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

[Deadyawn]

As time went by developers got a lot better at making spaces that looked real and that alone can do wonders for immersion. DXHR is an excellent example. Lots of little details thoughout the game that just feel right and make the place seem more real.

Maybe thats just me though.

thats also a good point, like alot of those side rooms are filled with cleaning gear..which seems practical...rather than being empty rooms with seemly no purpose except for find random stuff in them (obviously this is a technical issue rather than a design one)

although I do wonder why in Deus Ex:HR people leave weopons lying around

Of course, all that dries up towards the end of the game when it starts getting shit. And there are a few places in the game that are completely ridiculous. Mainly the

Spoiler

secret FEMA facility hidden below ground. It's total bullshit if you think about it (How did they build this massive sprawling complex underground without anyone noticing? Do the employees just file into a this random warehouse every morning without anyone noticing?).

So yeah, for me its less a question of graphical fidelity and more one of plausibility (although you need a certain level of graphical prowess before you can start properly adressing plausibility).

 

[Dantarn]

They aren't important, but they aren't to be ingored either, it's just that graphics are probably the most over-rated part of a game

 

[Vault101]

Of course, all that dries up towards the end of the game when it starts getting shit. And there are a few places in the game that are completely ridiculous. Mainly the

Spoiler

secret FEMA facility hidden below ground. It's total bullshit if you think about it (How did they build this massive sprawling complex underground without anyone noticing? Do the employees just file into a this random warehouse every morning without anyone noticing?).

So yeah, for me its less a question of graphical fidelity and more one of plausibility (although you need a certain level of graphical prowess before you can start properly adressing plausibility).

eh, never hurt my suspension of disbelif...games get a ltitle more leeway

 

[Acier]

I understand the argument....but TBH I don't think everything should be "stylised"

I just want to point out that stylization and a strong sense of aesthetics aren't the same thing. Something can be stylized, but not have a clear vision. Or can have a very strong aesthetic identity, and still be very realistic.

 

[Mutie]

Well if they didn't matter then we would have stooped trying to make them better. And we haven't so they do. Also call me superficial but if I am looking at something for 40 hours it damn sure better look good. Although I suppose you can get that done with a good aesthetic.

MAIDEN RULE!!
Sorry, that is literally the only reason I quoted you.

OP: I will always say that Aesthetics trump Graphics, but that's just personally opinion. I still have a very high respect for games that use fine graphics as one of their primary design features and selling points, it's would be idiotic to suggest otherwise!

 

[Eddie the head]

Well if they didn't matter then we would have stooped trying to make them better. And we haven't so they do. Also call me superficial but if I am looking at something for 40 hours it damn sure better look good. Although I suppose you can get that done with a good aesthetic.

MAIDEN RULE!!
Sorry, that is literally the only reason I quoted you.

I love it when people recognize this name.

 

[daveman247]

I liked Fallout 3...LOVED Fallout NV...graphically they arnt really impressive, and I do wish they had a little more polish (especially F:NV) but they work for me

Yeah 3 was a bit too "straight" for me. But the weird and wonderful-ness of new vegas is what m,ade the game for me. Especially with the wild wild wasteland perk ^.^

 

[daveman247]

So yeah, for me its less a question of graphical fidelity and more one of plausibility (although you need a certain level of graphical prowess before you can start properly adressing plausibility).

A warehouse needs A LOT of workers Plus im pretty sure i read an email down there that mentioned them having to live down there.

 

[Iron Criterion]

It's incredibly shallow to disregard a game for its graphics. I mean I still play Shadowman and that was ugly even for its time, and ripe with graphical glitches, poor textures and shoddy animations. Yet it still remains one of my favourite games ever purely for its innovative gameplay and excellent atmosphere.

 

[DioWallachia]

The ONLY genre that needs graphics to me is horror, and only if its the action horror kind.

Why? Imagine monsters from the suffering with this gen's graphics:

Amnesia doesn't need graphics per say, because your fears are mainly invisible 90% of the time. Penumbra is the same.

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

Reminds me of the Warmonger from Sacrifice

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Snip

Well, I know that adults can like stuff aimed at kids. I mean, look at Pokemon, I've only seen a very small number of kids that have the attention spans and the brains to actually play through a whole Pokemon version game and actually play with strategy. Back in the day, my eight year old cousin couldn't get passed Pewter City(I was 13 at the time). So, really, I think it is actually teens to adults that truly play Pokemon games these days. Heck, I still get them when they come out, and I might get the next one if I have the money at that time.

Back on to what you said, all your points are from Banjo-Tooie. If I remember my gaming history, not long after that game is when Rare was bought by Microsoft. That means that just before Banjo-Tooie they made Conker's Bad Fur Day. That game was infamous for getting a mature rating and that they had to add the label telling parents that even though it had cute and fuzzy critters on the front, it wasn't meant for kids.

