Poll: Do high end graphics take more than they give?
- Thread starter Kpt._Rob
- Start date
I wish my friends would stop complaining if a game has cartoony graphics. Or if the game looks like a comic book, I love it when a game is cartoony and has bright colors.
I find that the core of a good game is the actual gameplay. Aesthetic features such as graphics can either add or detract from the experience, depending on the relationship of the game and its intended affect on the player. Some games use the art to express deeper themes, which can be improved by sharper graphics in some cases. In other situations, the graphics enhance the gameplay. I've played games where I couldn't even discern whatever the hell I was shooting at, so how am I supposed to know what I'm even doing or have any fun? Nonetheless, I concur that the focus on graphics over gameplay rather than as a compliment is detrimental and does not add any value to an otherwise poorly made game.
I must disagree on the argument concerning "seas of grays and browns" as that is not the fault of the graphics, but the actual art direction. "Realistic" games can be made vibrant, it is only a matter of who's making the game. Gears of War or Call of Duty boast a darker palette, but that does not mean that the graphical capacity available now is restricted to that for every game. Oblivion and Fallout 3 are relatively comparable as far as graphical quality, but the art direction creates a vast difference with Oblivion being a vibrant fantasy world. I would attribute the "seas of grays and browns" more to the deluge of post-apocalyptic games and shooters set in the Middle-East.
Who is to say that Ocarina of Time or other N64 classics would suffer from higher end graphics? For their time, many were incredible and I think it is more of a reflection the current lack of creativity for many games. For Nintendo in particular, they do not focus as much on graphics as Sony or Microsoft as shown by the Wii's much lower capabilities, yet we do not see "another Ocarina of Time" or "another Starfox 64" and so on. My take on that is that the original N64 titles essentially hit gold for their time with a striking balance of the elements of a great game.
I must disagree on the argument concerning "seas of grays and browns" as that is not the fault of the graphics, but the actual art direction. "Realistic" games can be made vibrant, it is only a matter of who's making the game. Gears of War or Call of Duty boast a darker palette, but that does not mean that the graphical capacity available now is restricted to that for every game. Oblivion and Fallout 3 are relatively comparable as far as graphical quality, but the art direction creates a vast difference with Oblivion being a vibrant fantasy world. I would attribute the "seas of grays and browns" more to the deluge of post-apocalyptic games and shooters set in the Middle-East.
Who is to say that Ocarina of Time or other N64 classics would suffer from higher end graphics? For their time, many were incredible and I think it is more of a reflection the current lack of creativity for many games. For Nintendo in particular, they do not focus as much on graphics as Sony or Microsoft as shown by the Wii's much lower capabilities, yet we do not see "another Ocarina of Time" or "another Starfox 64" and so on. My take on that is that the original N64 titles essentially hit gold for their time with a striking balance of the elements of a great game.
I like good graphics, but I don't need them. I don't care as long as the gameplay is nice. I think nice graphics are a point up, while bad graphics don't subtract any points. One day, a kid at my school said doom was fun but had awful graphics. I told him that who cares, it's better than most FPS games today, which was somewhat of a burn, because almost everyone in my grade is a ps3 fanboy and a Modern Warfare addict. They're actually excited about sony move, and I keep telling them how dumb it is.
It seems to me that the engine designers should spend more time making good graphics easier. I appreciate a beautiful game. I really do. But the amount of time and energy spent really takes away from the rest of the experience. If I'm not mistaken, this is precisely why so many game developers use the Unreal 3 Engine. It's easy, fast, doesn't cost a hell of a lot, and looks pretty good. So, the question is why don't we do more of that? Making good graphics take less time means we have more opportunities and funds to spend on gameplay, story and fine-tuning. Not to mention precious, precious time.
EDIT: (for added content) I think videogame graphics are fine the way they are. What we really need to focus on graphically is hardware. One of my favorite parts of GTAIV was how the engine interacted with the game world. It was very unpredictable, and that was what made my city-wide rampages so fun. The problem was that without the extreme optimization, it probably wouldn't run on anything today. (If you watch replay videos, you can see that literally everything behind you in the game world disappears.) What I'm thinking would be the next big 'graphical' improvement is scale. I want games that take place in enormous scale. Five square miles, densely populated. This obviously isn't important for a lot of games, but I think that most games are fine the way they are. They just need a bit of polish.
The next big thing will be animations. One of my favorite parts of the Assassins Creed series (one of my favorites) is the animations. I don't know if it was motioncapped, or if it was done in-house by a very, very dedicated team, but it was fantastic. If we want to capture someone's personality in the game (like the guys at Extra Credits keep yelling at us to do) then we need to improve animation.
