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

[Signa]

Bethesda talks about immersion. I have to admit I lol'd a bit.

Well, there's Morrowind...

I'm under the suspicion that they don't want to acknowledge that game anymore. It probably was made by accident, and they don't even want to try to "fail" like that again.

<link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/108446-Skyrim-Will-Be-Weird-Like-Morrowind>Wut?

Seriously, that didn't make any sense.

I could go into a long rant about what I think I'm seeing, but I'm not in the mood. Skyrim will be awesome and well loved, so anything I will say will just get ignored because you're having too much fun to care about the flaws I'd be pointing out.

As far as the nonsensical "fail" remark, I'm starting to wonder if a lot of my favorite games have been made because the dev didn't know what they were doing, and just messed with some gameplay mechanics or features until they got lucky. The fact that Oblivion felt so different than Morrowind tells me that they had more of an idea on how the game would be played than they did with Morrowind.

If you see it that way.

I'd like to point out, though, that if I'm having too much fun to care about the flaws, then Bethesda still did it right.

See, that's where the long rant comes in. They can easily make a "fun" game these days, but I want a "more fun" game. Those tiny flaws might not bother you because you are having the level of fun you want, but since almost every game that is released these days meets that minimum bar (I think AAA devs all have learned how to do that like a sitcom formula), I want my Elderscrolls games to exceed that bar significantly. Morrowind did that so well that it's still my favorite game to play of all time.

Who decides what is fun is where the rant gets longer, but I'll just say this. Bethesda, as with many other corporate entities (I'm referring to even a radio talk show here) have taken a trend to ignore their most rabid fanbase if it means pulling more money in from people who are merely distracted by something shinny. It's a great short-term move because it can work marvelously, but the moment some one else offers something even more shinny, they won't have anyone there to support them. Their true fans left because they didn't interest them anymore, and the casual fans were only there for the now-dull shinies. Their only move to survive is to make something the most shiny as possible to pull people back and..... well you can see how continued "strip mining" of customers like that is just going to cause the industry to fold in on itself.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

Style matters, polygon count and more realistic grass and trees do not.

 

[unwesen]

ok for all you here saying graphics don't matter. Go to a game you play and turn all the settings down to the minimum and keep it like that. now tell me which would you get more immersed in

Spoiler: this?

Spoiler: or this?

The same: not very much. I don't like shooters much.

 

[mew4ever23]

Dear Bethesda:
I'm not lying. Graphics is low on my list of priorities in games, which can be viewed below:

1. Functional Gameplay
2. Story
3. Graphics

Regards, mew4ever23.

 

[StarStruckStrumpets]

To me, graphics are only something that interest me in advertising.

As soon as I get a game, the graphics mean bollocks all if it's fun to play. Hell, I still play some ugly-as-fuck games and enjoy them more than mediocre 360 titles.

PS1's Action Man anyone?

 

[Chal]

Speaking of the Elder Scrolls, whatever happened to that Daggerfall LP?

<link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.258867-Lets-Play-The-Elder-Scrolls-II-Daggerfall-Round-Twelve?page=5#10406156>It's cryogenically frozen until I fail less at academics.

I'm excited at the fact that it still exists, actually. I didn't realize you switched sections on me. Good luck in school. I have a lot of catching up to do.

In the meantime: reading comprehension check! Saying graphics matter is not the same as saying they are the highest priority or that inferior graphics automatically result in a terrible game. If graphics are even ON your list of something to look for in a game, you should be agreeing with his main point.

Otherwise, you should be in the ASCII and text-based adventure club, not the Minecraft and Counterstrike one. Those latter examples kind of DO include graphics.

 

[Therumancer]

Ya know what? I would rather have games looking like they did 8 years ago and be polished, well tuned, solid deep mechanics and completed as a whole unbugy product than the crap thats shoveled to the lowest common denominator.....

So you're saying that having games that are "polished, well tuned, solid deep mechanics and completed" AND have high level graphics would be a waste???

Looking at over head yes, the reason why B to AAA games need to sell a million units is ever sky rocking cost to keep graphics up, all of us would be better off with easier to develop games that are built with a solid mechanic foundation(this allows better casual modes and deeper mechanics at the same time).

