Poll: Graphics

[AmericanWarMachine]

In this generation of gaming, it would seem that every game company is trying to outdo the other company's graphics. This wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that this usually brings up issues with the game:
1) Development time - Creating high-end graphics is something that takes a long, LONG time. For every backdrop, bullet, explosion, light, brick, window, and drop of water you see, someone had to create that texture.
2) Gameplay Drawbacks - If a gaming company wants to get game X out on day Y, then they have to ration their time spent. If there are a lot of people making graphics (see above for reasons why) that means there are less idea men, testers, de-buggers, coders, etc. etc. and therefore will have an (overall) less quality.
3) Release days - Creating the best graphics pushes back the game's release days because if something is buggy during testing, they have to go back, redraw, remodel, and reaply everything and then test it AGAIN to make sure there wont be and major glitches.
3) ?*

So what do you guys think? Are all the sparkley graphics worth it?
*Tell me what you think.

 

[DannyDamage]

Graphics don't bother me as long as I enjoy it. "Even the fat and ugly ones need loving"

Use the search feature next time dude, this thread's been done a few times recently if memory serves me.

 

[ReepNeep]

I make a distinction between the artistic and technical aspects of a game's graphics. The former is a necesicity(sp?), the latter a bonus.

I can go back and think that games from the early 90s are pleasant to look at, regardless of how technically primitive they are. Chrono Trigger, Starcontrol 2 and Metroid 3 are good examples of this. I'll take the Source Engine's excellent facial animation over Crysis's photorealism any day of the week.

Nitpicking aside, Gameplay is King for me. Hell, I consider sound design to be at least as important as graphics in spite of how its totally ignored by developers.

 

[Good morning blues]

Honestly, I kind of miss the graphics of yore. Not so much the late 90s-early 00s period of blocky 3d models and low-rez textures, but the days when 3d games didn't need to have all kinds of bump-mapping and lighting effects and shit. There are a few reasons for this:

1. I am a poor, starving college student, and I can't afford a computer that doesn't get bogged down by all these graphic effects. I'm often left with a pretty shitty visual after turning most of the options off.

2. Just like Francois Truffaut said about black-and-white film, simple graphics are preferable, in my opinion, because they add to the otherworldliness and magic of the game. These are fantasies, and video games are never, ever going to look and feel like real life. If you have something that looks almost just like real life, I'd say that it's pretty likely to take you out and constantly remind you that yes, in fact, you're just sitting there wasting your life in front of some sort of video game.

And I can't really criticize bad graphics, either. Why? Well, here's a screenshot of the game that I made over the summer:

 

[flare09]

They sort of mean something to me. I mean it can't look completely ugly. It has to have something neat about its graphics. But if my computer can't handle that game with the greatest settings on, I'll definitely turn them down.

 

[WTEricson]

Graphics are part of emersion in gaming, but IMO they have came to a point they aren't progressing enough in comparison to gameplay aspects 4,8,16,32,64,128bit. How many more wrinkles in an NPCs face do we have to see before we are content with graphics... or are we doomed to be shallow for eternity?

We seem to be at an important crossroads in gaming where the graphic upgrades are too expensive for the majority of the world to currently enjoy the games, thus hurting the profits and decreasing the ability for graphic advancement. There's a reason American buy the overwelming majority of "next-gen" consoles, the rest of the world can't afford it. And much like the SUV we are looked on with distane for our hunger to "Keep up with the Robinsons" while the Australian pays double prices. Now with piracy worse than ever with no real solution in sight the gaming industry seems poised to take a harder hit than movies or music (really, how much does it cost to sing).

I am learning to become content with what I have, and wait for my conterparts of the world to join me.

 

[Stalkingtiger]

Graphics<gameplay forever, Ive played some supposed great games on the 360 that have great graphics sure, but basically are not fun to play so this makes me put down the game quickly.
This is why I am a Wii owner, the games dont look as good sure but are usually hella more fun

 

[Clairaudient]

Like you said, as long as it fits the game style then the graphics can be pretty much anything. I really liked Windwaker's look, even though it was cartoony and different. I don't like when games go for the 'realistic done badly' look.

Also, wouldn't this be more at home in the gaming discussion forum?

 

[ernie shmitz]

Graphics are worthless compared to gameplay. It's got to have something to make the game fun.
If you just want good graphics go see a Disney/Pixar movie in 3D Imax. It'll cost less.

 

[Archereus]

i dont think graphics are really all that needed, of course the visuals need to be semi good, man i am happy with ps2 graphics for as long as i can make out what i'm fighting, looking at or what ever else i am glad, and any how theres a limit to how good graphics can get so our game companies should slow down before they hit that peak.

 

[Decemius]

So long as I can tell one thing from another, I'm fine with it, especially if it suits the game in question (Such as in the case of No More Heroes).

 

[wilsonscrazybed]

Poll removed and thread moved to correct forum.

 

[Eiseman]

So just what exactly are we talking about in terms of "graphics?" I don't really care about the hardware's processing power, because we're really reaching that limit of visually mimicking real life, you know?

On the other hand, there's art design. I find that be a far more legitimate case to argue about. In this regard, aesthetics can really make an impression. Instead of trying to impress people by encoding individual leaves onto a tree to make it seem all the more life-like (the "graphics" argument), you could, say, give the tree a "water-colored" look that makes the background look like a living painting (art design, take a wild guess as to which game THAT'S from).

So, my answer is: no, graphics don't mean much, but visual presentation is still important anyway.

 

[Graustein]

Graphics are unimportant.
The way the game looks is far more important.

 

[TaborMallory]

Graphics, to me, are nothing more than a nice bonus.
If a good game has good graphics, sweet!
If a good game has piss-poor graphics, you still have yourself a good game! Joust/Defender/Robitron, anyone?
BUT if graphics are getting in the way of a GOOD GAME (shakes angry finger at today's story/plot teams), then that's all the less respect I'll have for the company in question.

 

[tobyornottoby]

Depends on the game

For some games graphics help a hot with immersion, which could be the highest goal of that game
For other games that should be all about the gameplay, graphics should not make that game too expensive/sucky/whatever

 

[Caliostro]

Graphics always add to immersion. They're not as important as gameplay, but they are important.

That said, and while imo the majority of the times 3D-super-realistic-Crysis-like graphics are preferred, 2D graphics still have their place that 3D can never fill up. It's just a different style. It's like saying portrait painting can always be replaced by a photography.