you know what?...fuck it....graphics ARE important
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I play Dwarf Fortress. So that should give you some idea about how important I think graphics are.
That having been said graphics serve a function. Some games require graphics, even good graphics to work. Others simply don't need them nearly as much, and find resources better spent on simulating goblins melting in lava.
That having been said graphics serve a function. Some games require graphics, even good graphics to work. Others simply don't need them nearly as much, and find resources better spent on simulating goblins melting in lava.
the interesting part of this argument is that It's been my exerince that in whatever console generation there is not a lot of pretty games that are terrible, and there are not a lot of hideously ugly games for the generation that are particularly good. There are a few times where this happens but not often. For it's time Super Mario bros was of about average graphics, and above average game play. Most of your beautiful FPS of today are quite good as FPS and quite good. If you go back to the first FPS it's not as beautiful and plays different, but in general has less interesting things in it. I mean you get different guns and run around shooting guys. Really there's not much too the first FPS. Newer games evolved since then. So graphics and game play largely go hand in hand. I don't really see a lot of exceptions to this rule, so it's generally a safe rule to go by. It might just be that these days gamers just don't like the old school games. They kinda did not have a lot of variety too them. In the old days if you wanted a shooter you basically had Contra, and everything else sucked. If you wanted a flying shooter? well there were some choices there. but if you wanted a flight sim? Top gun? and it's ilk?
Well the point I'm "trying" to make overall is simply that bad graphics rarely = good game play. There are some exceptions but generally speaking if you encounter a game with bad graphics for it's time, your not looking at a good game that took it's time in it's development cycle in order to be a worthwhile playing experience. This is a general rule of thumb, and it is not likely to change.
Well the point I'm "trying" to make overall is simply that bad graphics rarely = good game play. There are some exceptions but generally speaking if you encounter a game with bad graphics for it's time, your not looking at a good game that took it's time in it's development cycle in order to be a worthwhile playing experience. This is a general rule of thumb, and it is not likely to change.
Ehhh...
I expect a certain level of graphical quality, but I'm still forgiving if certain games (old, indie, etc) don't meet that standard.
Aesthetics are way more important that high resolution textures for me. The terrible animation in Deus Ex is more of a put-off than the texture quality. I still played a good way into that game. I only quit because I lost easy access to the person's computer I was playing it on (I have a Mac and can't find a version to download).
I expect a certain level of graphical quality, but I'm still forgiving if certain games (old, indie, etc) don't meet that standard.
Aesthetics are way more important that high resolution textures for me. The terrible animation in Deus Ex is more of a put-off than the texture quality. I still played a good way into that game. I only quit because I lost easy access to the person's computer I was playing it on (I have a Mac and can't find a version to download).
I don't think that graphics aren't important, I just think that they aren't the most important.
Take RAGE for example. The visuals are absolutely amazing. However, once you get over the shock and awe of the majestic and massive wasteland, you realize that it's essentially fetch-quests: the game. There's no real context to your actions, or reasons why you'd want to help any of these people. The gunplay was decent, and I liked the Wingstick things, but the levels were so linear that it practically felt like a rail shooter.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: You can have the best looking game in the world, but without a decent game behind it the visuals don't redeem a whole lot.
Whereas, take Deus Ex, which is an excellent game cursed with awful graphics. I guess I have a higher tolerance for that kind of thing. I can bear shoddy visuals if the game itself makes up for it, and Deus Ex does more than that. If it didn't, it probably wouldn't be one of my favorite games. In fact, I actually prefer the original Deus Ex to Human Revolution.
Captcha was: LIKE THE DICKENS
I think they are becoming self aware, and may be developing some sort of mind-reading capabilities. I have an over the summer project I have to do on Charles Dickens' "Great Expectations", and I haven't even started on it yet.
Take RAGE for example. The visuals are absolutely amazing. However, once you get over the shock and awe of the majestic and massive wasteland, you realize that it's essentially fetch-quests: the game. There's no real context to your actions, or reasons why you'd want to help any of these people. The gunplay was decent, and I liked the Wingstick things, but the levels were so linear that it practically felt like a rail shooter.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: You can have the best looking game in the world, but without a decent game behind it the visuals don't redeem a whole lot.
Whereas, take Deus Ex, which is an excellent game cursed with awful graphics. I guess I have a higher tolerance for that kind of thing. I can bear shoddy visuals if the game itself makes up for it, and Deus Ex does more than that. If it didn't, it probably wouldn't be one of my favorite games. In fact, I actually prefer the original Deus Ex to Human Revolution.
