Poll: More poly less play?

[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.

You can relay in words alone regardless of printed material. It can be done in audio. Its still called audio books because the point is to relay words.

You cannot relay the great views without good graphics. Uncharteds great scenery is one of the main features of the game. You cannot relay that content without the prober graphic, yet I can relay any story without a single page.

Utter rubbish. You can convey the same vista on lower graphical settings in the same game, you can even convey it in a completely different game. Minecraft has sweeping awe inspiring vistas, and it's graphics look like crap.

Besides, if you think that audio books can convey the same experience as a book, then it stands to reason that the novelisation of a game also conveys the same experience as a game. And voila, that's non-visual if it doesn't have pictures.

When there's a commercial on TV for a game, it's advertising the visuals, not the gameplay. When we get trailers online, it's advertising the visuals. Graphics have been a major selling point of games since the beginning of gaming.

Well sure, you can't really do a trailer for a game WITHOUT showing graphics, unless it's live action. But to say trailers don't show gameplay, or indeed anything other than just graphics is ridiculous. Hard as it is to convey engaging gameplay elements in a 30 second trailer, it is still attempted, and often.

I'll be the first to admit that some trailers do indeed strive only to wow you with graphics, but if anyone's stupid enough to buy a game based solely on that, then they deserve whatever gameplay their high-poly games give 'em.

 

[Dryk]

Seriously, if I want to see dazzling visuals and cool explosions, I'm going to bloody well go and see the latest blockbuster movie. I'm not sold on visuals when it comes to games, and going "oooo shiny!" in the advertising campaign will only put me off, cause they wil make me thing there's hardly any "game" they have to show.

Well yeah, games are always going to be behind movies since they have the unfortunate restriction of having to render in real-ti...

Don't tell any of the major publishers what I almost said, they might think it's a good idea.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

When there's a commercial on TV for a game, it's advertising the visuals, not the gameplay. When we get trailers online, it's advertising the visuals. Graphics have been a major selling point of games since the beginning of gaming.

Well sure, you can't really do a trailer for a game WITHOUT showing graphics, unless it's live action. But to say trailers don't show gameplay, or indeed anything other than just graphics is ridiculous. Hard as it is to convey engaging gameplay elements in a 30 second trailer, it is still attempted, and often.

I'll be the first to admit that some trailers do indeed strive only to wow you with graphics, but if anyone's stupid enough to buy a game based solely on that, then they deserve whatever gameplay their high-poly games give 'em.

I absolutely agree. I guess what I didn't really clarify in the original post is that while advertisements can display gameplay in a sense, it's impossible to get a feel for the gameplay without at the very least several minutes of footage (at which point it stops being an advertisement or a trailer). Sure a commercial can show you some snippets from Madden or Max Payne diving down stairs and killing three people, but seeing it really does't tell you if the controls feel clunky, how the game mechanics actually work, etc etc.

 

[Vegosiux]

A sensible person would correct a falsely assumed point and move the discussion forward, you on they other hand decided to take issue with the act of assuming which served only to avoid the actual topic at hand. Great job.

The "topic at hand" about me taking issue with current generation graphics vs. gameplay vs. story situation is still there, right in the middle, and I took no step to avid it. I don't see the relevance of my opinion on graphics in the past is relevant for the topic at hand; however, because the topic at hand isn't "Old games were better", but "Current games could do with less poly count obsession".

Yes, yes, I know you want to go there in order to keep spinning your "nostalgia" story and how "games are better than ever but some people just refuse to see it", but here's the deal. I'm not talking about whether or not we have it better or worse now. My statement is a lot simpler: I do not consider what we have now to be good. I don't care if it's "better than ever". Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But, even if it is, I'm gonna be ripping off a Sterling's quote, "Better doesn't mean good."

And just to say it again in case you missed me saying it the last three hundred and seventy-nine times...as everyone, I also want my games to look good. But poly count and raw processing power required to render do not automatically translate into how good something looks.

side note: I said "People always get nostalgia glasses when it comes to the graphics debate.", not that you specifically were. I made a general statement, that is often true in the graphics discussion. You assumed I was referring specifically to you, wouldn't that make you guilty of doing the same thing that has your panties in such a bunch?

You were replying specifically to me and it was the first thing you said in that reply. Okay, second, after directly negating something I said in my own post. That was my first clue.

 

[Vegosiux]

Seriously, if I want to see dazzling visuals and cool explosions, I'm going to bloody well go and see the latest blockbuster movie. I'm not sold on visuals when it comes to games, and going "oooo shiny!" in the advertising campaign will only put me off, cause they wil make me thing there's hardly any "game" they have to show.

Well yeah, games are always going to be behind movies since they have the unfortunate restriction of having to render in real-ti...

Don't tell any of the major publishers what I almost said, they might think it's a good idea.

I know.

But if I want to see shiny, I simply want to see shiny. As long as I get to see shiny, I don't care how and when shiny is rendered, nor do I see why I should care if all I care about is the shiny. I'll go where I can get the shiny. So yes, if I want to see shiny, I shall go see a shiny Hollywood piece of shiny crap and go "oooo shiny!". If I am gaming, I want to be playing a game, not going "oooo shiny!"

In other words.... "Objection, relevance?"

...I guess it should be obvious by now that the gripe I have with the modern gaming scene is basically appeal to the lowest common denominator. In case it isn't obvious: The gripe I have with the modern gaming scene is basically appeal to the lowest common denominator. It's not my fault that the denominator is "Ooo, shiny!"

 

[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.

You can relay in words alone regardless of printed material. It can be done in audio. Its still called audio books because the point is to relay words.

You cannot relay the great views without good graphics. Uncharteds great scenery is one of the main features of the game. You cannot relay that content without the prober graphic, yet I can relay any story without a single page.

Utter rubbish. You can convey the same vista on lower graphical settings in the same game, you can even convey it in a completely different game. Minecraft has sweeping awe inspiring vistas, and it's graphics look like crap.

Besides, if you think that audio books can convey the same experience as a book, then it stands to reason that the novelisation of a game also conveys the same experience as a game. And voila, that's non-visual if it doesn't have pictures.

Bad graphics are still more than no graphics. The sweeping vistas of Minecraft also add to the exp so I cant play minecraft blind.

I never said you could. What I did say is that as long as the graphics present the content clearly, their job is done. The graphics may be the lens through which we see the game world, but it is still only a tool serving to present the more important elements of gameplay and story (if applicable). It is a means to an end. Changing the video settings of a game doesn't alter the experience, even if it changes the way the environment looks. That tree is still a tree, that shed is still a shed, etc.

I can however read a book blind through Brail. Games have a visual element to their nature just as important as every other element for it. Books... not so.

Again, you're seeing graphics as equally important to the actual gameplay content, which is just something we disagree on.

Also novelization of a game isn't the same as an audiobook. The book will stay the same. Only the method of communication will change (from text to sound).

So you're saying that when a book is read by a voice other than your own, at a different pace, without the re-reading and checking of older parts a reader usually does, and with emphasis and inflections on different words and part of words than those the reader themselves would have used, the whole thing is exactly the same? Especially without the imagined voice a reader gives to each character, being replaced instead with the constant tone of a single voice? No, I don't believe it to be the same. Extremely similar, but not the same. Much like a game novelisation has the potential to be.