DELETED
- Thread starter deleted139124
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't know anything about what goes into designing a videogame but are the people responsible for creating the graphics the same people who take care of the gameplay?
If not then I don't see what relevance each has in a discussion about the other, artistc designer should be free to create something as visually impressive as they want.
If the gameplay is bad then don't blame it on the graphics because clearly the people behind that did an excellent job.
If not then I don't see what relevance each has in a discussion about the other, artistc designer should be free to create something as visually impressive as they want.
If the gameplay is bad then don't blame it on the graphics because clearly the people behind that did an excellent job.
There's a guy in my office who's like this. In fact, if it's not realistic graphics, he insists the graphics suck.
"Minecraft looks so bad."
"Torchlight 2 has shit graphics"
"I'm not going to buy Borderlands 2. Graphics look terrible"
This guy is on long term medical leave now. It's totally not related.
"Minecraft looks so bad."
"Torchlight 2 has shit graphics"
"I'm not going to buy Borderlands 2. Graphics look terrible"
This guy is on long term medical leave now. It's totally not related.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone outright say they considered graphics more important than gameplay. Occasionally, particularly with user reviews, you'll read a review where the reviewer just can't shut up about how bad and dated the graphics are, and if they use a score, will lower it a bit, even if they have no complaints about the gameplay. So I think people factor the graphics into their opinions on the gameplay, which is fair to a point; if I can't tell what the hell I'm doing, or where my character is, then yeah, gameplay suffers. Otherwise, I tend to note the aesthetics of the graphics, the art style used and how well it was done, rather than how realistic it looks.
Not directly, but keep in mind that a developer has a finite budget, both in terms of money and time, to make a game. Thus, everything they want to improve has to come from the budget of something else; if they want to hire more people to spend more time prettying up the water, they have less money to hire playtesters or programmers to work on the enemy AI or what have you, and have less time for them to do their job. So when someone complains about gameplay being sacrificed for graphics, this is what they're referring to.King Billi said:
The thing is, when people say graphics nowadays, what they really mean is "realism".
And that to me, is what is killing the game industry right now, and could possibly be the same problem to plague this this gen.(Or next if your crass and not counting the WiiU)
Visuals should never be more important than gameplay. Ever.
Some games even work around a tight budget by having a simplified yet appealing visual style. I'm very certain a game like Paper Mario does not need to make that much money to break even because they don't need as many copies to sell. Reason why? They didn't put so much money into looking nice.
They found limitations and worked around it to create something visually appealing.
If I were a studio and I wanted to polish up something. I would polish the gameplay.
Because at the end of the day, good visuals didn't stop ME3 from being known as the worst installment in a trilogy ever.
It isn't saving the God of War series. It isn't saving the AC series, and it didn't save Dead Space 3 either.
Meanwhile Pokemon- a game that still uses fucking pixel art, and Okami, a brush styled game gets stellar reviews across the board.
And that to me, is what is killing the game industry right now, and could possibly be the same problem to plague this this gen.(Or next if your crass and not counting the WiiU)
Visuals should never be more important than gameplay. Ever.
Some games even work around a tight budget by having a simplified yet appealing visual style. I'm very certain a game like Paper Mario does not need to make that much money to break even because they don't need as many copies to sell. Reason why? They didn't put so much money into looking nice.
They found limitations and worked around it to create something visually appealing.
If I were a studio and I wanted to polish up something. I would polish the gameplay.
Because at the end of the day, good visuals didn't stop ME3 from being known as the worst installment in a trilogy ever.
It isn't saving the God of War series. It isn't saving the AC series, and it didn't save Dead Space 3 either.
Meanwhile Pokemon- a game that still uses fucking pixel art, and Okami, a brush styled game gets stellar reviews across the board.
It's been the best part of a decade since the outcry of "omg Zelda, more like CEL-da, am-i-right?" when Windwaker was released, which seemed to kick off this trend. I'm not sure if it's gotten better or worse in the meantime, it depends on who you talk to.
I think everyone knows somebody like this. While I don't like to generalize, it always seems to be the military shooter types that complain the most, what I wouldn't give o have infinity ward make the next COD cell-shaded.SomeLameStuff said:
Yeah my bro is one of them.
He got put off from playing KOTOR because of the graphic eventhought we all know how awesome that game is and the graphic isn't bad per say (it isn't that old)! Furthermore he bought Final Fantasy 13 for the graphic alone. Ok sure he never played any of the franchise and he findthe gameplay itself to be alright but still how can you not like KOTOR??!!
He got put off from playing KOTOR because of the graphic eventhought we all know how awesome that game is and the graphic isn't bad per say (it isn't that old)! Furthermore he bought Final Fantasy 13 for the graphic alone. Ok sure he never played any of the franchise and he findthe gameplay itself to be alright but still how can you not like KOTOR??!!
The question here is more typically one of gameplay VS story.
Graphics usually come second, but there's still graphics whores here who can't play a game with old graphics, after the first criterium is satisfied.
For me, it depends on the budget. For cheap old games and indies I expect poor graphics. For 60 bucks I demand some higher production values.
