Graphics

[9Darksoul6]

"Graphics do not make a game."
"Gameplay is the most important thing about a game."
Those are famous words, aren't they? But don't we all agree that both graphics don't make a game and gameplay is its key-element?

Usually people use these two sentences to make a point, when other people complain about the lack of graphical quality in some game. That raises questions: if anyone actually believed that graphics alone could make a game, than they could (on extremely hypothetical level) see animated movies (let's say Shrek) as videogames; I'm not saying there cannot be single cases of people who would think that, but would you (as a person that uses these sentences as arguments) seriously believe that even one person you've replied could actually thinks graphics alone make a game?
I know my point isn't a logical demonstration but it's fairly understandable and you probably get it.
Can you imagine a person that does not understand that games are based on gameplay? How many people are there who both think like that and know how to write?
So why do you fucking base your arguments on these ideas? Seriously? It makes no sense.
Saying that graphics don't make a game is not a magic sentence that justifies the fact that the game you're in love with is pretty ugly (if that's the case).
Gaphics don't make a game, but that also works the other way arround: do you think gameplay alone makes a game? Can you imagine yourself playing Tertis on a black screen (again, an extreme example makes things obvious)?
Gameplay is more important than graphics in a game, yes, but that's pure redundancy.
Why is it that when someone says your favorite game is ugly, you need to say it has good gameplay? Were did this idea that games with bad graphics have the tendency to be better than games with good graphics come from?
One could argue that, since "pretty graphics" are really expensive, if developpers blow their money into graphical quality, they may have none to invest in gameplay; the reason why this idea makes no sense is:
1) if you, as a developper, have the kind of money it takes to have "pretty graphics" on your hands (which means you're being published by a big company), money can't seriously be an issue to you,
2) if that were even remotely true, you'd see far more "ugly games" with good gameplay out there.

Let's see it like that:
- If a game's gameplay (see how redundant this sounds?) is bad, the quality of its graphics are irrelevant, just as any other feature would be irrelevant.
- If a game's gameplay is good, having better graphics can only be an improvement.
- If a game is bad-looking, remember the previous scenario (because the first one is irrelevant and you'd never defend a game you think is bad): better graphics would improve the overall quality of the game.
- If a game is good-looking and has a good gameplay (the other option is explored in the first scenario), there's nothing to complain about in regard to those two game components.

See? there's absolutely no way in which reminding people that gameplay is more important than graphics and that graphics don't make a game is useful; if someone says some game's graphics suck, they're probably being more constructive than you trolling your way to deny something this basic so you can defend an object you love; stop using the "graphic whore" concept, it is offensive and makes no goddamn sense; and keep in mind that there is as many bad games with poor graphics than bad games with good graphics (maybe even more).

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Graphics are important, but they are only necessary on the level that they do not break a game's ability to be played. But I'll let a better authority on graphics and story (or gameplay) say what needs to be said.



If only he continued to believe this, and didn't sell out.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

See? there's absolutely no way in which reminding people that gameplay is more important than graphics and that graphics don't make a game is useful;

Gameplay needs to be iterated on to be made good but often these days games only come together at the last minute due to complicated art and game engine issues. Simple things like reducing the draw distance, level size or complexity or framerate can have large negative effects on gameplay and are things that are done to make games look prettier.

 

[Astalano]

Graphics enhance games and are essential since the worlds of games are one of their biggest strengths and allow them to tell better stories and enhance gameplay tremendously.

However, if you're talking about consoles, then graphics are relatively uninmportant and I find the idea of "great graphics" with 100 million dollar titles on a console kind of a paradox.

What's the point of investing so much into graphics that could be advanced much further on PC? It's a waste of resources, and I'm hoping one day console developers will realise that people buy consoles for fun gameplay not boring outdated graphics...

(just my little rant on the wastefulness of the console industry)

 

[9Darksoul6]

See? there's absolutely no way in which reminding people that gameplay is more important than graphics and that graphics don't make a game is useful;

Gameplay needs to be iterated on to be made good but often these days games only come together at the last minute due to complicated art and game engine issues. Simple things like reducing the draw distance, level size or complexity or framerate can have large negative effects on gameplay and are things that are done to make games look prettier.

What you said is true; however there's two things I'd like say:
1) Fallout New Vegas is not all that good-looking and suffers from some of the problems you mentioned; Batman Arkam Asylum doesn't and is beautiful both artistically and technically. That example alone should say something about your conclusion.

2) Generaly speaking, I think it's safe to say that (ports being exceptions) a game that suffers graphical-related problems (ex: unstable framerate) most likely has problems on other levels; Fallout New Vegas, again, being unstable at so many levels, should make a perfect example. If anything, those issues you mentioned should be seen not as an obstacle to make a good game, but a consequence of being a poorly made one.
Ports are an exception to this of course, because development alone didn't "make" those games, they were also converted to run on a system they weren't meant to.

 

[MarkDavis94]

I think that graphics are importnat to keep a certain ammount of immersion in the game. If a game has some kind of special effect and it looks ridiculously fake it spoils a certain aspect of the game in a way. Although I would rather developers sacrifice graphics and have a smooth playing game instead of having a nice looking but horrible game

 

[9Darksoul6]

Graphics enhance games and are essential since the worlds of games are one of their biggest strengths and allow them to tell better stories and enhance gameplay tremendously.

