Bethesda: People Who Say Graphics "Don't Matter" Are Usually Lying
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Ben Croshaw said that he prefered Twilight Princess over Ocarina of Time, but he thought that had to with the graphics. He's got a point there, graphics that are meant to be realistic in a 3D game will expire before you know it. Lisa Foiles also mentioned how important box art is. When you look at a game you've heard nothing about, you see the box, you turn it around to see some screenshots and read about it. If the screenshots show the ugliest graphics you have ever seen you wont be tempted to buy it. One of my favourite games to date will be Donkey Kong Country 3, and even though that's an old game on an outdated system it never tried to be realistic. There's nothing there trying to show us what the jungle, the mountains or the oceans look like, but it looks beautiful. If it had tried to look realistic in any way (somehow like Alien vs Predator) it could be just as good, and it might have looked good, but the graphics would be disturbing. I know I am less picky on the definition of good graphics than most, mostly because I have problems seeing in geeral, but I really enjoy some good graphics at times.
Games aren't good because they look good, but they're often bought because they do. I bought Metroid Prime because the graphics were awesome. It was early in the GameCube era and I had never seen anything that looked that good. Graphics do matter, but they wont make a bad game good, or not even decent, but it can make a bad game sell.
Games aren't good because they look good, but they're often bought because they do. I bought Metroid Prime because the graphics were awesome. It was early in the GameCube era and I had never seen anything that looked that good. Graphics do matter, but they wont make a bad game good, or not even decent, but it can make a bad game sell.
I agree that good graphics sell better because of his first point, but if you want to make a good game rather than just sellable shelfware, they aren't nearly as important.
Yeah, they're important for drawing the player in and creating an immersive atmosphere, but at this point there's a difference between `good' graphics (which create the desired immersion) and `realistic' graphics (which have high levels of detail/poly/resolution/etc). Some of the most immersive games I've ever played are Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Silent Hill 1, and both of them have very immersive graphics, which adds a lot to the game. But neither of them are very realistic, detailed, hi-res, -def, -poly, -etc.
Graphics always matter, because other than sound, graphics are the only way to show a player what is happening in the game, which is a huge part of the interaction. But there's a difference between graphics that are immersive, and graphics with a high quality visual element. It's about how the graphics match and affect the game, not about how `good' they are. Some games are much more immersive as a text RPG than as a highly detailed GPU hog. A lot of games work better in 2D than in 3D. Many many GPU hogs are not immersive in the least.
When somebody says that `graphics don't matter', they mean that developers have lost sight of the importance of choosing graphics formats artistically. They mean that making a game `with better graphics' rarely makes it a better game. They mean that small differences in resolution do not necessarily make any difference at all when it comes to immersion. Graphics may be important in a game, but that does not in any way mean that high graphics quality is important in order to make a game good.
Yeah, they're important for drawing the player in and creating an immersive atmosphere, but at this point there's a difference between `good' graphics (which create the desired immersion) and `realistic' graphics (which have high levels of detail/poly/resolution/etc). Some of the most immersive games I've ever played are Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Silent Hill 1, and both of them have very immersive graphics, which adds a lot to the game. But neither of them are very realistic, detailed, hi-res, -def, -poly, -etc.
Graphics always matter, because other than sound, graphics are the only way to show a player what is happening in the game, which is a huge part of the interaction. But there's a difference between graphics that are immersive, and graphics with a high quality visual element. It's about how the graphics match and affect the game, not about how `good' they are. Some games are much more immersive as a text RPG than as a highly detailed GPU hog. A lot of games work better in 2D than in 3D. Many many GPU hogs are not immersive in the least.
When somebody says that `graphics don't matter', they mean that developers have lost sight of the importance of choosing graphics formats artistically. They mean that making a game `with better graphics' rarely makes it a better game. They mean that small differences in resolution do not necessarily make any difference at all when it comes to immersion. Graphics may be important in a game, but that does not in any way mean that high graphics quality is important in order to make a game good.