Graphics usually come second, but there's still graphics whores here who can't play a game with old graphics, after the first criterium is satisfied.
For me, it depends on the budget. For cheap old games and indies I expect poor graphics. For 60 bucks I demand some higher production values.
Well, most people in my family seem to put a higher value on graphics than gameplay. It's sort of hard to say, though, because, while they may go on and on about graphics, a majority of them prefer Call of Duty to Battlefield, between which there is an obvious graphics divide, but I'm also not sure if they prefer CoD because that's what all their friends play (I know I have one cousin who keeps trying to get everyone to switch to BF).
Also, this tends to be an issue that comes up whenever developers like Crytek and DICE start talking. One of Crytek's heads once commented that graphics were 60% of what made Crysis, and that graphics drove gameplay. DICE has made similar comments in the past, though, they also seem more in-touch with how gameplay relevant technological leaps (i.e. physics and AI) are necessary as well. Also, if you go to the forums for games like Crysis and Battlefield, you'll see a lot of people who share the sympathy that graphics drive gameplay, and there's even more people who refuse to play a game that doesn't have "good" (i.e. "realistic") graphics.
Finally, spend some time with the PC community. While most people there are nice people, there are a lot of very vocal elitists, and among those elitists, you'll get a lot of people that complain every single chance they get that consoles are holding gaming back, and by holding gaming back, they generally mean technologically, and by technologically, they mean in the graphics. The degree to which I've heard some of those arguments in the PC section of some forums is absolutely mind blowing, with some forums being bad enough that any PC gamer who doesn't prioritize graphics will feel like they are in the wrong community.
As far as what my stance is, I'm definitely on the story and gameplay side, and while I might look oddly at old games when I go back and play them, I can generally accept their old graphics very quickly. There might be times where new gameplay decisions open up because of better graphics, but our technology has reached the point that it really only comes down to what we can do with our current technology and art styles, not that any technological leaps will open up new gameplay options. Right now, if we're focusing on anything in terms of gameplay-relevant technology, we should focus on AI and physics.
Also, this tends to be an issue that comes up whenever developers like Crytek and DICE start talking. One of Crytek's heads once commented that graphics were 60% of what made Crysis, and that graphics drove gameplay. DICE has made similar comments in the past, though, they also seem more in-touch with how gameplay relevant technological leaps (i.e. physics and AI) are necessary as well. Also, if you go to the forums for games like Crysis and Battlefield, you'll see a lot of people who share the sympathy that graphics drive gameplay, and there's even more people who refuse to play a game that doesn't have "good" (i.e. "realistic") graphics.
Finally, spend some time with the PC community. While most people there are nice people, there are a lot of very vocal elitists, and among those elitists, you'll get a lot of people that complain every single chance they get that consoles are holding gaming back, and by holding gaming back, they generally mean technologically, and by technologically, they mean in the graphics. The degree to which I've heard some of those arguments in the PC section of some forums is absolutely mind blowing, with some forums being bad enough that any PC gamer who doesn't prioritize graphics will feel like they are in the wrong community.
As far as what my stance is, I'm definitely on the story and gameplay side, and while I might look oddly at old games when I go back and play them, I can generally accept their old graphics very quickly. There might be times where new gameplay decisions open up because of better graphics, but our technology has reached the point that it really only comes down to what we can do with our current technology and art styles, not that any technological leaps will open up new gameplay options. Right now, if we're focusing on anything in terms of gameplay-relevant technology, we should focus on AI and physics.
Graphics are only important to the point where the rest of the game design can come off it if its designed from the outset as a graphically accomplished game then graphics will matter but usually they dont art design imo is always more important than graphics if you have great graphics and lousy art design its going to look bad but impressively bad I suppose. If you have great art design but the graphics arent really that impressive then it will still hold together and look good.
For me its all about the experience when playing a game not the graphics or gameplay or story or anything else but how it all comes together and feeds off each other and if parts of it are sufficiently strong enough to hold up weaker parts of it and still allow an enjoyable experience then I am satisfied.
I have played games with crap graphics bad story and bad (or near non existant) gameplay and still enjoyed them because they make up for it in other areas although I am unlikely to enjoy a game with all 3 of the above problems.
For me its all about the experience when playing a game not the graphics or gameplay or story or anything else but how it all comes together and feeds off each other and if parts of it are sufficiently strong enough to hold up weaker parts of it and still allow an enjoyable experience then I am satisfied.
I have played games with crap graphics bad story and bad (or near non existant) gameplay and still enjoyed them because they make up for it in other areas although I am unlikely to enjoy a game with all 3 of the above problems.
They could be, depending on the size of the studio. Or you can have indeed different people in charge of different things. Even then, you'd need a really big team to have total separation - they are a team primarily, after all, if Bob the Artist and Jill the Programmer are both doing the same game, I doubt Bob would not be allowed to express any opinions on the game they are making, outside how it looks. Seems a bit silly, doesn't it.King Billi said:
And then, even if you have separate artists and gameplay engineers, whether they are kept chained to their domain or not, you still have a finite amount of money and time you can put in a project. Yeah, your proposal would be true if everybody was superhuman and money was no issue but fact is they aren't.