However, if you're talking about consoles, then graphics are relatively uninmportant and I find the idea of "great graphics" with 100 million dollar titles on a console kind of a paradox.

What's the point of investing so much into graphics that could be advanced much further on PC? It's a waste of resources, and I'm hoping one day console developers will realise that people buy consoles for fun gameplay not boring outdated graphics...

(just my little rant on the wastefulness of the console industry)

Not being able to handle so well as (an)other platform(s) (consoles < PC like you said) is not a reason to stop caring about them. I'd go further and say it's the exact opposite: it that made sense, there wouldn't be Red Steel 2, Mario Galaxy, and other titles with amazing artistic designs on the Wii (Wii < other systems) - doing so increases the overall value of the console.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Personally, I can forgive even the earliest 3D graphics if the gameplay and the story, and the general aspects of the game are immersive enough to compensate.

I love graphics, but I'd rather play a game that can captivate me for hours nay days of gameplay with "terrible" graphics than a game that insults my intelligence as a gamer, is unremarkable but looks very pretty.

That's what I truly believe. I'm not one to be blown away just because it looks almost as real as reality.

 

[blipblop]

I dont think gameplay or graphics alone makes a game great, hell my favorite games lack these thing alot and are more based on story.
but a good game can be all graphic an gameplay and zero story and vice versa.
there are no rules on what a great game is made of

 

[Trolldor]

Graphics are proportional to their purpose.

If the game is trying to be atmospheric, the graphics are important. If it emphasies exploration and discovery, then it's important.

Also, it's not about 'crisp, clean, clear graphics' but simply what suits the gameplay.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

What you said is true; however there's two things I'd like say:
1) Fallout New Vegas is not all that good-looking and suffers from some of the problems you mentioned; Batman Arkam Asylum doesn't and is beautiful both artistically and technically. That example alone should say something about your conclusion.

2) Generaly speaking, I think it's safe to say that (ports being exceptions) a game that suffers graphical-related problems (ex: unstable framerate) most likely has problems on other levels; Fallout New Vegas, again, being unstable at so many levels, should make a perfect example. If anything, those issues you mentioned should be seen not as an obstacle to make a good game, but a consequence of being a poorly made one.
Ports are an exception to this of course, because development alone didn't "make" those games, they were also converted to run on a system they weren't meant to.

Obsidian are famous for botching quality control and gameplay so can hardly be used as an example to disprove a rule. I think at this point in the "industry" as well there are certain well known ways of making games that normally end up being fun so little iteration is required on gameplay. I would actually mark this a strong proof that graphics are harming gameplay since so much effort is put into making the game look right that a known type of gameplay is used instead of a more experimental or complicated type. At least, in that case, Obsidian do try to add some complexity even if they don't have the time or experience to polish it.

Unstable framerate is a quality control issue but I was thinking more of design level decisions like deciding that 30fps with motion blur is superior to 60fps for a fast paced action game. Although possible fixes for unstable framerates include reducing number of enemies, interactive elements and level complexity. For example, making a game more like a corridor shooter than Deus Ex.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

"Much anger in him... like his father."

Okay, maybe not the second bit. But seriously OP, chill! If someone says you're a graphics whore, just proudly confirm that they're right.

 

[9Darksoul6]

"Much anger in him... like his father."

Okay, maybe not the second bit. But seriously OP, chill! If someone says you're a graphics whore, just proudly confirm that they're right.

Not saying they shouldn't because it angers me, but because it's an incoherent idea; they should do it in order no to seem stupid.

 

[X3N0N]

I'm just going to put this out there: Minecraft.
The graphics are like the Turbografx 16 made it to 3D. But the gameplay is so good, nobody cares.

 

[Justanothergamer300]

Graphics need to complement the game-play that is all

 

[9Darksoul6]

I give up. It's useless.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Of course graphics are important. I'm sick of this pretentious attitude where people get called 'graphics whores'.

A huge part of losing yourself in a game is its atmosphere. Games like Shadow Of The Colossus, Half Life 2, Fallout 3, Crysis, Bioshock would not have drawn the player in half as well without their beautiful visuals.

 

[Tupolev]

It's true that what separates games from, say, film, is the gameplay. However, aside from real-time interaction, games have exactly the same resources available to them as film. And in film, visuals are understandably important.

The real question that should be asked isn't whether graphics are important or not, it's "in what way are graphics important?"
Does the graphical power always matter? Is it necessarily beneficial for games to use the most cutting-edge visual styles? What visual style should a certain game go for?

Much in the same way that films that made good use of their limited technological resources even back in the 1920's still look mind-blowingly good today, old video games that made good use of their limited technological resources can also still look mind-blowingly good. Aesthetic style, IMO, tends to be vastly more important than power, though I also concede that, as graphical power progresses, our toolbox expands to allow certain visual styles that it didn't before.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

Graphics are not the end all of games. Good graphics can really make a good game great, but that game already has to be good to begin with. Otherwise it's just a really pretty piece of crap. But graphics don't have to be extremely amazing or life-like. Stylistic graphics can make a game incrediably more enjoyable to look at then even a game with "realistic" graphics. Even simplistic graphics can be good. Sometimes a game works really well with minimalistic graphics.

So in the end graphics are just a part of what makes a game enjoyable. It can't stand on them alone, but crappy graphics can really ruin the experience.