So, I have a feeling that some of the raunchiness that was in that game bled into Banjo-Tooie, but not blatant enough to get a high age rating.

 

[Vault101]

[snip.

I think theres more in Banjo Kazooie, just can;t remember

anyway, Conkers bad fur day and the banjo games are like inversions of each other

Banjo Kazooie its subtle, under the radar

Conkers bad fur day its right there, in your face

 

[Frozengale]

Graphics are fairly important. But what really matters is Aesthetic and Atmosphere. Minecraft graphics are horrible. But they are used to convey an interesting and fun Aesthetic. If you give me a game with bad graphics and good game play I will probably play it. If you give me a game with bad gameplay and good graphics, I will look at screenshots and say, "Ooo that looks pretty, but I'll never buy it." Graphics are there to help convey what is going on. If they are really good it is icing on the cake. If they are sub-par, well then at least the game might still be fun.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I am going to have to disagree as I can still play old games with god awful graphics and have it not bother me at all. Hell, I am replaying through Might and Magic 7 and loving it more than my playthrough of Skyrim.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

[snip.

I think theres more in Banjo Kazooie, just can;t remember

anyway, Conkers bad fur day and the banjo games are like inversions of each other

Banjo Kazooie its subtle, under the radar

Conkers bad fur day its right there, in your face

Well, sort of, but my point was a comparison of the first and second Banjo games.

There really wasn't much if any adult style jokes in the first game, at least from what I've played so far, and I'm almost half way through it.

What I was getting at was that it was, Banjo, Conker, then Banjo 2. Since the first game really has nothing adult in it and the second game does, my thinking was that somebody at Rare was trying to rope in the people that liked the first game and the people that made Conker a hit, but not get the second game an mature rating. Point: The popularity of the Conker game made them bled some of that humor over into Banjo-Tooie.

But, whatever, we are getting off topic from the point of your thread.

Where were we...ah, yes. Graphics!

I do agree in some instances that graphics are important, my whole original point was that even though the graphics of the Banjo games don't stand up by today's standards, they still stand up as great, more than playable, games today.

Rabble rabble rabble!

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I feel that a unified art style and good asthetics can make up for a lack of graphical fidelity. Pokemon's a good example: the graphics aren't whoosh crikey amazing but a consistant art style and cleverly utilising the asthetics make if very playable from about the Gameboy color generation onwards, I have an issue seeing the monochrome ones now a days but I respect their position in life.

 

[Carpenter]

Yeah people that say "game don't need graphics!" generally think graphics means something that it doesn't.

Super Mario world still has spectacular graphics. Graphics are just the images that make up the game, and they are very important. Think Saints Row would be as popular if all the games were brown and grey?

It's kind of like how people associate "realism" with that same brown and grey look even though reality contains every color we can conceive of.

I know some will say that I am talking about aesthetic and not graphics, but that's only because the definition was changed to accommodate those that used the word in a certain way. I refuse to do that.

Anybody that thinks "graphics" is a linear progression of quality doesn't understand the full spectrum of creativity.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Deus Ex HR actually isn't that good in the graphics department. It's saved by the fact that it's got brilliant art direction. I think we're at the point right now where we can pretty much stop improving graphics, and it will not take away from the experience. The only graphics that actually bother me are ones that constantly take you out of the game because they are that bad, or you're just constantly exposed to the substandard element. Take Monster Hunster on the PSP, for instance. It only ruined my experience when I was picking herbs with not much else to do, or when the monsters glided along walls or glitched with the scenery. But when I was just swinging the sword around the the open with them, it was fine. I think that now, graphics are good enough that most games are better at immersing you than graphics are at ruining it, except that we're going to get constantly better graphics because in some games, it's the only thing that's safe enough for developers to improve without incurring wrath of some sort. So they ramp up the visuals without innovating where it counts. And that's just going to lead to games that are prohibitively expensive to produce.

I think the main test is, when you look back a few years, can you play some of those games without immediately noticing the s*** graphics? That is when graphics are good enough, and that's starting to happen for me.

 

[Pirakahunter788]

Graphics are not so much "not important", it's just they can't be relied upon.
Some developers think that making their game as pretty as possible, is the first course of action necessary for a game, and that making a game that has the highest graphics possible will keep it from failing, both sales and reviews wise. You can polish shite to a perfect shine, but in the end, it's still shite.

 

[Suicidejim]

Yeah, graphics are an important factor in games. It's like choosing someone to go out with. We all know looks aren't important, and it's what's inside that counts most of all, but even deeper down, we know damn well that looks are still important too.