This is why systems like the DS never sold well, because in comparison to modern PC games and consoles, or hell, even older consoles like the PS2, the graphics sucked.
This is also why Notch is currently living on the streets; Minecraft, with its blocky graphics and pathetically low resolutions, was an utter failure of a game.
This is also why Notch is currently living on the streets; Minecraft, with its blocky graphics and pathetically low resolutions, was an utter failure of a game.
My favorite game was released back when Activision was still a dev studio; Battlezone.
It's been twelve years and it still hasn't been beat in gameplay innovation.
I can honestly say I love good graphics, and if Battlezone were released in hi-rez, I'd be all over it, but they really aren't important. I'll look at a screenshot and say 'that looks pretty' or 'that doesn't look so pretty' but I don't judge on screenshots. I read the description, look at the story, gameplay innovations, and soundtrack. Man, the music can make a game... or break it, as Armored Core 4 proved so dramatically -.-
It's been twelve years and it still hasn't been beat in gameplay innovation.
I can honestly say I love good graphics, and if Battlezone were released in hi-rez, I'd be all over it, but they really aren't important. I'll look at a screenshot and say 'that looks pretty' or 'that doesn't look so pretty' but I don't judge on screenshots. I read the description, look at the story, gameplay innovations, and soundtrack. Man, the music can make a game... or break it, as Armored Core 4 proved so dramatically -.-
Id rather they make it as awesome story wise and immersion wise as Morrowind. TES4 was not to immersive even with the graphics. I suppose it because im less likely to forgive graphical errors if their in high definition verses the whole thing looking dated.
Yes graphics matter a bit, but I think that good graphics is a much wider spectrum than most people consider. Yes you can make everything shiny and ultra-detailed, but art style is the biggest factor in good graphics IMO.
Bethesda on releasing Oblivion: ZOMG LOOK OUR GRAPHICS
Bethesda on releasing Skyrim: ZOMG LOOK OUR GRAPHICS, ALSO DRAGONS LOL
Well, Bethesda got the comments on graphics in games wrong. Again. The point of the matter is, awesome graphics are only really appropriate when they are placed on a game with fun gameplay and an immersive storyline (this especially applies to RPGs). Get those two parts straight, and then you have yourselves a game where you can brag about the graphics adding to the immersion. Haven't they learned anything from Oblivion? Or were they totally oblivious to the fact that the game had the same dungeons repeated over and over and over again?
[sarcasm] Oh but the graphics were state of the art! I don't care what I'm walking through, as long as it's beautiful! [/sarcasm]
For the Oblivion-lovers out there, if you want to know what the hell I'm talking about, try the Oblivion TC: Nehrim - At Fate's Edge. Now THAT's an rpg world.
Bethesda on releasing Skyrim: ZOMG LOOK OUR GRAPHICS, ALSO DRAGONS LOL
Well, Bethesda got the comments on graphics in games wrong. Again. The point of the matter is, awesome graphics are only really appropriate when they are placed on a game with fun gameplay and an immersive storyline (this especially applies to RPGs). Get those two parts straight, and then you have yourselves a game where you can brag about the graphics adding to the immersion. Haven't they learned anything from Oblivion? Or were they totally oblivious to the fact that the game had the same dungeons repeated over and over and over again?
[sarcasm] Oh but the graphics were state of the art! I don't care what I'm walking through, as long as it's beautiful! [/sarcasm]
For the Oblivion-lovers out there, if you want to know what the hell I'm talking about, try the Oblivion TC: Nehrim - At Fate's Edge. Now THAT's an rpg world.
Gameplay matters more to me. I once bought Oblivion based on the reviews of how great it looked and how wonderful it was and it was a huge disappointment to me. I got a lot more fun out of the Baldur's Gate games, Command & Conquer: Red Alert and Tetris than I did with Oblivion. Never judge a book by its cover, or in this case: a game by it's graphics!