you know what?...fuck it....graphics ARE important

[tobi the good boy]

Penumbra is the same.

Everything else? Graphics don't matter unless its cluttered to the point I cant see anything.

I disagree, the first scary thing that came after me I was able to keep at bay by smacking the shit out of it with a hammer, Those ghost wolfs were not invisible, or frightening.

OT: I'm pretty much with you there OP, It's just so hard for me to be engrossed in a game when it looks like it might cut me to hug one of the characters.

 

[dementis]

The games I've put the most time into over the past few months are either DS games or PS2 games and I can honestly say that the graphics didn't phase, the game play or the characters and story arcs have held my interest and caused me to lose an entire day. I think of Graphics like seasoning, if you add some herbs to a nice bit of lamb that's been cooked well it will be near perfect. But if you sprinkle them on shit, it's still going to be shit.

 

[ReinWeisserRitter]

The graphics themselves aren't the important part; the aesthetics and art design are. There have been more than enough technically strong games that look like complete shit because of their art design, while there are also plenty of games running on dated technology that can still impress, or at least look nice, because they made good use of what they had.

Granted, this largely can become a problem with 3D games more than 2D ones, but I'm not that hung up on such things as long as they aren't designed horribly.

 

[havoc33]

For example, Oblivion. It's gorgeous, and i've heard it has a really good story, however, i can never get more than a few quests past getting out of the jail until i turn it off and go on something else. I just don't find it fun.

I couldn't agree more. I actually logged quite a few hours playing Oblivion, but it was more to drool over the graphics and the vistas than anything else. It had really clunky gameplay, and nothing special in the story departement either. Skyrim is a tad better, but I still prefer the way the old JRPG's used to be, in the sense that the games seemed more focused and put way more emphasis on characterization than the open world, western RPG's. Looting for example, is a totally frustrating experience, as there are billions of chests and things to pick up, yet you can't carry 1% of it. Gone is the feeling of old when finding a chest actually made you feel excited and brought some real value. Now it's just a tedious repetive process.

Also, the character faces in Oblivion were all ugly as hell, which again brings up the importance of the overall art direction.

 

[surg3n]

Of course!

But it greatly depends on the game. Now take the Minecraft, which is a veteran in discussions like this - that game looks block, low res etc etc etc, and I got absolutely sick of people questioning it. But when you understand the game, understand how it works, the basic block by block idea behind it - you stop seeing miles cubes and start seeing amazing and unique vistas that go on forever and are as temporary or permanent as you choose to make them. Isn't it better to be god of cubes, than a slave to polygons?
These days it's almost like the game itself is a middle-man, between the player and the visuals... some gamers need the visuals to be explained to them slowly, some gamers need a dry slap. Now I played Minecraft and dealt with about a dozen hipsters asking what the hell that game is, why it looks bad, why it's blocky, why the man is made from boxes... and on and on and on and on... until I stab them in the face with a soldering iron, cable tie them to the chair, and make them play it. Low and behold, turns out the graphics aren't actually that important with Minecraft after all. That's not really the case though, it's more that people understand that the hill is made from cubes, unlike most games where it would be a 2D heightfield... but this means you can dig it up and change it - make it into a house if you like. Then the penny drops, Notch makes 40 Billion and buys a gold plated gold plating machine based on the recoil from hipsters kneejerk reactions.

Yawn, minecraft, I know - it's a tired old subject, but before it, us old-school gamers only really had old-school games to validate our 'graphics mean nout' argument, and that's a tough argument when you only half believe it yourself. Old games are getting older, new gamers just aren't interested - so many people these days start with a 360, or PS3, or decent PC... I think gamers should all start with an older machine - not going to far back though. Like, why not get your kid a GameBoy Advance instead of a 3DS - let them cut their teeth on an old crappy handheld that costs very little. Then when you do get them a 3DS, they'll at least have a point of reference. There is a lot to be said for buying a second hand PS2 with a shitload of games, instead of a PS3 with 1 game. Young kids DO NOT NEED the latest games, they mostly just want cool games to play. I would take my son to the game store (ha, that's going back a while, game stores!, how retro) - and let him decide for himself, does he want a shiny new 360 game, or does he want a dozen PS2 games. PS2 would win every time, games like Beyond Good and Evil, GTA:SA, that dog game where you get to throw shit at people... gamers should earn their stripes just like they should have to earn their opinion.

Hey, maybe we should have achievement badges for real life gaming achievements. Like a badge for succesfully tuning the Azimuth head alignment on a tape based computer system, anyone from the UK over the age of 35 has probably done that. Old school gamers, the ones who spend the money, we should take back gaming - take it back from the hipsters and the posers, and we should ration it to the youngsters... wanna play Halo4 young man?, well not till you've finished your mushroom cup. We deserve to be in charge, because we survived the 'games are bad' period of the 80's, we survived Dominic Diamond, and we stuck with gaming through the troubled 32-bit era, when prices went through the roof and Phillips thought they could cut it in the industry.

Sorry for such a long rant, it's been a long week - I hope at least one 30-something Spectrum victim reads it, and bro-fists the screen, I'll be waiting .