Captcha was: LIKE THE DICKENS
I think they are becoming self aware, and may be developing some sort of mind-reading capabilities. I have an over the summer project I have to do on Charles Dickens' "Great Expectations", and I haven't even started on it yet.
Graphics are important but so is context: a game doesn't have to look like Final Fantasy to have great graphics. The most important factor, as ever, is the talent of those involved: a good developer can make a great looking 16-bit game that shits all over a bad developers AAA super double HD graphics fest.
On the plus side I think we've reached a point where games will endure visually (almost) forever. Games like Goldeneye and Deus Ex were made in a time when full 3D was still in its fledgling stages and as a result they have aged terribly, whereas most games from the last days of the PS2 still look good today.
It's sort of like how, watching Superman now, it's utterly hilarious that anyone ever considered those special effects to be even slightly believable but the special effects in films like Avatar and the Avengers movie will hold up for the foreseeable future.
On the plus side I think we've reached a point where games will endure visually (almost) forever. Games like Goldeneye and Deus Ex were made in a time when full 3D was still in its fledgling stages and as a result they have aged terribly, whereas most games from the last days of the PS2 still look good today.
It's sort of like how, watching Superman now, it's utterly hilarious that anyone ever considered those special effects to be even slightly believable but the special effects in films like Avatar and the Avengers movie will hold up for the foreseeable future.
likely true, those first gen 3d games are pretty hard to look at now, though some still manage to hold up better then others, depending on the art style used, like Mega Man Legends, even some of the PS1 Square games hold up pretty well, like Parasite Eve or FF9ToastiestZombie said:
Okay, fine. Graphics help immersion. The problem is that more often than not bright flashy graphics are used as a crutch and people consider them with more more important than they really have. I'm fine with going back to PS2 era graphics if i can get a few more Shadow of the Colossus grade games, so far for all the graphical improvements we've gotten all of one really great game this console generation, and it would have been able to run on the Xbox anyway. Good graphics are okay, HD 1080 graphics are unnecessary and more often than not come at the price of good gameplay because it takes too much time to make a game with those graphics
so many replies aren't addressing what the op wrote.
The question isn't "Are graphics the only thing that matters in a game, fuck gameplay/game design?"
The question is "Along with gameplay and game design, are graphics important".
Personally, I think it is a double edged sword. Sometimes when people get powerful new tools, they abuse them. For example: http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.ca/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood-please-stop.html or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ
It is the same in videogames. Before they had the ability to make B-I-G-H-U-G-E cutscenes, every game was focused 100% around gameplay. But now you get interactive stories like Max Payne 3, which barely qualifies as a game despite having a huge budget.
But on the other hand, really good designers can use new tech to make better games. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia8bhFoqkVE
vs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2_rMe6qQ-k
I think some people get defensive when they have an attachment to an older game or a weaker system (like the wii), and then want to dismiss power and graphics as utterly irrelevant, even thought they probably know they aren't.
The question isn't "Are graphics the only thing that matters in a game, fuck gameplay/game design?"
The question is "Along with gameplay and game design, are graphics important".
Personally, I think it is a double edged sword. Sometimes when people get powerful new tools, they abuse them. For example: http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.ca/2010/03/teal-and-orange-hollywood-please-stop.html or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ
It is the same in videogames. Before they had the ability to make B-I-G-H-U-G-E cutscenes, every game was focused 100% around gameplay. But now you get interactive stories like Max Payne 3, which barely qualifies as a game despite having a huge budget.
But on the other hand, really good designers can use new tech to make better games. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia8bhFoqkVE
vs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2_rMe6qQ-k
I think some people get defensive when they have an attachment to an older game or a weaker system (like the wii), and then want to dismiss power and graphics as utterly irrelevant, even thought they probably know they aren't.
For me, I find that graphics only seem to matter if the gameplay and story of a game come up lacking. In some respects, to me, great graphics can make a mediocre game more playable.
I had never played the Banjo games when they originally came out. When I was a kid I tended to only buy games that had characters I was familiar with, so Mario, Donkey Kong, Zelda, and Star Fox where the titles I played. I was a Nintendo kid. I know Banjo was a Rare/Nintendo character, but it was a IP I wasn't familiar with so, I didn't get it. Basically, I was a kid that didn't beg his mom for every new IP that was aimed at or for kids.
Now to my point. I only just started playing the first Banjo game.
I got interested in the series, because of this video:
I then saw that Microsoft had added the first two games on the XBLA, so I bought the first one a three days go. I was hesitant to do it, because I do have a tendency to go back to old games and find that the graphics actually make it harder for me to play now. But since the first two games get so much praise these days, I went for it.