What we have now is shallow Hollywood film aesthetics filled with shiny explosions, rushed mechanics and engines. This is the worst possible combination you can have as it supports the industry just enough to keep churning out mediocre crap at a high rate.

Very true. But also understand that graphics are one of the only major things most developers actually do nowadays as well. The graphic artists pretty much ARE the game designers and demand increasingly high salaries due to it.

We're at a time where development is pretty much at a "game in the box" level. There are really only a few groups that make actual game engines anymore. Today developers pretty much buy a framework that has most of the coding already done, something like "Source", "Havoc Physix" or something else, and then add the graphics they want onto the engine. This is why so many games play so similarly, it's not so much laziness or the developers copying each other, it's that from a functional perspective they really ARE the same games because they are both using the same engine and code.

Now yes, there IS still some actual development work as all of these things are tweaked, but it isn't quite like it was when each game pretty much had it's own engine and code built from the ground up. This is why when you start a game, you see all the little blurbs for the Havoc Physix, various engines, or whatever else, sometimes given as much prominance as the developer of the game.

Yes, I'm a cynic, and maybe I'm not being entirely fair, but that's the gist of it. When graphics are the meat of game design, with very little effort comparitively being put into the game itself and the way it plays, needless to say they become a much bigger focus than when pretty much everything was coming from whole cloth.

 

[Veldel]

Graphics have never matered to me I cant stand playing a game if it cant play well and or lacks a good story.


Hell if I could decide how graphics where id have it all be 16 bit


I hate cell shading greatly but dues that keep me from playing such games that use it no some of my fav games use cell shading like Killer 7



REALLY STOP THE CAPTCHA
Captcha: Jump sonfree

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Ya know what? I would rather have games looking like they did 8 years ago and be polished, well tuned, solid deep mechanics and completed as a whole unbugy product than the crap thats shoveled to the lowest common denominator.....

So you're saying that having games that are "polished, well tuned, solid deep mechanics and completed" AND have high level graphics would be a waste???

Looking at over head yes, the reason why B to AAA games need to sell a million units is ever sky rocking cost to keep graphics up, all of us would be better off with easier to develop games that are built with a solid mechanic foundation(this allows better casual modes and deeper mechanics at the same time).

What we have now is shallow Hollywood film aesthetics filled with shiny explosions, rushed mechanics and engines. This is the worst possible combination you can have as it supports the industry just enough to keep churning out mediocre crap at a high rate.

Very true. But also understand that graphics are one of the only major things most developers actually do nowadays as well. The graphic artists pretty much ARE the game designers and demand increasingly high salaries due to it.

We're at a time where development is pretty much at a "game in the box" level. There are really only a few groups that make actual game engines anymore. Today developers pretty much buy a framework that has most of the coding already done, something like "Source", "Havoc Physix" or something else, and then add the graphics they want onto the engine. This is why so many games play so similarly, it's not so much laziness or the developers copying each other, it's that from a functional perspective they really ARE the same games because they are both using the same engine and code.

Now yes, there IS still some actual development work as all of these things are tweaked, but it isn't quite like it was when each game pretty much had it's own engine and code built from the ground up. This is why when you start a game, you see all the little blurbs for the Havoc Physix, various engines, or whatever else, sometimes given as much prominance as the developer of the game.

Yes, I'm a cynic, and maybe I'm not being entirely fair, but that's the gist of it. When graphics are the meat of game design, with very little effort comparitively being put into the game itself and the way it plays, needless to say they become a much bigger focus than when pretty much everything was coming from whole cloth.

We been the "game in a box" small box of ideas and designs since 2002 or 2003 due to the rise of normal corporatism in the industry and less gamer suits/developers. And gaming like film will remain in the small box of invisible walls of small iedas and short sighted corridors because its the easiest way to get your weekly paycheck. Its not laziness as you say but rather a deficiency in the process to support polished game mechanics and a lack of caring about it from the public in general who just wants a mindless piece of overpriced entertainment on a regular basis.