 

[General Twinkletoes]

You can't call COD drones people who really care about graphics. MW3's textures are often ripped straight out of COD 4, which didn't look great back then.

But yes, I agree it can help. It's not necessary for most games, but some, it is very important.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

Graphics are important, as long as they service the other elements of a game. Graphic fidelity will do justice to a striking aesthetic (see Team Fortress 2). Graphical flair will assist in making characters believable. A capable graphics engine will improve the gameplay experience - like in Alan Wake, where the light effects really do hook right back into the state of play.

People say "graphics aren't important" because, often, you can strip out all the polish and you'd have a similar experience. Graphics often don't add anything to an experience; it's all surface-level sheen. Good point made about RPGs, where graphics can often be more of a distraction. And too much time spent into making a game look good - since graphics are what most of the budget tends to go towards - can actively subtract from an experience.

So yeah. It basically depends on context. Great graphics are important if they're required. If not, they might as well stand out on their own, or in another game. Alice: Madness Returns does this. The game looks great, but it could look great in another game, or even an art book, and it'd be as good a use of the graphics as in-game. That's where irks start to come in, really.

So you're right and you're wrong, basically. Plus this doesn't even brush the surface of games whose lo-fi or shit graphics add to the experience. Would Deadly Premonition be the incredibly flawed gem it is if it weren't for its hilariously bad puppet-like animation and rendering? No, it wouldn't. Of course not.

TANGENT TIME

Penumbra is the same.

Everything else? Graphics don't matter unless its cluttered to the point I cant see anything.

I disagree, the first scary thing that came after me I was able to keep at bay by smacking the shit out of it with a hammer, Those ghost wolfs were not invisible, or frightening.

The first Penumbra game was crap. It had two sequels, each removed combat completely and was much better. Then Amnesia blew them all out of the water. The first Penumbra is more like a failed experiment than anything.

I didnt finish Deus Ex coz it looked like arse (and the tranq crossbow was totally anticlimactic)
Tried playing the old Half Life and the expansions, couldnt be arsed coz i finished them multiple times before and the weird blockiness kinda stood out.

You can download a HD texture pack for Half-Life! FOR FREE! ...it's surprisingly adequate!

I'm surprised Deus Ex is getting bought up. I thought people accepted it was an ugly fucker, and that its actual goodness comes from the open-ended level design and story structure, which objectively trumps all of Human Revolution's attempts at both. People who like it generally don't care, or think it suits the game. I've had it compared to the old series of Doctor Who, from like the mid-70s. Sure, it's dated and sloppy, but if it wasn't dated and sloppy, it just wouldn't feel the same.

 

[rutger5000]

It's not the graphics, it's how they are used. Games with horrible graphics can still be great, if the art design makes good useage of what it has. Similairly games with amazing graphics can still be horrible if the art design just squanders around.
I'd like to compare graphics with painting utilities. Imagine an artists having only a pencil, said artist could still make great works. Now imagane the same artist but now with a whole set of painting utilities. It's more then likely this work will be better, then the one drawn with just a pencil. Now imagine a person with no talent whatsoever, regardless you give said person a pencil or a whole set of painting utilities his/her work would suck.
All in all graphics have only a minor importance, they can help making something good better, but that's all they can do.

 

[Flare_Dragon123]

The level of graphic polish is not important.

Is it enjoyable to play a game without having to wiggle the old video input cord to kill the flickers? Yes. Is it enjoyable to see highly detailed character models running through intricately detailed worlds? Absolutely.

Does it make the game? NO. NO IT DOES NOT.

There are people who play Nethack which is so old school it doesn't even know what a polygon is. They play it for the gameplay which they find fun in the almost complete lack of graphical display.

Now tell me how Gears of War is amazing because of its looks, better yet, tell me how its better than FFIX ONLY because of its looks.

Tell me how graphics dominate gameplay, story, and aesthetics (by arguing that graphics are important you are saying aesthetics are not)

 

[Naeras]

A game that looks good doesn't need to be graphically impressive, though. I think Bastion looks better than any of the Modern Warfare-games, to be honest.

 

[Wolfram23]

I guess your lucky

and no...I don't "get" dancing....in fact what I don't "get" is:

"hey! she isn't dancing, she must be really sad and she's probably really shy and needs somone to coax her out of her shell so she can dance and be happy!"

"yeah, I'm shy and I apreciate your thourght, I really do....BUT FUCK OFF AND STOP TRYING TO GET ME TO DANCE!"

What? You don't like rubbing your genitals against another person whom you don't know's genitals? What is wrong with you!?

Anyway, I totally agree. It's hard to look at some games. Although I pretty recently picked up the first Fallout and I'd say the graphics in that game are ok, although it probably helps a metric tonne that it's sprite based and not 3D.

I also just recently bought Vampire Bloodlines: The Masquerade. It is a Source engine game, and although the graphics have a lot of oddities, especially on character models, it's still good enough (particularily the environments) to put me in the game.