I'm glad I did. By today standards, yeah, the graphics aren't amazing. But, I'm finding it to be an incredible romp of fun. I had no bias to cloud my judgement of the game, because I was skeptical on how the game would hold up to today's standards because of the dated graphics. It holds up phenomenally well compared to many platformers of this generation.
I'm definitely spending my game money allotment next month on Banjo-Tooie. Another thing I like is that they added achievements(Yes I'm a sucker for achievements), and it looks to be that the first one will be an easy candidate to add to my list of games I got 100% on. They didn't at some practically insanely impossible achievement like they sometimes do when adding achievements to old games. I'm still running high on finally getting 100% on Plants vs. Zombies, so it will be nice to get another 100% so soon. Granted that will only bring my number up to 5 at 100%, but still, I'm loving it all.
Sorry for rambling, it's just my style. The N64 Banjo games show that graphics don't always make the game.
To me, they are the icing, and some good cakes can stand up without icing.=P
But now I'm a little depressed because talking about this reminds me that once I get and beat Banjo-Tooie, there won't be a great and proper third game.
You bring up a series that is going to make my point.Vault101 said:
I had never played the Banjo games when they originally came out. When I was a kid I tended to only buy games that had characters I was familiar with, so Mario, Donkey Kong, Zelda, and Star Fox where the titles I played. I was a Nintendo kid. I know Banjo was a Rare/Nintendo character, but it was a IP I wasn't familiar with so, I didn't get it. Basically, I was a kid that didn't beg his mom for every new IP that was aimed at or for kids.
Now to my point. I only just started playing the first Banjo game.
I got interested in the series, because of this video:
I then saw that Microsoft had added the first two games on the XBLA, so I bought the first one a three days go. I was hesitant to do it, because I do have a tendency to go back to old games and find that the graphics actually make it harder for me to play now. But since the first two games get so much praise these days, I went for it.
I'm glad I did. By today standards, yeah, the graphics aren't amazing. But, I'm finding it to be an incredible romp of fun. I had no bias to cloud my judgement of the game, because I was skeptical on how the game would hold up to today's standards because of the dated graphics. It holds up phenomenally well compared to many platformers of this generation.
I'm definitely spending my game money allotment next month on Banjo-Tooie. Another thing I like is that they added achievements(Yes I'm a sucker for achievements), and it looks to be that the first one will be an easy candidate to add to my list of games I got 100% on. They didn't at some practically insanely impossible achievement like they sometimes do when adding achievements to old games. I'm still running high on finally getting 100% on Plants vs. Zombies, so it will be nice to get another 100% so soon. Granted that will only bring my number up to 5 at 100%, but still, I'm loving it all.
Sorry for rambling, it's just my style. The N64 Banjo games show that graphics don't always make the game.
To me, they are the icing, and some good cakes can stand up without icing.=P
But now I'm a little depressed because talking about this reminds me that once I get and beat Banjo-Tooie, there won't be a great and proper third game.
yes I haz steamWolfram23 said:
its not like I do go out of my way to avoid such games or do it on purposeLunar Templar said:
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 medaveman247 said:You must have HATED the recent fallout games thenVault101 said:
*looks at avatar*... Oho?
I don't lack imagination, I just don't like to spend it where I don't feel I need tooXaio30 said:
mabye thats because there was no point of comparison...peopel saw the 3D in the early days and were like "OMG! threeee deeeee amazing!" and were none the wiser (though I'll admit when I was a kid and N64 was all the rage I still belived the SNES was better because I loved pixel art)
I think when I was a kid I knew that it was by the same people as Donkey kong crountry (now those are some damn fine games)Sonic Doctor said:
its funny though because I while mabye Banjo Kazooie was aimed at kids I think its just as enjoyable for adults with its humour...and thats not counting the rude stuff the hid in there
off the top of my head
-in Banjo tooie the "odd" placement of mr patches plug/valve
(mr patch is a blow up dinosour)
-again in Banjo tooie jolly rodgers tavern has a menu with "toad in the hole" and "seamans surprise" you rescue is "partner" which looks like a transvestie..and Jolly roger is a camp gay
-in gobis valley Kazooie asks a tree randomly "hey..how are your nuts!?" to which Banjo says "Kazooie!" hmmmmm
-the big doomsday device in Bnajo tooie is called "B.O.B" (which aprently can refer to batery operated boyfreind..a vibrator) anyway its modes are "blow" and "suck"
there are more as well
Oh god I think I'm some sort of bizarro world cretin. I actually love games with bad graphics, I play Dwarf Fortress without a texture pack, I think N64 games look great and I still run my pc games on lower quality.
I think it's because I always used my imagination for games, Polygons while ugly have a specific origin, they're essentially definitive of older games just like 2 dimensional planes or power ups or boss fights. I think they're special in a way, a recurring and defining trait of games.
