Immersive Gaming: Graphics vs. Fun

[neems]

Of course, most of the people posting on these forums are reading from the same page, or can hold up their end of the argument if they disagree with the prevailing viewpoint. I think most of us would say that gameplay / story are more important than visuals; some might say that graphica are an integral part of gaming, but not necessarily the be-all-and-end-all. Not many of us would proclaim that we love graphics and nothing else matters.

But that is not always the case.

As an example (but by no means isolated), there was a post on the steam forums when the pc port of lost planet was first released, that went something along the lines of "...i dont care if im getting 6 fps, i just wish i could play it with nice pretty graphics, hell i can get it to max without dual core and all that jazz to around 13-15 and it runs fine,". I've seen an awful lot of posts like that in various places; I always assume that it's kids, but who knows?

Graphics sell - or at least they used to. Apparently Crysis knocked a bit of sense in to people. They actually stopped, looked at the screenshots and the requirements, and thought 'I'm never gonna be able to run this properly'. They'd probably been burned too many times by graphical powerhouse games in the past.

As an aside, does anyone else find that they're starting to look at Indie games more now? Introversion (Defcon, Darwinia, Uplink) being a perfect example of stylish visuals married to unusual / intriguing ideas; the kind of thinking you don't tend to see from the major developers anymore.

 

[ExileNZ]

Bioshock and Mass Effect are immersive - you feel for protagonists, you make choices for your character; it fires your imagination. Both of those games are indisputably good; but they'd be a whole lot less immersive if you gave them the graphics of 5 yrs ago.

The graphics of FIVE years ago? (with apologies for caps)
Dude, System Shock 2 came out in like 1998 and, to hear Yahtzee tell it, Bioshock is SS2 "dumbed down for the console tards". Sadly I still haven't played it myself, but Yahtzee does at least back up his claim - the turrets, the wrench, the hack- PLUMBING, the cyber- PLASMIDS (with more apologies for caps)... the list goes on.

Now I have no problem with this, I loved SS2 and I've looked forward to Bioshock for a long time regardless. If anything he's confirmed I'll love it to death (I may beat my previous record of 30-something hours at the machine minus lunch and toilet breaks).
But let's not kid ourselves here, pretty-shinies and 2048x1600 do not make or break immersion. They just make it a tad more enjoyable (and I hope to God easier on the eyes).

As a side-note, I got SS2 Resurrection/Rebirth/whatever a while ago and, while I loved the new models, they just weren't as scary any more - the former aesthetic was grafted to my mind and stayed there like a Many larva (kudos to the guy who did it tho, I hear he got yummed up by Bioware or someone before he could even finish the mod).

Finally, and this is the one time I'll EVER ask for a spoiler: does Rapture have monkeys?

 

[Terramax]

The graphics of FIVE years ago? (with apologies for caps)
Dude, System Shock 2 came out in like 1998 and, to hear Yahtzee tell it, Bioshock is SS2 "dumbed down for the console tards". Sadly I still haven't played it myself, but Yahtzee does at least back up his claim - the turrets, the wrench, the hack- PLUMBING, the cyber- PLASMIDS (with more apologies for caps)... the list goes on.

Yahtzee slammed the game for its gameplay, not graphics. I like the look of Bioshock for the same reason I liked Psychonauts - it wasn't just great graphics, it has a certain sense of style. Pity then half the time there?re so many shadows I can?t tell where the heck I and everyone else is most of the time.

Of course, most of the people posting on these forums are reading from the same page, or can hold up their end of the argument if they disagree with the prevailing viewpoint. I think most of us would say that gameplay / story are more important than visuals; some might say that graphica are an integral part of gaming, but not necessarily the be-all-and-end-all.

I disagree with both viewpoints stated here. I believe graphics, plot and game play go hand in hand with the best of games.

The reason why computer games are closer to my heart than films and books is because games can be more eclectic than other mediums.

Using visuals, sound, voices, dialog, the next level of interactivity and choice to tell a story. I'm a firm believer games can go further than any other medium. Of course, 99% of games appear to not bother with the real capabilities games have to offer, so we?ve yet to see just how far games can go (I hope anyway).

This is the reason why I resent so many games. When I heard Yahtzee describe Mass Effect ?has characters spill out their life stories' every time you approach someone, or a phonebook's worth of information is thrown at you when you click on a computer screen of some sorts, I immediately switched off.

To me, that isn't great storytelling (or entertaining).

I think I made a point of this with the dialog and story in my Tomb Raider Legends review.

I'm pretty sure Ico and Shadow of the Colossus has proven to an extent that you can tell a great, albeit ambiguous story, out of almost visuals alone.

Psychonauts is another prime example. It looks great! But the visuals are another character in the story. Its uniqueness drew me in to wanting to know more about the world and the characters. It never felt like a chore learning about the environments and it?s characters.

Take the tormented painter later on; showing his head as a cartoony world of abstact art told me more than any dialog could.

 

[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.