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

[The Electro Gypsy]

Graphics don't matter when compared to other things, like say, the actual game part of the game, and the story. But graphics do have an effect, especially today when people can't cope with story and good gameplay and go solely on graphics, that's when things go wrong.

Although admittedly I don't care as long as Bethesda finally make a new engine that actually bloody well works

 

[MajoraPersona]

I noticed they mentioned that thing that Yahtzee says a lot. The one that's like "Suspension of Disbelief", but for Yahtzee fans.

Graphics don't hurt (except on PC games), but I think there's a substantial difference between realistic graphics and simple, yet aesthetically pleasing ones. While natural scenery can look magnificent, it doesn't necesarrily pull the player in. In fact, it depends quite greatly on the player themself. Some players are more likely to be drawn in by tactics or combat, while others will dedicate their time to games with a focus on exploration. Will the same people who play Minecraft play this game? Will they care about the same things?

Every design choice is aimed at a certain trait that human beings possess. 'Better' graphics aim at those with a certain sense of aesthetics. But for those who started out with 8-bit games, or for those who aren't wowed by the now-common realistic graphics, it's far less important. Which is not to say that horrible graphics can't break a game, of course.

Finally, despite my opening sentence, there's a significant difference between the concepts of Immersion and Suspension of Disbelief. Immersion is when you enter the character's perspective and effectively - become - them. Suspension of disbelief is when you're a psychiatrist on a spaceship who's been locked in the brig by an overly-logical first mate who's in control because the captain's supposedly dead, but is actually a zombie who'll show up when you say a particular set of words to the aforementioned first mate, and you never, not once, consider how extremely odd it is.

And I'd say suspension of disbelief is quite a bit more important than immersion.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Graphics are Megan Fox: pretty to look at, but without anything else, it's worth the price of a magazine with a tastefully uncovered centerfold, nothing more. They matter, but not nearly as much as the content behind and around the graphics. Without content of value, the graphics have the weight of a pea against a ton on the balances. With content, those same graphics can elevate something into God-dom. And that isn't even the graphics versus art style argument, which I suspect is the one they want to make.

Well done, Bethesda, you'll now need to convince me to even try TES, since I have no use for useless magazines. So how about you put out a trailer with gameplay, a hint of plot, and some content other than brown and gray 'scapes.

 

[duchaked]

they matter to some degree
a game in the modern console generation with HD graphics and such...
well it better not look like dog crap

but then people were complaining about Duke Nukem Forever's graphics
they aren't the best but they certainly aren't the Wii

 

[cplsharp]

graphics dont matter on all games, but once again in the case of this it seems graphics are a useful thing to have on hand especially with the first and thirdperson view, you dont want a greatly textured character in a world filled with blocky glitchy environments, or vice versa.

 

[Iron Lightning]

No, graphics barely matter as all, but art style matters quite a lot. I'd take Super Mario Galaxy over Gears of War any day. To this day Super Mario Galaxy has the distinction of being the only game that's completely flummoxed me, it's the only game where I've ever stopped dead in my tracks and taken time just to appreciate the scenery (and the music, incidentally.) Gears of War, on the other hand, looks quite ugly despite its top of the line graphics engine.

 

[Savber]

*hands a hanky to Bioware*

It's ok... Bethsada and CDProkect Red might be kicking your arse in this department but it's by no means over for you, Bioware.

 

[Azmael Silverlance]

Yeah he obviously never played Pokemon!!!!!

 

[MuppeTeN]

It depende what kind of graphics appeal to you, for example Crysis 2 has 0 appeal to me, on the other side IloMilo is something I find awesome, it's different kind of graphics, Ultrarealistic vs Cute&cudly

 

[cefm]

Standard line from a company who has immense resources to devote to beautiful realistic graphics. But graphics are actually the LEAST important part of the game.

You could make a wonderfully immersive game with appropriate level design, play controls, character development, storyline, game design, and artistic style. You could even make a good FPS using bobble-head dolls and old-school graphics if you tried hard enough.

