Bethesda: People Who Say Graphics "Don't Matter" Are Usually Lying
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Mud Crabs are the heart and soul of an Elder Scrolls game... I wish you to withdraw your disingenuous accusations about Mud Crabs, post haste!
Graphics are a multiplier. They aren't going to make a great game, but it's going to be much, much harder to make a great game without great graphics.
Dear Pete Hines and John Funk;
There is a difference between graphics fidelity in the name of immersion and good game graphical design in the name of immersion.
Battlefield 3 is going to be a gorgeous game by anyone's definition, and I feel that's got a good footing in both graphical fidelity and graphical design, as does Mass Effect.
Final Fantasy 8 has, for it's time, some fairly good graphics, but the design of parts of it, like Esthar, remains immersive and interesting to this day.
Hell, if someone would just make me a free-roaming sandbox game in that setting, even if it ended up being a GTA clone or something, I'd buy it.
EDIT: ninja'd. Oh well, I expanded on my thoughts.
There is a difference between graphics fidelity in the name of immersion and good game graphical design in the name of immersion.
Battlefield 3 is going to be a gorgeous game by anyone's definition, and I feel that's got a good footing in both graphical fidelity and graphical design, as does Mass Effect.
Final Fantasy 8 has, for it's time, some fairly good graphics, but the design of parts of it, like Esthar, remains immersive and interesting to this day.
Hell, if someone would just make me a free-roaming sandbox game in that setting, even if it ended up being a GTA clone or something, I'd buy it.
EDIT: ninja'd. Oh well, I expanded on my thoughts.
that's trueBooze Zombie said:
I mean, for example Bulletstorm
I think it would have worked just as beautifully if it used, say, the Serious Engine 2 (which I know, it's not proprietary) because it renders awesome graphics, while still being able to manage huge hordes of enemies and it doesn't require that much PC
then again, Bulletstorm was made to show off the engine upgrade, but my point stands =P
although graphics may be important they too much focus is put on them and can detract from things like game-play and story which are far more important.
they should probably use some of the graphics budget to hire writers that have read a book instead of just watching films. most games are sooooo badly written and there is no real excuse for it.
they should probably use some of the graphics budget to hire writers that have read a book instead of just watching films. most games are sooooo badly written and there is no real excuse for it.
No, that just happened because Wii game bashing is cool, yo.the_tramp said:
Not played Goldeneye on Wii yet, I'll admit, but I honestly think that Modern Warfare: reflex edition is a good looking game. Not Modern Warfare on XBox good, but on it's own merit, I saw it's a good looking, fun, enjoyable game. I play it on Wii, MW2 on 360 and TF2 and Battlefield 2 (not BC2, my laptop sucks) on PC. Woo, man shoots.
People need to start separating 'good art direction' from 'good graphics'. If you have a detailed, imaginative, distinct art style running throughout your game, if you use an appropriate but varied palette (hint: not just brown and grey), if you give players small details to pick up on, it doesn't matter how fully bump-mapped your game is. Even though Deus Ex is a decade old by now, it never strikes me as looking visually ugly because so much detail went into the environment.
By way of example, a lot of people are complaining about Dragon Age 2's supposedly lacklustre graphics. Having played the game, I see little difference in the actual texture quality, but the game is lacking in a whole lot of detail. On a similar note, Minecraft's 16 bit graphics suddenly seem so much more beautiful now that Notch has finally put ambient occlusion into the game. Little touches are more important than raw graphical power.
By way of example, a lot of people are complaining about Dragon Age 2's supposedly lacklustre graphics. Having played the game, I see little difference in the actual texture quality, but the game is lacking in a whole lot of detail. On a similar note, Minecraft's 16 bit graphics suddenly seem so much more beautiful now that Notch has finally put ambient occlusion into the game. Little touches are more important than raw graphical power.
While I've never said graphics don't matter, I do think that there isn't much point in pushing for better graphics.
The jump between the SNES and the PS1 for example was a massive jump in graphics qualities, and from the PS1 to the PS2/Xbox it was the same, but now... it's very hard to argue that there is much left to do with graphics other then improve character models (which IMO, still need a lot of work), buildings/water/sky all looks fine, and there isn't much point in pushing harder on those things.
The jump between the SNES and the PS1 for example was a massive jump in graphics qualities, and from the PS1 to the PS2/Xbox it was the same, but now... it's very hard to argue that there is much left to do with graphics other then improve character models (which IMO, still need a lot of work), buildings/water/sky all looks fine, and there isn't much point in pushing harder on those things.