I think it's because I always used my imagination for games, Polygons while ugly have a specific origin, they're essentially definitive of older games just like 2 dimensional planes or power ups or boss fights. I think they're special in a way, a recurring and defining trait of games.
I looooveee good graphics, and while they're not needed for me to enjoy a game I damn well appreciate them when they're there. I basically used to play games back in the day just for the promise of a cool CGI cutscene. Nowadays we're swamped with amazing graphics, so it's done the reverse for me in a way; now I play games to see if I can find one with cool gameplay or story.
A few examples I can think of that proved to me recently that as much as I like my graphics, I don't need them if the gameplay and story are good:
Max Payne 1 - I started it up for giggles when I got it free on PSN, and within minutes I was hooked again simply through the atmosphere, characters and gameplay. The blocky graphics didn't even register too me.
Blood Omen - I only recently got to play this, and seeing as I'd played every single Legacy of Kain until then, I was stoked to play the origin title. I was even more pleased to discover that the game itself was really fun to play, and the top down style actually suited it really well.
I do draw the line at some stuff though, Deus Ex 1 as many have said. How many times have people started that up, completed the Statue of Liberty level, and then just put it down again cause the graphics were so damn ugly? I can count at least 3 attempts myself hah.
A few examples I can think of that proved to me recently that as much as I like my graphics, I don't need them if the gameplay and story are good:
Max Payne 1 - I started it up for giggles when I got it free on PSN, and within minutes I was hooked again simply through the atmosphere, characters and gameplay. The blocky graphics didn't even register too me.
Blood Omen - I only recently got to play this, and seeing as I'd played every single Legacy of Kain until then, I was stoked to play the origin title. I was even more pleased to discover that the game itself was really fun to play, and the top down style actually suited it really well.
I do draw the line at some stuff though, Deus Ex 1 as many have said. How many times have people started that up, completed the Statue of Liberty level, and then just put it down again cause the graphics were so damn ugly? I can count at least 3 attempts myself hah.
Soopy said:
BAM!
Also, graphics IS AND NEVER WILL BE A WORD TO DESCRIBE A ARTSTYLE! GRAPHICS, IN TERMS OF GRAPHICAL LIMITATIONS IS HOW OUT-THERE YOU CAN GO WITH THE GAMES STYLE! GOD FUCKING DAMMIT ITS ANNOYING WHEN PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS!.... [small] I blame IGN, I really do. [/small]
The style of a game is important, while graphics just allow for a game to be even more stylized. Hell even 'realism' is essentially a style, the same way that Okami is a painterly style.
One of PC's most selling games currently is bloody minecraft. A game made in Java and has super simple blocky textures. This proves that styles matters far more then graphical capabilities. I'll make a quick comparison here, if graphics did matter then why has World of Warcraft been around for so long if graphics matter so much? World of Warcraft looks horrible now-in-days in comparison to Far Cry, Crysis 1 and 2 along with many other games out there, yet people still play it. Why is that? You could argue its the community and the amount of gameplay but I will argue that it is just as due to the fact that the game looks good despite its limitations because of its style.
The issue with the argument "Graphics matter" is that graphics is not what were seeing. Were seeing textures that were influenced with the game's artist's intended style. TF2 does not have a 50s graphics now does it? Or LA Noire does not have Noire graphics? You get what I'm saying here? Okami doesn't have painterly graphics, it has a painterly style, TF2 has a 50s style and LA Noire is influenced by Noire films, giving it a Noire style.
In conclusion, we all are aware that Graphics are good but you should never, ever make the mistake of giving Graphics credit over Style since Graphics have no, theoretical visible texture which to view.
Hmm. You know, I have that problem with older games sometimes but not due to the shitty graphics. It's more an artifact of the whole game just looking implausible from a practical standpoint. I mean, you look at a game like system shock which is just filled with perfectly square rooms and and corridors and its hard to imagine anybody actually living there. And then you look at half life and most of the game takes place in a series of...hell I don't even know what to call them. For the most part they aren't explained and they don't seem to serve any real purpose. Like that one room filled with shipping containers suspended over an abyss. What was this room used for? Why does it exist? How the hell did these containers actually get in here seeing as how there isn't an entrance big enough for them to fit through?Vault101 said:
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)Reet72 said:
although I do wonder why in Deus Ex:HR people leave weopons lying around
Meh graphics don't matter much to me. Hell the greatest game ever made, Spyro: Year of the Dragon, was on PS1, have you seen what 3D graphics looked like on PS1? Not pretty. Yet Spyro 3 is still the greatest thing produced by any species ever, but to each their own.