Immersive Gaming: Graphics vs. Fun

[Veteran]

Personally, i think the Story is second to the actual gameplay, if a game is fun to actually play, then who gives a damn what the story is like (see Ace Combat 6), whereas if a game is awful to play, but has a decent story, then i'll likely put it down (see Blacksite: Area 51).

In my opinion, Graphics only serve to make great games even better (see Call Of Duty 4), and mediocre games a little bit more enjoyable (See Just Cause).


...you can tell i've just come off a Law exam, seeing as i've given examples for everything.

 

[ComradeJim270]

I just hope we get to the point of phot-realistic graphics very soon, forcing developers to focus on gameplay instead. I'd rather see dick-waving over AI or awesome new ideas than over how cool you can make a game look.

Graphics are only important to me if they serve a useful purpose in advancing gameplay. If bad graphics are preventing a developer from doing something cool with the gameplay, I'm all for better graphics, otherwise, I'm not gonna complain if something doesn't look eye-poppingly good.

 

[braincore02]

i am a bit of a graphics whore. when they introduced normal mapping to games i would walk around with a flashlight looking at textures from different angles, just to see the light respond. tho i will play games for reasons other than graphics, i feel graphics are almost as important as gameplay, and can be more important than story in certain games.

take matrix path of neo for example. now now, before you jump down my throat, i'm not saying it's a good game, nor that it had good graphics, but i'm using it rather as an example of how the game would be completely unenjoyable had they not gotten certain aspects of the graphics right.

overall the story and graphics of the game were ..um... lackluster. but if you're like me you're playing it to relive and control the slow motion martial arts sequences, not to be dazzled by an awesome story, or blown away by the latest set of technical improvements to a system's graphics.

and that's where they got one crucial graphic aspect right- the animation. while not perfect it was pretty smooth and fluid. this is what stepped the game up from atrocious to okay, and made the hand to hand combat fun enough for a play thru. if the animation had been bad this game would have been no fun at all.

of course, gameplay is still more important than graphics, which is what makes GT4 more enjoyable than forza 1 or 2. thankfully GT5 will be more enjoyable AND better looking than forza.

 

[REDPill357]

The graphics of FIVE years ago? (with apologies for caps)

No need for apologies when using caps in small amounts to make a stronger statement. IT'S USING CAPS LIKE THIS THAT GETS ANNOYING AND YOU NEED TO APOLOGIZE FOR.

As far as I'm concerned, story is second to gameplay. Anyone who liked Contra 4 can tell you this. There is a lame, hokey story about aliens invading Earth and four guys must stop them. It's a stupid story. But the gameplay is so awesome, you don't even worry about the story. You're having too much fun killing things to care.

Graphics are important. You don't need DYNAMIC HAIR to make a game good, though. You want to have immersing graphics, but you don't need extra stuff tacked on as a selling point. A good example of this is TF2. TF2 is not realistic looking at all. But it's a goofy, crazy art style that helps contribute to all the chaos going on, making it seem like "one big Pixar movie." And Valve is one of the few companies that has gotten bloom right. It's not overwhelming, and it adds a certain edge to the game.

In the future, I think games will focus less on ultra high-def graphics, and instead they will work on alternate art styles. For example, TF2 and Psychonauts.

 

[dan_the_manatee]

For clarity, my comparisons of Bioshock and SS2 had ended; I simply made the statement that Bioshock and Mass Effect would be roundly criticised if they released today with five year old graphics. And also, it's important to note that Yahtzee didn't slam Bioshock's gameplay; he nitpicked. Bioshock isn't a dumb game by anyone's standards. It has shortcomings, but to a certain extent, SS2 was a rather over-complicated game. It falls into very linear play on the later levels, and all those RPG elements that preceded left me with a character completely ill-equipped to face the last 30 minutes. Yeah; I "ubermensched" on the console.

TF2 has excellent art design, but I don't think we'll see it replicated to often. That style jsut wouldn't work on COD5, for example. We'll still see games like that moving towards photorealism; that's part of what makes them immersive, and in turn that adds to the gameplay. Those games still need to push graphical technologies to compete. It doesn't mean they're lesser games for it though, it's part of that particular genre that graphics are an element of success.

 

[dan_the_manatee]

FIrst thing I did when I finsihed Bioshock was to start again, this time with no Vita Chambers and little girl's corpses strewn out behind me. More plasmids for me, Doctor Steinman. Anyway, that's off-topic.

