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

[GothmogII]

The Escapist really needs to do a few articles on the distinction between graphics from a technical standpoint and graphics from a aesthetic standpoint, and most importantly from a communicative standpoint.

Technical - Being the nuts and bolts, 3D, lighting, effects, and how they work in the context of the game.

Aesthetic - The art style. Covering basically how the game looks. Minecraft for example is not a technically advanced game visually but it has an extremely coherent style that fits it perfectly.

Communicative - That is, visual elements that are designed to communicate something within' the confines of the game, usually through menus, buttons etc. but also through various other visual elements. For example in Starcraft 2 (and many other RTSes) clicking on the ground will cause a 'trail' to appear showing the path your unit is trying to take to get to it's destination. While the design of course is aesthetic with regards to the specific game, its primary function is as a visual aid.

There's more to it than that, and all these of course interplay with each other.

I'm not an expert by any means, but it's a little irritating when people can be so rarely be clear what they mean when they say either graphics do or don't matter. I'm glad that quite a number of people in this thread realise the distinctions.

I have to wonder though...if we're going to say that Crysis looks 'better' than Tetris, is it not therefore a fair comparison to say that paint is better than pastels? I never really liked the idea that games have to work on some kind of scale and would prefer to think of it more in terms of tools being added to the paint-box rather than games simply becoming 'better' visually as new graphics technology becomes available. Would have thought the masses of indie games (and successful ones at that) would have proved that kind of thinking wrong, as well they should.

 

[BENZOOKA]

I agree with Pete Hines. Graphics do matter.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Sure.

That's why Chime, Super MeatBoy, Scribblenauts sold so badly compared to Crysis 2, Penumbra or Metroid: Other M.

It's all about the graphics. Not the sound, gameplay, reviews, previews, demos or immersion. It's only about the graphics.

I mean no-one plays Oblivion anymore because the graphics are just so dated. Or Rogue-likes.

Especially people playing on handheld machines, PDAs, mobiles; they just can't get enough of bright flashy graphics.

Pillock.

Good graphics are nice, but you know whats better Bethesda? A stable game engine.

Zing!

Edit: Oh, Minecraft, that sold totally on it's graphics as well.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Honestly, even though he's right that graphics DO matter...You DON'T desperately need photorealistic super HD graphics.

Like....Did anyone play "Bloody Roar: Primal Fury" for the gamecube? That's good enough for me for most game genres, IMO. You don't need to go higher than that unless your game specifically requires you to do so.

Maybe I'm easily satisfied. But really, I don't ask for any more than what that game provided.

 

[Rallion]

I have no problem feeling immersed when I play good, older games that by modern standards have awful graphics. I'm not saying graphics don't provide immersion at all, but it's not the only way, and it's not even the best way. What it is is the most marketable and expensive way.

 

[beema]

hehehe I agree with him. Usually the people who say this are saying it in response to high PC graphical requirements, or someone deriding the Xbox.
Everyone loves nice graphics and it is certainly the first thing you see that gets you interested in a game most of the time.

 

[Chechosaurus]

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!

You know...I would actually say cliff racers are at the heart of the TES...

I was considering that but Cliff Racers only appeared in Morrowind - Mud Crabs were in Oblivion too (I haven't played TES I or II so I may be wrong)

 

[Jonesy911]

Sure he says that NOW. Where was he when Fallout 3 came out?

 

[InnerRebellion]

Graphics? No.

Art style? Yes.

 

[Jimbo1212]

I've been saying this for so many damn years. Poor graphics can kill immersion - look at WoW on release compared to Fable or Oblivion. I have never been immersed in WoW, but I have sat back in Oblivion and Fable just chilling at the scene sucking in the atmosphere.

 

[AtheistAndProud]

Graphics are like the bread in the game sandwich.
If they're functional, you don't really notice them.
If they're done well, they're deliciously toasty and compliment the sandwich itself.
If they're done poorly, they stick out like a sore thumb and no matter how good the roast beef of gameplay and provolone cheese of story are, the bread of graphics will distract you and ruin your sandwich.
For this reason, I enjoyed Wind Waker more than Ocarina of Time.
That and the fact that Wind Waker had an entire OCEAN to explore.

