Are graphics really that big of a deal?

[Eclectic Dreck]

Graphics will not make a game but they can certainly break one.

Sound design is first and foremost the most important part of any game's presentation (note I'm putting aside the question of gameplay here) IMO. Graphics come a distant second. Bad sound design can wreck a mediocre game, and fantastic sound design can make a very good game great.

I wouldn't place nearly the same emphasis on sound as you. Given that the medium implies the visual emphasis by using the word "Video" in it's description, I'd wager few would agree with you. Simply put, I have played plenty of games who's only significant way of communicating to the player was visual yet have never seen a game that relied exlusively upon audio to do the same.

That said, I would be willing to agree that sound design is much the same as my assertion with video games. Good sound design won't save a bad game but it might just make an average game something special.

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

I dunno, is it a big deal if you go into a movie and the picture is crap?

Graphics matter, a lot. Good graphics don't necessarily mean high resolution or fancy lighting, it means that the game art is clear and it sets an appropriate atmosphere.

I think you're right there. I'm not all that bothered about how realistic something looks but a game still needs to have appealing visuals. Even nowadays, the Mario franchise has stuck with fairly low quality graphics but the environments are lovely and fit the tone of the game. Developers do need to focus on graphics but not so much on how many polygons they can fit into a cubic centimetre.

 

[Woodsey]

Are you suggesting we should just stop technological advancement when everything just works fine?

(dunno about the original quoted guy's thoughts, but...) I'm suggesting we focus technological advancement into other fields. Like natural speech synthesis, emergent dialogues and AI actions.

Well if we can focus on all of those at once why not graphics too?

I dunno, it's cool to be all hippy-ish and say graphics are totally irrelevant to them, and every time I call up for spouting such BS.

If Assassin's Creed 2 tried to recreate all it's features, every mission, etc. etc. in 8-bit it would be bloody rubbish.

Anyway, for those that just don't mind average graphics then fine, but I prefer really sexy ones. More immersive, you can relate to the characters far better, the world is more believable etc. etc.

Immersion has little to do with graphics, immersion is fuelled by a little thing called "suspension of disbelief". If a game can't stand up without its graphics crutch then that is a sure sign that the game is rubbish.
What you're basically saying is that you like shiny things - I'm not going to extrapolate that into a comment on you personally...

Oh, thankyou so much.

Now, let's take a look at the meaning of immersion: "state of being deeply engaged or involved; absorption."

Now, if I'm playing Peggle I'll play it for a long while because it's immersive - in no way does it suspend my disbelief. At all. In the slightest. It's just really addictive.

"Aha!" I hear you cry, you're denouncing both our points. Well, yes. But then I don't think graphics are the only thing to immerse you (I never actually said that), but I find they go a long way to it. Other features like voice acting and whatnot all play their part.

I would not find a text-based adventure immersive, I would find something like Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age (not that pretty but whatever) immersive. But then, that's because I can see the world (graphics), and the characters (graphics), and the minor animations in their faces (graphics), and their reaction to things without them needing to necessarily speak (graphics). All those tiny (and large) details IMMERSE me.

When it became a crime to want your games to look the best they can I don't know, nor do I know when appreciating superb graphics meant you valued nothing else in a game. The clue is that it's a game, it should be pretty clear what I'm first and foremost going to play it for (story!).

And well done: of course a game is shit if the only thing going for it is it's graphics.

 

[Firia]

Some of my favorite games are several generations old. Sprites graphics, 2D, 16bit, what have you. Graphics aren't a huuuge deal to me. It's nice, and I do feel spoiled. But a game that its both fun, immersive, and has challenged it's graphical capacity is a joy. That said, SNES games were my bread and butter.

 

[sXeLifer]

I think what people need to realise is that the graphics in most games nowadays are brilliant compared to stuff that likes of my dad used to play on a "ZX Spectrum", games like "Jet set Willy" and such. Compare that to what we have and its pretty amazing really.

 

[Continuity]

Oh, thankyou so much.

Now, let's take a look at the meaning of immersion: "state of being deeply engaged or involved; absorption."

Now, if I'm playing Peggle I'll play it for a long while because it's immersive - in no way does it suspend my disbelief. At all. In the slightest. It's just really addictive.

"Aha!" I hear you cry, you're denouncing both our points. Well, yes. But then I don't think graphics are the only thing to immerse you (I never actually said that), but I find they go a long way to it. Other features like voice acting and whatnot all play their part.

I would not find a text-based adventure immersive, I would find something like Mass Effect 2 or Dragon Age (not that pretty but whatever) immersive. But then, that's because I can see the world (graphics), and the characters (graphics), and the minor animations in their faces (graphics), and their reaction to things without them needing to necessarily speak (graphics). All those tiny (and large) details IMMERSE me.

When it became a crime to want your games to look the best they can I don't know, nor do I know when appreciating superb graphics meant you valued nothing else in a game. The clue is that it's a game, it should be pretty clear what I'm first and foremost going to play it for (story!).

And well done: of course a game is shit if the only thing going for it is it's graphics.