I apparently didn't make myself clear earlier (and I do apologise); basically when a good game comes out, we take it's graphics for granted. Bioshock, ME, etc, have undeniably good graphics. If they didn't, we'd criticise them for that (hence the "5 year" comment), and penalise them in our great-game-o-meter.

When poor games come out, we all acknowldege they're crap; mostly due to technical and/or gameplay issues. It's been said before that bad games cover their sins with good graphics. I disagree: bad games have standard graphics, it just happens to be their only redeeming feature in many a case.
Some games are clearly graphical powerhouses, and serve just to push graphics tech with no real story or gameplay advances (eg. Unreal 3; it's popular, but it's not changed in many respects from older UTs). It doesn't necessarily make them bad games, and for a lot of people, it's the better graphics when compared to a competitor that will be the deciding factor in which to purchase.

 

[dan_the_manatee]

FIrst thing I did when I finsihed Bioshock was to start again, this time with no Vita Chambers and little girl's corpses strewn out behind me. More plasmids for me, Doctor Steinman. Anyway, that's off-topic.

I apparently didn't make myself clear earlier (and I do apologise); basically when a good game comes out, we take it's graphics for granted. Bioshock, ME, etc, have undeniably good graphics. If they didn't, we'd criticise them for that (hence the "5 year" comment), and penalise them in our great-game-o-meter.

When poor games come out, we all acknowldege they're crap; mostly due to technical and/or gameplay issues. It's been said before that bad games cover their sins with good graphics. I disagree: bad games have standard graphics, it just happens to be their only redeeming feature in many a case.
Some games are clearly graphical powerhouses, and serve just to push graphics tech with no real story or gameplay advances (eg. Unreal 3; it's popular, but it's not changed in many respects from older UTs). It doesn't necessarily make them bad games, and for a lot of people, it's the better graphics when compared to a competitor that will be the deciding factor in which to purchase.

 

[tobyornottoby]

I say there are 2 extremes of games

representation serves rules in this case, graphics are only functional, they clarify the gameplay. It's all about the fun you have while playing

rules serve representation in this case, the graphics have a higher purpose. They have to convince you the represwentation is real, that it feels right. It's all about that immersion while playing

so both point from the intro post are valid

 

[Cooper42]

For those of us (the majority) who don't have bleeding edge PCs - the push for graphics is damned annoying.

It's all one big assemblage. Graphics never hide a crap game. A great game is made greater with graphics, but doesn't need it (it just needs to be exceptionally good in other areas)

One day someone will make a game that has excpetional graphics that are more immersive than window dressing. Storylines and characters that are interesting and absorbing. Game mechanics which are fun and engaging over time.

Deus Ex didn't look that good, even for its time and SS2 fell a little foul on the game mechanics (but at least tried innovation).

Until then, we settle for one or another of those (and in some exceptional cases, two of them).

 

[Conqueror Kenny]

to me i think that graphics dont matter at all if you are having fun and you get into a game you start to stop noticing all 0f the graphics and just get into the game i seem to remember a very old gamboy game (or some sort of divice like that) some driving game where your car was a sticker and the track was just lights but after a few miniutes you stop paying atention and have fun

 

[ShadowFlex]

I fail to remember the name of a game I started playing at a mates house. The game was about aliens that came down to earth and just started destroying anything they saw fit. You took humans as slaves and abducted cows. Now for replay value I'm guessing it would just get dull quick but in about a month when your clearing out your "Old" games piles you would be more than happy to return to.

Now the graphics in this game where limited at best, not many eye candy explosions either. As for story...You where an Alien...Destroying stuff...That was the story as far as I knew..

But the games was AWESOME! =D

(Graphics = Story) < Gameplay

 

[sammyfreak]

I enjoy good art design more then i do graphics, but sometimes graphics enable the artistic vision. Grim Fandango and Heroes 3 of Might and Magic and in my eyes the most beutiful games ever, not cause the pixelcount of dynamic lighteffects or whatever they call it, the games were beautiful cause the artist had created a beautiful world.

But there is one aspect of modern graphics that realy is a big deal, lighting. While playing most of HL:2 (havent touched it until recently) i thought 'meh' until i used a flashlight in a dark tunnel or saw the antlions inside Nova Prospect. It was the lighting that realy made me go "wow". Lighting is essential in all types of cinematography and photography and can make a movie go from good to awfull. I beleive it can do the same thing for games, highly raising the level of immersion and creating a fantastic feel.