They don't want new visual effects but they also don't want old style graphics?

the messages i'm getting relate to specific graphical features that adversely affect gameplay or enjoyment (more because of shoddy implementation rather than by design), not graphical advances as a whole.

then there is obviously the matter of subjectivity. everyone likes games to look good, but not everyone has the same opinion of what looks good and what doesn't (case in point: motion blur), and it seems you're calling people 'fucking retarded' for having differing personal tastes... 

My understanding of the argument is : "Many new advancements in graphical technologies are used poorly and thus should not be developed."

If this is basically the case (I'm probably leaving out details) then it's false, because even if you develop some really obscure graphics tech, if it can be applied in a cool way then it's good. Maybe not worth the cost on the GPU to render it if it's really expensive, but the point is how the tech is used really. 

I dont think its so much that they dont want new visual effects as much as they dont want new visual effects which they dont like.

So let them turn them off where possible!

Or dont, screw 'em. 

"then there is obviously the matter of subjectivity. everyone likes games to look good, but not everyone has the same opinion of what looks good and what doesn't (case in point: motion blur), and it seems you're calling people 'fucking retarded' for having differing personal tastes..."

Really? That "fucking retarded" can be regarded as hyperbole, something this board normally excels in. Now it's an issue? Please. 

yeah agreed pretty much. development & implementation probably need distinguishing more.. 

Well it seems you're perfectly set to defend your corner - it's not a discussion but an argument since you have no intention of changing your thinking.

My original point was that games don't need to look incredible in order for people to like them.

A lot of companies get caught up in a technology race, always wanting the best graphics, which seems kind of pointless really.

I'd say there is a reasonable lower limit of graphical fidelity, but the eye candy effects for me (and I'd guess for most others) are just fluff, additional to the game.

No big deal if left out.

Looking at reviews the graphics are factored in as 1 piece of the total score, amongst 4-5 others. When they mention 'has graphical feature X' it tends to sum up months of work in a single sentence, since there's not a lot interesting to say about said feature.

Each to their own though.

Some responses:

Doesn't that seem counter productive? Are you trying to make ugly looking games?
Yes it does. But I work in a team and it takes time to convince people that other ways can be better. As long as the game doesn't look like utter shit or completely out of date I couldn't care how it looks. That's not my concern.

Then it's unclear what people want.
If there was an easy answer to that we'd all be millionaires.

Yes, yes, we all do. However, good gameplay doesn't have to look like a game from 1997 does it?

Minimum level of graphic quality Vs. cosmetic graphical features again. 

"Well it seems you're perfectly set to defend your corner - it's not a discussion but an argument since you have no intention of changing your thinking."

I take some offense to this if only because it's pretty clear that you won't be changing your mind either. You are hard locked into your argument.

"I'd say there is a reasonable lower limit of graphical fidelity, but the eye candy effects for me (and I'd guess for most others) are just fluff, additional to the game."

This the divide, I guess. They are not always fluff and often provide feedback and immersion to players. That they are sometimes done poorly doesn't mean they aren't useful. 

Fancy shit is cool if you use it well and sucks if you don't. 

If that's the summary, then some of you people need to get way better at wording your complaints. :) 

I did change my stance from 'all that stuff is shit' to 'most of that stuff is shit'.

----

I distrust immersion in relation to graphical effects because there's no way that graphical effects can heighten immersion beyond a certain point.

At the end of the day it's some guy sat in an armchair playing the game with a controller.

If you're going for pure immersion then Wii / Natal motion control, lawnmower man helmets and Tron leotards are the future.

Feedback is different though and where such effects can be great. I forget the game it was, but it gave the player a buzzing sound in their speakers and motion blur over the entire screen when a grenade went off nearby. That was great. 

I think most modern war games do that. I know Battlefield : Bad Company does and I THINK Modern Warfare 2 did ... can't remember now. 

I'm wanting special graphical effects to be used for special game play events.

I don't resent having pretty stuff to look at, but unless they reinforce the interaction then they belong more animation than games. 

I'm wanting special graphical effects to be used for special game play events.

Red Orchestra the multiplayer WW2 FPS does this pretty well. Machinegun fire actually suppresses players, as in you get loud sound effects as the bullets whiz by, and your screen gets blurry. It's harder to do anything, so you're more likely to keep yourself in cover, i.e. suppressed.

Visual effects with an actual, nice gameplay function. Who would've though? 

I was playing bad company 2 at a friends yesterday, and the audio effect when something explodes near you is truly fantastic. Rather than some horrid high pitched wailing sound that kills your ears (hello stalker, hl2, etc) they decided to transform the audio to sound like the record volume is way to high, what you get is this awesome KAWOOOOSH and what can only be described as some distorted Roland TB303 acid line as the explosive goes off.

I actually enjoyed getting blown up in that game, just so I could hear it again =) 

played modern warfare 2 on a friend's ps3. we played coop missions and aside from sucking because i couldn't aim, i thought it looked amazing and it was a lot of fun.
my favourite is the mission where one of you is in a helicopter equiped with a minigun with explosive ammo and you have to escort the other guy who is on the ground getting swarmed by tons of guys. ^_^ 

I like the covert snow one a lot. It's just really good fun coordinating/timing your sniper take downs and dropping a group of 4 enemies in 1 1/2 seconds 

http://angryhosting-east.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/a6/a6f054fdce140ff35dd475fbcc5ffbdcb5255717.png


That's from the Cave Story WiiWare port which, according to http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3282952 they fucked up. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwttM09WoYo&feature=related 

The sounds are kind of cool. Only missing some industrial beats. 

is kind of cool and missing some industrial beats. 

Apparently on sale for $30 on steam this week, and also some info about new game modes coming along with The Passing

http://kotaku.com/5500325/left-4-dead-2s-the-passing-brings-new-game-modes-plural 

and its all just a misunderstanding...

thanks for the heads up zwif, I might get that. 

It's actually $25 until Thursday. A good deal for those who don't have it yet, but deep in their heart know they want it (cough* Drew, Mac guys ;)).
I hope this means the release of The Passing is due soon. At first they said March, now it's "spring". 

"and its all just a misunderstanding... "

It's also a lesson in that people need to start using less hyperbole and just say what they mean. If you start out with an extreme position, it's inevitably going to cause confusion. 

not gonna happen, haha!

my computer is like 2 steps above a scientific calculator.

besides, I spend too much time as it is fucking around with quake - any more distractions and I might as well just drop out.