Bethesda: People Who Say Graphics "Don't Matter" Are Usually Lying

[MaxwellEdison]

What gets lost in this discussion is that good graphics doesn't need to mean realistic ones.

You know what games had graphics that were good? Limbo. Minecraft. Games with an appealing aesthetic have good graphics. So, yeah, good graphics are important. High-end expensive time wasting ones aren't.

 

[w00tage]

Bethesda: People Who Say Graphics "Don't Matter" Are Usually Lying

Graphics can make or break whether people are interested in a game, said Hines. "[People] will look at a screenshot and make a snap decision: 'that looks awesome,' or 'I'm not interested.' So if you can make something look amazing just at first glance, it's so much easier to get them."

Graphics aren't just a marketing point either, said Hines - they can aid in a sense of immersion in a fictional world.

Permalink

You know, I was going to parse this, but he's just openly saying that graphics affect the emotional decision of impulse buying. Which is important not to immersiveness or gameplay, but to his paycheck, because Marketing gets the credit for sales. So, that pretty much sums up his interest in graphics right there.

I would call him a liar, but deceiving people to get their money is what Marketing does all day long anyways, so what's the point.

 

[FoolKiller]

[People] will look at a screenshot and make a snap decision: "that looks awesome," or "I'm not interested." So if you can make something look amazing just at first glance, it's so much easier to get them.

Well then you're not really talking about graphics, but more about visual design.

It's also why every screen shot these days is of video sequences and not of actual gameplay.

 

[blankedboy]

Meh, they can be a great addition. But look at Morrowind, it's probably the most immersive game I've ever played and it has shit graphics. Derp.

 

[thiosk]

I don't care about anything in skyrim except whether or not I can decorate my wizard's tower with skulls.

Meh, they can be a great addition. But look at Morrowind, it's probably the most immersive game I've ever played and it has shit graphics. Derp.

I don't know, it looked pretty dang good on release.

 

[Canid117]

They matter...


Gameplay and story just matter more.

....judging by FF13 sales, I would say not.(sadly)


they game i can think of most clearly when graphics were a HUGE part of the experience is Shadow of the Colossus.
I remember my first glance at a colossus. A sense of awe crept over me. Simply put, graphics matter because how you visually experience things has an affect on you. If SotC was done in 3D dot Hero graphics, it wouldn't have come across half as awesome.

Popularity != Quality.

 

[fallouthirteen]

Well everything matters; it's just I'd say graphics don't matter as much as other facets. I mean, look at some of the games with best graphics of their times. Wasn't Crysis a sort of benchmark when it came out? Now today, compare a game like that overall to say Super Metroid or (since it's often declared the "best game ever") Ocarina of Time. A game that sells on graphics if often just a flash in the pan. Over time good games get remembered, and occasionally remade, making even more money contributing to even more success.

 

[Mordwyl]

It's not that they don't matter, but as of late the excessive focus is damaging the game overall. If done right a game's graphics will age astoundingly well regardless of the era they were developed in, however this is the exception and not the rule. You want to hit the long-term mark with your player base? You make GOOD games.

 

[michael87cn]

Well guess what Pete Hines? You're wrong. "Good graphics" are standard now. Did he go blind or something? I haven't seen a game with bad graphics get a good rating in like 10 years... good graphics aren't important because they're a requirement now, it's like saying hey look I'm wearing a t-shirt, isn't it the best? Yeah... but we're all wearing one too..

That said I still think old games are just as fun to play today as they were then. And somehow graphics don't matter. Explain that.

Skyrim could have Fallout 3's graphics engine and I would be happy if the gameplay was much improved over Oblivion. Heck, it could have Morrowind's.

I'll go to my grave believing that game developers should focus on gameplay first, sound effect/voice acting second, story third and graphics last. Of course, they do this is reverse, and thus all the boring games that look pretty.

But oh, the artists get to feel creative!

/em goes and programs a map for the original Starcraft

 

[Mr. Eff_v1legacy]

Graphics DO matter to some degree. You should be able to tell what's going on, where you are, who's doing what, etc.

A game like pong with the player controlling a dot in a two dimensional, bland environment just wouldn't hold up nowadays, especially in games with stories, multiple characters, etc.

But a functional game with a good story doesn't need state-of-the art graphics to stand up on its own. There are games that I love on the N64 and PS1. People still love games on the NES. Maybe it's nostalgia, but those games have to have substance. And graphics aren't the deciding factor.

 

[schmoke]

Minecraft doesn't really have BAD graphics. it actually looks really good and if that's no considered good graphics what is?

 

[Fuselage]

Graphics are a bonus.

 

[Verlander]

Style, not graphics. There's a difference.

Also this:


Personally, I'd say some games (like, say, WoW) are still visually better than others with "superior graphics", because of the style and suchlike that they adopted.

Graphics are important, but not as essential as Pete Hines seems to think. I still find the Elder Scrolls games unbelievably dull, and no matter how nice the graphics are, I'm not going to play or buy the new one.

Does this mean that Morrowind is now officially rubbish, as it hasn't got great graphics by todays standards?