I'm also a bit of a graphics whore, and any game that claims it will blow my socks off with it's amazing graphics gets my interest by default. It helps that some of them are actually good, IMO, like Crysis 1/Warhead and Metro 2033.

Also, you haz Steam?

EDIT: Just for fun, I thought I'd share this. Someone did some tweaking in the ORIGINAL Crysis and produced this image. By tweaking I mean tweaking the default stuff, no added graphic coding or magic or whatever.

 

[Tippy]

The point of improving graphics was to make the game look and feel more photorealistic so the gamer could connect and be "convinced" so the game could deliver it's message.

And I believe these days we've more or less hit the plateau of how good graphics need to to get the main point of the game across. Yes this is probably the same thing that developers said years and years ago, but jesus christ look at CryEngine 3 and Frostbyte 2. They are aiming for photorealism and they're almost there.

So now that the powerhouse game engines are there and the next generation of consoles can be better equipped to handle them, we just need developers to aim at making the game AESTHETICALLY pleasing both in terms of look and feel.

 

[TheLazyGeek]

There was this guy, he's a pretty well-known kinda guy because he made this thing of films called...what was it, Star Trek?

I can't remember, anyway, he once said "A special effect is a tool, a means of telling a story. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." and I think that applies to video games with how the graphics of a game are a tool for the rest of the game. That's not to say they're not important, because they are, but it's not how many pixels you can fit into a cut-scene that's important, but rather the style of the game that bends around the other elements of a game.

Ever seen Fantasia?

No real story just pure animation to music. It is a fireworks display. Doesn't need a story to be entertaining.

So is Rez and Flower. Their own graphical styling lends itself to the type of game that they are, just as the look of Fantasia works for what it is; an aesthetically-pleasing orgy of color and sound. But in either case, the graphics still are a tool to be used to express that, alongside the sounds and music.

captcha: sky's the limit
...Fuck that, I'm going to the moooon!

 

[craddoke]

Bull - "realistic" graphics are the bane of gaming. Here are my counter-arguments:

1. Deus Ex's unsatisfying graphics were the "ultra-realistic" graphics of the 1990s. Deus Ex would have held up better if it had settled for a stylized aesthetic like other adventure and RPG games of that same period.

2. Better graphics hog development time and system resources, limiting gameplay options. I would rather have lackluster graphics and interesting mechanics and/or story options.

 

[Lunar Templar]

It's kind of disheartening to hear that people can't play older classics because of something like graphics . It's almost like spitting in the faces of those who worked so hard to build the foundation of gaming. Forgetting our roots, forgetting the games , and more importantly , the people that made gaming what it is today .
.

its not like I mean to disregard older games....its just the way it is

it's still sad.

ignoring great classics because 'they don't look good by today's standards' is stupid to me, since the 'hyper realistic graphics' every one has this misplaced hard on for will, pretty much be 'out dated and ugly' in a year or so, unlike the sprites used in older games as example.

of course

it's also possible that i dislike the 'super high graphics quality' cause the AAA market hasn't really done a damn thing game play or story wise to make me care it looks good (hence i tend to play a lot of older games)

 

[DioWallachia]

You see why so many indie gamers prefer the 8-16 bit kind of art? because it could look prettier and may stand the test of time much better than the period of gaming with scary poligon people.

 

[daveman247]

Graphics on the scale of 1/10 are about 4 for me. Gameplay, story and balanced mechanics, origonality are much more important. Graphics are "not as" important as the bulk of what makes a good game. Take the Theif series for example, terrible graphics due to its age but it makes up for excellent stealth gameplay. That can not be said for its poor cousin Splinter cell (excluding the first game).

But chaos theory has some of the best stealth EVER and still looks quite good ¬.¬

 

[daveman247]

snip

The suffering had the BEST monsters, maybe even rivaling silent hill They need to make a new one... too bad midway died...

 

[Zenn3k]

Depends on the game and the experience its trying to convey.

A game like Skyrim needs the best graphics it can have, the elder scrolls in general have always been a pusher for good graphics, because it allows that series to create more interesting and immersive locations.

However, a game with slightly worse graphics, but WAY better gameplay improvements will still be the better game, because as important to immersion as those graphics are...every time something "strange" happens, or the game limits me because of those graphics...that immersion level is broken slightly.

You take a game with say, "Oblivion graphics", but perfectly polished, no bugs, amazing menus, huge branching dialog trees...etc etc. It becomes a better game than Skyrim, even if graphically inferior.

So yes, good graphics, the best you can easily handle...absolutely, however, great gameplay will ALWAYS trump that.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

Snip

You forgot that you can't understand this "brony" thing.

OT: Graphics are actually pretty damn important. But really, it all comes down to how dated the game is. Three games that come to mind with dated graphics, but are still damn good are Metal Gear Solid 1, Half Life 1 and Deus Ex. Those three have SHIT graphics, yet they are still good because they have pretty amazing gameplay to boot. But the graphics still take away from the game, especially with Deus Ex and MGS1. Those two feature a lot of humans talking to eachother, and with humans that basically just move their heads without doing anything that's bad. Half Life on the other hand's characters are aliens, or humans you barely even look at anyway.