EDIT: (for added content) I think videogame graphics are fine the way they are. What we really need to focus on graphically is hardware. One of my favorite parts of GTAIV was how the engine interacted with the game world. It was very unpredictable, and that was what made my city-wide rampages so fun. The problem was that without the extreme optimization, it probably wouldn't run on anything today. (If you watch replay videos, you can see that literally everything behind you in the game world disappears.) What I'm thinking would be the next big 'graphical' improvement is scale. I want games that take place in enormous scale. Five square miles, densely populated. This obviously isn't important for a lot of games, but I think that most games are fine the way they are. They just need a bit of polish.
The next big thing will be animations. One of my favorite parts of the Assassins Creed series (one of my favorites) is the animations. I don't know if it was motioncapped, or if it was done in-house by a very, very dedicated team, but it was fantastic. If we want to capture someone's personality in the game (like the guys at Extra Credits keep yelling at us to do) then we need to improve animation.
I was just thinking about this today. While it is nice to have the occasional high graphics game I would gladly sacrifice some polygons for longer gameplay, lower costs and more innovation.
For me the only kinds of games that need really good graphics are games like the NFS series, Dirt2, and other racing games. However almost any other game I like simplistic graphics, except for a few like L4D2, Just Cause 2, and probably a few more games later down the road. But what I'm saying is that some games need the realistic graphics to piece the rest of the game together (they still need a good story and good gameplay). While others only need simplistic graphics.
I still love games like Duke Nukem 3D, Shadow Warrior and Blood. Partly because we have no alternative. It feels like games lost something, something related to fun. All this brownish realism just pisses me off.
Take Blood for example. When you shoot humanoid enemy with a flare gun he runs around with a blazing flare stuck in his flesh for a while, and then catches fire, loses skin, meat (most of it) and explodes into blood and organs, loudly squishing and spraying blood everywhere while still burning. In most modern games deaths are boring in favor of realism.
Take Blood for example. When you shoot humanoid enemy with a flare gun he runs around with a blazing flare stuck in his flesh for a while, and then catches fire, loses skin, meat (most of it) and explodes into blood and organs, loudly squishing and spraying blood everywhere while still burning. In most modern games deaths are boring in favor of realism.
High graphics are a nice bonus,but medium graphics are decent as well.Depends a lot on the gameplay.
I hope that the developers(game designers) focus on optimizing the games that will require high end graphic settings,else the community of players that don't have "endgame" computers won't buy their games or upgrade their computer just to play it.
I hope that the developers(game designers) focus on optimizing the games that will require high end graphic settings,else the community of players that don't have "endgame" computers won't buy their games or upgrade their computer just to play it.
I agree with the OP in many of his thoughts. Great graphics do not make the game, it takes good gameplay for me to stick with any game. Minecraft is a great case in point, shit graphics but really interesting gameplay! I picked up a membership of the alpha just a few hours ago after playing the demo for several days.
I'm one of the few people who can't tell for a can of beans the difference in graphics.
After the 64-bit era, with the release of the PS2, Gamecube and XBox, I couldn't tell the difference between graphics of anything.
I can't tell the difference between a PS2 or PS3 game, or the difference between a regular TV and Blu-Ray.
Good post, OP.
After the 64-bit era, with the release of the PS2, Gamecube and XBox, I couldn't tell the difference between graphics of anything.
I can't tell the difference between a PS2 or PS3 game, or the difference between a regular TV and Blu-Ray.
Good post, OP.
Played FIFA 08 On My PS3 Recently (Don't Ask)
At The Time, The Graphics Were Brilliant. Now, It's Terrible
At The Time, The Graphics Were Brilliant. Now, It's Terrible
I love nice looking graphics. Realistic looking graphics are not the same as good graphics. Take Psychonauts. The graphics are incredibly whimsical and silly. If you saw a person that looked like Raz in real life, you would run and hide. But the game is still attractive, and its appearance adds a lot to the playing experience.
Half-Life 2 is different. It is not a whimsical game about psychic summer camp gone wrong: it's about alien invasions and sciencey stuff. If the graphics were like those of Psychonauts, instead of being more realistic, it would be a confusing game indeed. TF2 is more cartoony, because the way the game is built is, in some ways, cartoony. Sure, it's violent, but the violence in it speaks more of Tom and Jerry to me, and less of gritty wartime crap.
Realistic graphics aren't necessary for me. Good graphics are. They don't mean the same thing at all.
Half-Life 2 is different. It is not a whimsical game about psychic summer camp gone wrong: it's about alien invasions and sciencey stuff. If the graphics were like those of Psychonauts, instead of being more realistic, it would be a confusing game indeed. TF2 is more cartoony, because the way the game is built is, in some ways, cartoony. Sure, it's violent, but the violence in it speaks more of Tom and Jerry to me, and less of gritty wartime crap.
Realistic graphics aren't necessary for me. Good graphics are. They don't mean the same thing at all.