Its a catch 22 where the only possible solution is the status quo.At least for entrenched/indebted developers.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

depending on the game it may not matter as much. if the game is trying to be realistic then it matters. if the game is not doing that then art style and atmosphere means alot more.

in fact the other aspects such as story, gameplay,art style, atmosphere, Sound/music, Replay value, length of the game, being fun,etc; have a higher importance then graphics.

try to play a old game see if it's enjoyable experience. if you enjoyed it that mean every thing else has been done well enough to ignore outdated graphics.

graphics does help get your foot in the door but the feel of awe won't last forever. if every thing else sucks then graphics does not stop the game for being shit

 

[ryanthemadman]

i would have to say that "no, graphics are not AS important." for example, how many people still play the original 8-bit super mario? i would add, however, that graphics are no big deal UNTIL they mess up the gameplay itself.

 

[Veylon]

It's more a matter of how far the developer is reaching for vs how far they get. Solid sprite work is infinitely prettier than shoddy 3D. The world of Minecraft that leverages it's 8-bit terrain out to the horizon is more appealing than an amazingly detailed cramped room. Dwarf Fortress would suffer visually with any try at realism. Graphics matter a lot, but more is not the same as better.

 

[mrdude2010]

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.

But not all games are like that. A turn-based strategy game like Alpha Centauri does not suffer for its poor graphics. An isometric party-based RPG does not suffer for its poor graphics. Because the way those games engage the players are different. Those games engage the player not through immersion, but through decision-making. And in those games, graphics don't matter as much.

i agree, no one cares if the map screen on Civ V isn't perfectly rendered

also minecraft

but in some cases graphics are very important.. would the mass effect series be nearly as impressive with bad graphics?

 

[Zetsubou^-^]

its a fact that games with good graphics will get more players, but its not the best long term selling point. a game can have amazing visuals, but if its another corridor shooter you really wont make as much off it.

content: diversity,plot,mechanics,length (or lack there of) are all important for a good game. hell, id consider save/loading time before eyeing a game for its graphics. these are the things that aren't advertised though. before the internet and other media made it easy for critics to spring up and give out information on games, yes, graphics, tidbits from the company, and box art may have been the best gamers had for choosing a game. but there was an expectation that the game had the good stuff behind that.

as graphics have progressed, it seems like the focus has shifted. now it seems like the major developers push graphics even before gameplay. it feels like they do this even in opposition to player oppinion. it seems like every complaint about the actual game is drowned out by "it doesnt look as good as ..." i can understand wanting every image to make the eyes bleed through sheer beauty, but its not always possible, and amazingly enough we're reaching a point where they're trying too hard.

some of the visuals in games the past couple of years are edging in on real life. i think of assassin's creed, which made me actually feel like i was walking through a city from hundreds of years ago. it is indeed a great game in my eyes, but not just for the scenery. the story, the game play all draw you in to the game. now look at goldensun: dark dawn. visually it was a step above its predecessors, but it was by no means the best that the ds is capable of. this is NOT A BAD THING! they chose improving other aspects of the game over just making it look better, the mechanics were improved, it saves/loads quickly, and has very little if any lag. in some ways it surpasses its predecessors.(i have issues with repidity and plot, but that is something i consider fixable without taking away from the game)

my point: a game can look good, but it doesn't need to to be a good game. in an age where graphics can be astounding, it won't serve all games to put everything into looks, if such actions will in anyway reduce the quality of gameplay.

/end rant. sry for txt wall

 

[Twilight_guy]

Funny story. Any graphics that a re better then those of the generation of games I grew up on all look very similar. I can't tell the difference between these fancy new gens stuff and current stuff beyond slightly improved lighting (which isn't actually improved its just turned up and no longer causes your computer to chug now so it could always do that). Anyways all I need to say is "minecraft" and his argument go poof anyways. Any stylized games can get away with less advanced graphics because it doesn't need them. Advanced graphics are usefulness if your going for realistic if you go for something not realistic then its superfluous.

 

[RicoADF]

Graphics arent everything in the game, Bethesda are a bunch of idiots if they think thats all that counts

 

[KalosCast]

ITT: 10 pages of people who are unable to tell the difference between the statements "graphics matter" and "graphics are the only thing that matters"

Graphics arent everything in the game, Bethesda are a bunch of idiots if they think thats all that counts

Reread the OP please.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It's not graphics that matter, it's the art style. Get it right, man.