most important things when creating a game (especially with expanding the MMO community) but graphics make no real difference on the gameplay. They are really just dressing.

Optimizing is also a key factor in this discussion. Why did FEAR have good graphics and horrible performance? They obviously thought that people would overlook performance because of the nice shaders, decals, sounds and sprites the game has.
Shiny Entertainment went with graphics instead of performance in Enter The Matrix (and not so great graphics after all). They thought that a hall filled with breakable pillars and enemies would be just fine. Of course, they could always argue that the Matrix computer itself could be laggy...

But then look at HL2. Its playable, the performance is great the graphics are incredible yet most people still go back to HL1.

If It didnt need STEAM to run, HL2 would be far more used I think. It also takes very long to load maps compared to HL1, but that's understandable. Maybe some years from now, HL2 will be as important as HL1 is now. Specially since the engine is better and capable of a better polygon/performance ratio.

Performance above all else. Look at FFVII, its graphics are old but the performance is perfect and people still play it. Now look at Doom3... uh-huh.

Perfomace, as is stated, is a must have. Graphics can vary, so long as its still playable and easy enough to see what everything is or is ment to be, graphics dont matter. Performance on the other hand does. Ever tried to play a RTS with lag? Or a CSS with lag? Makes you quit.

Performance of FFVII is not an issue here. The game is about 9 years old, and I remember it performing miserably on a 233 mhz. Graphics are what move the industry. We would be stuck with the Playstation texels if graphics didnt really matter. No one buys a 360 for performance, it's just the graphics.

Nice graphics is a luxury. Good performance is a need

We shouldnt praise games on performance or graphics alone. The important thing is how to combine both.

Good balance is king yes, I can't get anything good on this computer, slow performance and only crappy games really (Not including HL and a few others)

shoudn't this be graphics vs. gameplay?
gameplay is more important but graphics can be turned down
FEAR on 320x280 anyone?

Performance. I play Enemy Territory with 16-bit color, low texture/model quality, low geometric quality and no atmospheric effects, and I don't give a crap about the graphics quality. I concentrate on the gameplay. However, for singleplayer games, I'd say a balance of both is good.

Depends on the game!

FPSs, graphics are nice, but performance is vital.

Solitaire? Pump up de graphics.

La da de diddum
La da da dum doo, diddol
Dum do la dee do

There, that's sufficent
I wrote a haiku, for you
Well I tried at least

Quaaaality song.

Uhh why would you buy any console if you are looking at graphics? A PC can do exponentially more than a console could dream of in that department. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the first xbox 640x480 on the tv screen? I wonder how much the 360 improved on that...

It hasn't, for most. They just have to run at whatever resolution their TV runs at. 576 x something for England. 1080 x something if you have an HDTV.

If a map is so laggy that's unplayable, then the purpose of the map is lost.

I turned down the graphics setting so I can have high framerates. If there is anyone who does that (and there are plenty), then all of us are solid proof that performance is more important.

Well, I played Lost Coast with the maximum graphics I could, even if it meant lower framerates. Some maps are a showcase for eye candy, and unless your playing multiplayer, it's nice to look at some maps in all their beauty.
Many games use this formula to make more detailed enviroments in combat-free areas, and focusing on performance in places where there will be more player models, sprites etc. Of course, the already mentioned F.E.A.R development team had no clue about that.