Anyway, in closing, bread is nice, and can be amazing, but bread alone cannot a sandwich make.

Good luck figuring THAT metaphor out, people, because I got lost around the Zelda bits.

 

[Sansha]

Good graphics are nice, but you know whats better Bethesda? A stable game engine.

Again, this. A million times.

I feel like I should link Hines this thread.

 

[Andronicus]

Graphics matter in the same sense that you're not going to go out on a first date with someone while wearing greasy overalls, dust in your hair and paint on your face; you want to make a good first impression. It doesn't really matter if you're the nicest guy/girl on the planet; you need to make a good first impression if you want your date to keep seeing you, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

And hey, if the person you're dating looks super hot, but they turn out to be a tiresome bore, then at least you got some eye-candy out of it. Graphics are important at pulling you in that first time, but a solid relationship with a game needs a lot more to stand on than pretty textures.

And let's face it, if it plays good and looks good at the same time, it's a win-win, right?

 

[Estocavio]

I'll say they matter...

They aren't everything, but a good art style goes a long way.

Braid and LIMBO wouldn't be remotely as well-received if they weren't so darn pretty, with art styles that merge seamlessly with the atmosphere and gameplay.

Yes.

Zeno Clash and The Void would be two examples (For me) of games which were more visually presentable due to their Artistic merits, instead of being shiny.

 

[ValentineUK]

I will agree that good graphics do increase the sense of immersion in a game, but the graphics shouldn't be the first thing that developers focus on when creating a game. Some of my favorite games of all time are on consoles like the Super Nintendo, which means they obviously don't have the most stunning graphics. I think that story and gamepley should be the first two considerations for new games in development, graphics should be an afterthought.

 

[Sakurazaki1023]

I'll say they matter...

They aren't everything, but a good art style goes a long way.

Braid and LIMBO wouldn't be remotely as well-received if they weren't so darn pretty, with art styles that merge seamlessly with the atmosphere and gameplay.

I have to agree, graphics only matter if you use a photo-realistic art style. Crackdown, Borderlands, and the upcoming Brink are all perfect examples of games that manage gorgeous graphics by simply using stylized art. Valkyria Chronicles is another great example. While the actual character models are beginning to show their age a bit, it's not particularly noticeable because the art style is downright jaw-dropping.

As far as immersion is concerned, I find it extremely difficult to become immersed in photo-realistic games because the uncanny valley effect is always rearing it's head. In a game trying to be photo-realistic, every slight nuance and inconsistency (compared to reality) stands out simply because the game is not a perfect match to reality. By comparison, stylized graphics are far enough removed from reality that it's easier to ignore the differences. I couldn't become immersed in Fallout 3 or Mass Effect in the slightest because every character looked and acted like a lifeless puppet with lip flaps and dead eyes that was trying too hard to look human.

 

[Byere]

I've always followed the ideal that "Good graphics do NOT make a good game", and I stand by that. I don't agree with the people who insist that time and money is wasted on graphics.
I myself am a big fan of old-style RPGs (Final Fantasy VII, Wild ARMs, etc). The type that demands story and gameplay over powerful graphics. Unfortunately, those type of games are dying out as today's gamers want faster-paced games with better graphics and less story to each game.

Can you imagine what Oblivion or Skyrim would be like if it had the graphics of Fallout 1 or 2? (Top-down, isometric style). No-one would buy it in this day and age because technology is so far-front compared to when the latter game out. As time goes on, games will have to adapt and become more powerful, graphically and gameplay-wise, lest gamers turn away from them. If gamers like myself don't adapt, we turn away from our form of media and if everyone was to act like that, there'd be no gamers and the industry would die.

 

[Grunt_Man11]

Actually, he's right... to a degree.

Granted not everyone cares about how shiny and flashy the graphics are, but they do play a important role in first impressions for many.

Of course first impressions are just that, first impressions. When it's all said and done, the gameplay quality better match or exceed the quality of the graphics.

It's easy for a good first impression to be replaced with a bad second impression, and vice versa.