 

[WolfEdge]

Rogue-likes, Minecraft and an entire movement of creative game design on a low-budget may disagree with you there, Pete Moneybags.

BTW, denial is usually the first symptom of an issue, Pete, my boy...

I don't think that's entirely true, though. When I play Minecraft, I play with an understanding that the game I'm partaking in was developed by at most a couple of programmers. The same is true for any other indie/low-budget game I might play. There's an implied understanding there that I think we should take into account; that we KNOW these games are excellent for what they are, and for what the creators were able to squeeze out of their budgets.

But can you honestly tell me, if the next Assassin's Creed or Elder Scrolls or whatever big-name you want to use came out, and its graphical capability and textures were of the level of Minecraft, that you would not feel cheated? Or insulted? Or amused that such large companies thought they could get away with that kind of product?

 

[HellsingerAngel]

Graphics Do matter. It's as simple as that. However, what is bothersome is that graphics are being focused on in the wrong order for most games now coming out. Here's the breakdown as I see it and as Gothmogll kindly pointed out:

Technical- These are your polygon counts, your visual effects, your bloom and brown/grey filters, etc etc. These are nice and don't need to be turned up to maximum (in fact, you'll probably end up losing sales because nobody will be able to run the darn thing/too many loadtimes) but there's a really funny argument in here as well. So most people at this stage go: "Well what about Minecraft/FFVI/ChronoTrigger/insert other awesomely amazing 16-bit graphic game, they aren't shit and look great!" Well, you'd be correct, because they're from a different era where different techniques are used. They're stylized (and I'll talk about that below). Funny enough, you don't see these people defending games like Call of Duty, Perfect Dark or Dark Forces II for their mind-blowingly awesomeness in their graphics department. Polygons are what changed our perception of gaming and most games that you look back on that had eye-popping graphics back in the day look like utter crap now. They sold on graphics then but now they rely on other means to be classics. Heck, I popped in my Orange Box a few weeks ago and thought the graphics for HL:2 were absolute shit and jarring when compared to what I'm used to seeing churrned out. Technically, there is a point where your game just sucks because it has bad graphics in this polygon world, but that doesn't mean you need to make the thing a friggin beast that no one can play.

Visual- This is probably what's most important. If Technical is the shine, this is the surface. This is what will make or break a game in terms of graphics. If the game has no style, it's just another brown/grey shooter, so to speak. Games like Borderlands, The Darkness and the Tales serise have all used cell-shading as a particular style. Another fine example is BioShock in that it isn't the best at graphics (though it's still a high quality) it does put that extra attention of the things that need to look extra nice. In BioShock specifically, that would be the water. It's absolutely stunning what they did with the water effects and it certainly reminds you that you're in a god damn ocean every five minutes when you see waterfalls of it arcing from busted pipes and windows. Even the 8-bit stylings of MegaMan 9/10 give that retro popularity that so many people just love to see. All in all, the style is what will make your graphics great, but you need to back it up with technical prowess as well to make it even better.

Communicative- These are the graphical cues that you get that are specifically to do with how everything in the game works. It's how that button for a quick-time event appears. It's your HUD in a shooter. It's the pathing lines that units have in RTS games. Simply put: these graphics directly have to do with communicating how the game engine will perform because of commands you put in/what will happen if you put in those commands. This can be really important too and add to the style of a game, so I'd probably chalk this up to second most important. Games like Dead Space heighten the tension by moving your classic HUD and give audio and visual clues to compensate. Flashing bosses mean they're low on health/close to defeat. Frame 34 of Ryu's Shoryuken is when it's most vulerable and needs to be countered into a Super Combo for the most effetcive damage. If you can't communicate what your game is about through graphical clues, most gamers will never bother trying to pick it up and play these days. This stuff is important.

There you go, my opinion on graphics. Take it for what you think it's worth.

As a side complaint, I'd like to know why graphics are being taken in the direction they're going. Doesn't everything already bloom enough/have enough grit/shine enough in the sunlight? You know what I'd like to see, Peter? Why don't you take a few of these graphic geniouses and come up with some sort of engine that renders hair properly! You want me immersed? Why don't you make my character look like he's not wearing a toupee 24/7 that's super-glued on. When a giant dragon starts circling around me, I should be seeing crap blow every which way, including the God damn hair on top of my character's head! Seriously, REALLY minor detail that would boost immersion through the roof.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Of course they matter. They're not the most important thing, but they help immersion and general enjoyment. It's always nicer to look at something pretty than ugly.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

News to Bethesda, people who say graphics don't matter are usually talking about YOUR games. Fallout 3 might be an awesome game, but it's ugly as sin, especially the animations.

 

[Something Amyss]

For games wherein the player controls a single character from a first-person or over-the-shoulder third-person perspective, I can see why graphics matter.

But that's because those games create immersion by putting you in the place of the character. You experience what the character experiences, so the game is better at eliciting a response from the player the more immersive the environment is.

Even then, I think Gordon Freeman would probably be no more immersive with better graphics. It's not so much "integral to immersion" as it is "one way to possibly immerse" and one that usually gets used instead of others.