Poll: More poly less play?

[Firetaffer]

Yes, so long as they complement content. Remember, visuals ARE content.

 

[Darknacht]

Yes, so long as they complement content. Remember, visuals ARE content.

In most games the visuals are content in the same way the pages and typeface are content in a book, they have to be good enough to not detract from the book but I don't by the book for the feel of the pages or the look of the typeface.

 

[Crazie_Guy]

It's not like there is a sliding scale of graphics vs game content. There are droves of high content, cutting edge graphics games that prove you can have both when you actually care about putting out a good game.

Games with a lack of good content are generally a result of poor design, low ambition, or just generally being an assembly line cash cow. It has nothing to do with spending so much time on the graphics that the devs had to give up on some grander vision.

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

graphics are important but only in how they serve the game. Zelda64 is a better-looking game than Gears of War.

 

[lacktheknack]

On the one hand, I'm a graphics whore.

On the other hand, Dwarf Fortress.

HOW DO I RECONCILE THIS

 

[Vegosiux]

Yes, so long as they complement content. Remember, visuals ARE content.

In most games the visuals are content in the same way the pages and typeface are content in a book, they have to be good enough to not detract from the book but I don't by the book for the feel of the pages or the look of the typeface.

I...quite like that analogy. I think I need to note it down. Yeah, it is kind of like that, isn't it. With the added twist that "polygon count" would then be akin to "pigment content" of the ink.

 

[Scrustle]

Sigh.

Didn't we have one of these in just the last week or two? I swear. -_-

TAAAAAKUMIIII!!!

OT: Your predictions/fears are already coming true. Final Fantasy for example. As the series has gone on they have focused more and more on visuals at the expense of everything else. Many developers have lamented at having to reduce the scope of their games to maintain a high bar in graphics. But they are also being used in the way you described to improve other aspects of games. Like L.A Noire for example. The face capture they did for that game would not have been possible last generation.

 

[ElPatron]

There are games that are absolutely ugly but are still very good.

I wonder how many people of those that say graphical quality means nothing to them, play their games on the lowest settings possible to ensure maximum frame rate.

I do. Not in every game, because my screen refresh rate is 60Hz and I would be just wasting frames. But in CoD, Quake, War§ow etc I do lower the settings.

Plus, I lower the settings on BF2 to disable shadows and the pretty grass. Snipers usually hide in those places and I prefer to look at snipers than the pretty grass.

 

[Vegosiux]

Yes, so long as they complement content. Remember, visuals ARE content.

In most games the visuals are content in the same way the pages and typeface are content in a book, they have to be good enough to not detract from the book but I don't by the book for the feel of the pages or the look of the typeface.

Bad comparison.

Because games are also a visual medium the quality of the images is as important to the game as the writing style of a book.

A direct example of this the incredible views in Skyrim. They are content in the game.

No more so than the in-game books are. Also, books can have pictures too, and games can be and have been done and done well without any visualization at all.

 

[TheCommanders]

-snip-

Well, seeing how I'm not from the future (no matter how much I wish I was), I can't really express my opinion of how fast technology, and by extension graphics, are evolving as fact, so I'll wait for time to either vindicate or contradict me. I will say the Unreal 4 Engine Looks frickin' fantastic.

 

[Flames66]

I recently started playing San Andreas Multi-Player again. The level of graphics in that seems fine to me.

 

[Cobbs]

Minecraft anybody? Hell even (Motherf***king, d**K skanking sod****) XCOM.
Seriously gameplay first, graphics second

 

[Martin Toney]

Sigh.

Didn't we have one of these in just the last week or two? I swear. -_-

With my being new here, i didn't know the community had recently talked about this subject, sorry to have wasted your time.

 

[Arina Love]

No they don't matter to me. i having more fun with Tales of Eternia on PSP than Max Payne 3,Crysis 2 etc
NIS/GUST/IF/COMPA alliance got right idea, they don't bother with good graphics or broad appeal. They deliver niche games with very limited budget specifically targeted on their fanbase and fans (like i'm) love it.

 

[Wolfram23]

Poppycock, I say.

There's many gorgeous games that have awesome gameplay and interesting stories. Four of the most demanding games of all time are also in my top 10 favorite games. (Crysis, Metro 2033, STALKER: Call of Pripyat, Witcher 2)

The graphics definitely help with the experience. I'm not saying good graphics are of utmost important - for example I thought Bastion was absolutely incredible and it's basically hand drawn cartoons. What I am saying is that when a game is trying to be realistic, graphics are then very important. I wouldn't expect Street Fighter to have awesome graphics, but I do think that, particularily with the FPS genre, it becomes quite important.