But if you focus on graphics at the expense of other more important game-play elements, then you're setting yourself up for failure. To pick at one of Bethesda's babies by example - Oblivion had exceptional graphics, but the story sucked, the game-play was clunky and felt disconnected, there was zero character development, and the leveling system was a messy crap-fest. But it was pretty, so that's supposed to be forgiven?

 

[13lackfriday]

If only he applied that same ideology to the Fallout franchise...

 

[Lancer873]

I'd kind of agree... but honestly, it's more of an Uncanny Valley sort of deal. Obviously enough, it's horribly jarring when a game dives headfirst into the uncanny valley, but I'm just as immersed in VVVVVV or N as I am in Uncharted or such, if not more.

 

[ashrossy]

Good graphics do not equal a good game, on the other hand, Bad graphics can[\i] equal a bad game.

Here are some notable cases:

Minecraft: Not very good graphics (blocky, would be a bad pun to use here). Great gameplay. HD texture packs make it much better imo.

Heavy Rain: Good graphics, gameplay is pretty divided on good or not. Never the less, Interesting storytelling, interesting game.

Super Meat Boy: Good graphics, 2D but well done. Excellent gameplay, the only "hard" game i've played often.

LSD Dream emulator: Pretty unknown game, Bad graphics. bad bad bad graphics, not very good programming even, but can be pretty scary at times and certainly makes you think.

There are also dozens of flash games out there which I don't want to list.

I don't think there's much correlation really between good and bad graphics and gameplay. I've never put down a game because of its graphics, but I have due to gameplay.

That's not so say that good graphics aren't important. Sometimes they're integral to gameplay, not sure if that part makes sense or not. Say there is a button on the wall you have to shoot with a bow, with some good graphics, you could probably put a detailed image of a bow there, people will get the hint. bad graphics you might not be able to do that, might have to colour the button yellow, the same as the bow slot. People might not make the connection and therefore gameplay is lost.

In otherwords, who cares? Good gameplay should be a priority but don't let the graphics slip, you'll never have to worry about it. Not to mention the different meanings behind good and bad graphics.

 

[Carlston]

People who say people say graphics don't matter are the jackasses who have ruined gaming with no script, plot or even linkable story...because all the budget was blown on making zits form in real time on the main characters face...

Oh so...the people in the Graphic department with the budget afraid it will be taken away say this...

Cut their budget give it to the script writers so we can see some real games with real stories. Oblivion graphics are what 5 years old and more than acceptable.

 

[Bigsmith]

Looks at Dwarf fortress, looks at minecraft.

Yeah...

 

[ZeroDotZero]

Hey, good graphics, cool. I approve. However, the gameplay is more important. VVVVVV is one of the best games I have played this year, and it has the most simplistic graphics I have seen in a game for a long time. I know that it does that on purpose, but I am just sayin'.

 

[Ickabod]

I love minecraft!

Graphics matter to some extent, but like everything they are a piece of the overall game. If you have amazing graphics and terrible gameplay, you have a movie, or worse a screen saver. If you have amazing depth and terrible graphics you have a book.

I might be in the minority here being older (36), but if a game looks great I'm less likely to pick it up than if it looks like it plays great. I'll always side with gameplay and then look at graphics as a bonus.

That being said I'll probably get Skyrim because I'm hoping that they fixed the leveling issues of Oblivion (which looked great but I got bored with it). Do the graphics come into play on the decision of my purchase? Maybe a little, but if the gameplay sucks then I'll play it for a week or two then put it down and think longer and harder before buying another ES title or Bethesda title.

tldr: Gameplay trumps Graphics

 

[Antari]

Immersion is in the player not the graphics. Gameplay grabs the player. I'm not lying, your just in denial Pete.

 

[132635]

good story and nice combat flow is the cake, but the graphics and music are the icing. and the lettering??? well, thats the npc. anyone who says skyrim is going to suck donkey balls [the bad kind] after watching that is so delusional they need a nice padded room