To answer the OP, does better graphics mean less good games? No. The graphic engines they use to create these awesome graphics do most of the work. Yes, they need to design the models and create textures and animate them, but there's no reason I can see that would prevent other, non-artist, members of the development team to put together good gameplay mechanics and story.

 

[Weaver]

I don't think we WILL see a decline in what I'd call "good games" I think we've been riding the steep hill down to the bottom for a long time now.

 

[Squilookle]

Yes, so long as they complement content. Remember, visuals ARE content.

In most games the visuals are content in the same way the pages and typeface are content in a book, they have to be good enough to not detract from the book but I don't by the book for the feel of the pages or the look of the typeface.

Bad comparison.

Because games are also a visual medium the quality of the images is as important to the game as the writing style of a book.

A direct example of this the incredible views in Skyrim. They are content in the game.

No more so than the in-game books are. Also, books can have pictures too, and games can be and have been done and done well without any visualization at all.

Yes books can have pictures and games can be Zork style games without any visuals at all.

However that isn't how they are commonly associated. You dont think Book = Visual medium and Game = non-visual. Games are by their nature seen as a visual medium, where as books are seen as a text medium. Good graphics are content in a visual medium. Yeah the ingame books are content as well. Just like the music, story, gameplay ect.

What I am saying is that graphics are as important to games as music, enemy variety and even story.

You also don't think of books by what the paper is made of, but that's the thing- you shouldn't have to. As long as the paper and typeface bring out the words so that they can be read, they've done their job, and we can all get on with reading the book.

So really, graphics aren't even close to being as important as gameplay, variety, and control. As long as they present the content clearly, their job is done. Expecting anything more is akin to not reading books because they don't have glossy pages. In that sense, books are an excellent comparison.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Do you share my fears that creators will focus to much on looks and neglect content,

Personally I think we already passed that point some time ago sadly. It is one of the major reasons why I'm seriously considering giving up gaming as a hobby after nearly 25 years.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

So my good men and women of The Escapist, my subject of discussion is this. With the Advent of hyper powerful in-game engines coupled with modern rendering wizardry, do you think that we will see a decline in what you would call good games? Do you share my fears that creators will focus to much on looks and neglect content, or do you think this will make our beloved designers work doubly hard to impress us with blazing visuals and heart wrenching story? I may be an Xbot but I was blown away by "Beyond" at E3. Is Beyond the first of many great things to come, or just a power play. Share your thoughts and keep it friendly.
Peace out.

It depends on what the developer is trying to achieve. Also, if you were to ask the generation that came before you, particularly PC gamers and NES generation gamers, you would hear your fears as well... though in their case you're merely a belated echo of their own concerns.

There are plenty of people who already feel graphics have become the centerpiece and actual gameplay has become this trivial thing that enables people to progress through obscenely detailed areas. For those people, your current fear has already occurred and is now the socially accepted norm (except for them, which is infuriating).

My opinion on graphics is this... if it suits the game then the graphics are fine. Minecraft looks good, Bastion looks good, heck even last gens Ico and Shadow of the Colossus look good. None of these games stress the boundaries of Photorealism but instead work on abstract imagery (exception of Ico and SotC) and they still look great. If you want your game to be realistic, then power to you... though realism in games tends to create uncanny valley type scenarios (though next gens looks set to alleviate this in terms of environmental aesthetics... still iffy about Human models).

However, there are certain palettes that are over used (like gritty, rustic warzones) and I will judge a game as a result of that. The market is saturated with that aesthetic and it becomes distasteful in its abundance.

EDIT: See the Jimquisition episode on the best looking game of the year (spoiler, it's Viva Pinata). It's not the most amazing game ever, but it has a wildly different palette then what is currently trendy.

 

[dimensional]

Do you share my fears that creators will focus to much on looks and neglect content,

Personally I think we already passed that point some time ago sadly. It is one of the major reasons why I'm seriously considering giving up gaming as a hobby after nearly 25 years.

I agree seriously look at the scope of some of the old school CRPGS (the Ultima series for instance) and look at what we have today prettier much more accessible much less ambitious projects (with locked away content). I dont think ill be giving up gaming though I have just gone back to one of my first gaming loves fighting games atm after a very long break.

OT: as for visuals I find them extremely important if I cant see anything it usually spoils the game for me especially if its a graphic novel or something, different games need different levels of visual fidelity to compliment the gameplay some just need simple text and maybe a few dashes and dots others need top of the range graphics that being said for me good art direction has always trumped good graphics. Now we have more tools I wish we would see more range between top range graphics of AAA titles and extremely minimalistic indie titles. Ok there are a few such as Skullgirls and Journey immediately spring to mind but overall these dont represent a large amount in the market. So visuals are good but dont think they are the be all and end all or that they dont matter each game should use them intelligently.