Fair points but i think you're missing out, some of the best RPG's i've played have been rather short on graphics. Sure graphics can be a big plus in a game but I think if I was to create a list of important elements in a game high end graphics would be fairly low down the list. The simple demonstration of my point is all the great games, truly great games, from the 90's with not a ploygon, shader or bumpmap in sight.
Just one example of a fantasticly immersive RPG with tile graphics, tile no less!:

http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com/exile3/winexile3.html

 

[Dege84]

Like so many before me have said, graphics does help with the immersion, etc. But I'll pick story and gameplay over graphics everytime.

 

[Meemaimoh]

I admit that I hold games to the standard of their time. New games should look as pretty as possible - as long as (and this is key) nothing else is sacrificed. For me, it's important, but it still comes well below gameplay, story, characters, and voice talent in terms of importance.

 

[EeveeElectro]

I think they matter for new, younger gamers. Like they don't matter to me because I was brought up on 90s graphics which weren't fantastic. When I visited a games forum, there was a N64 with Goldeneye, and some kids who were about 11/12 said, "How can they play that? The graphics look awful!" or something along those lines. They didn't even know what a SNES was when they noticed one on display.

[sub]My boyfriend said, "if that was my kid, I'd send it to bed with no supper."[/sub]

 

[Continuity]

I admit that I hold games to the standard of their time. New games should look as pretty as possible - as long as (and this is key) nothing else is sacrificed. For me, it's important, but it still comes well below gameplay, story, characters, and voice talent in terms of importance.

Thats the problem though, to the gaming industry graphics are what sells so they invest nearly all their time and money in making games look "as pretty as possible" so that you* will buy them (yes I am blaming you personally for this ) and gameplay and story come a very distant second place. Just look at the games we have from the last few years, look at their incredible budgets and consider how many of them are actually pretty mediocre if you peel back their pretty skin.. then weep for what could of been if you weren't a graphics whore...

*I jest with the blaming you BTW

 

[brunothepig]

I don't see graphics as a huge part of what makes a game. Lately I've been playing Deus Ex (I know, late to the party) and the graphics from it have not diminished the immersion one bit for me. Pretty much the only thing that diminishes immersion graphics wise is inconsistencies with graphics (looking at you Far Cry 2 draw distance). Graphics are never a make or break with me.

Also

Ha ha ha. I am immune to your mind tricks, for I have this game on PS2!
On topic: Yeah, they're important. But good graphics do not a good game make. Spectacular graphics can improve a game, adding to immersion, atmosphere, or just giving us something purdy to look at. Also, graphics are expensive. Consider, you need to model, texture, throw in lots of things like lighting engines. Meticulously check everything. Most of the other stuff is programming (which is no cost except the salary for the programmers) or the engine itself, so a lot of the budget will go towards graphics. Still, if there is a choice between stepping up the graphics, or improving the gameplay or something, I would almost definitely always pick gameplay.

 

[mrF00bar]

I gave up on games when GTA4 came out, Graphics is only one reason why I don't like many new games. GOW just looks like brown and grey as do many others now. Not very appeal and such I don't buy the games anymore, to much focus on bland graphics and not gameplay.

 

[radred]

graphics are important, but in my opinion the art design is more important
they help to be immerive and some games would not work without their amazing graphics but gameplay is number one on my list, then story, then graphics.
although the graphics have to be suitable for the style of game. i dont want to play a first person shooter where the enemy is made up of 100 or so pixels, but i will happily play an RTS or TBS like that
*fondly remembers Red Alert command and conquor... sigh*

 

[little bear]

I think graphics are a big component in games. looking back at yatzhee's review of the conduit...I'd say it helps set up the atmosphere.

 

[Giantcain]

as an great fan of Disgaea they don't matter to me

 

[end_boss]

Graphics in a video game is like the bun on a hamburger: it's not the meat, but you'll notice if it's good or bad.

 

[bismarck55]

I dunno, it's cool to be all hippy-ish and say graphics are totally irrelevant to them, and every time I call up for spouting such BS.

If Assassin's Creed 2 tried to recreate all it's features, every mission, etc. etc. in 8-bit it would be bloody rubbish.

Anyway, for those that just don't mind average graphics then fine, but I prefer really sexy ones. More immersive, you can relate to the characters far better, the world is more believable etc. etc.

Graphics stopped being ugly towards the end of the last console generation. There's no need for games to look as good as they do now, it's just overkill.

Are you suggesting we should just stop technological advancement when everything just works fine?

No, I am suggesting that that Developers invest in other, now more important (as in more important than squeezing out a slightly higher level of anti-aliasing on the 360 for the newest ultra generic douche-bag simulator, for example) areas of game development. Graphics don't just magically get better with more powerful hardware, it actually takes time, effort and skill (and therefore money) to produce high quality graphics, and the better the graphics, the more time, effort, skill and money is required.


Time spent working on one very complex, amazing looking character model, could be spent on a simpler, but still good looking (as in Soul Caliber 2, rather than uncharted 2) character model, finishing the same job quicker, allowing that designer to move on to the next character model or be finished with his part of the game sooner. This means that there is a little more money floating around. hey, maybe you can afford to replace that chimp that's been working on the game's dialogue and hire a real writer now!


For some reason, people seem to think that graphics don't come at a cost to other areas of development, which I find naive. How about putting some of that technology and craftsmanship to work on things like improved AI, physics, level design or maybe a single player campaign that is more than a shitty five hour tutorial to familiarize you with the game's mechanics for the multi-player mode.

Of course, I don't really think this would ever happen, it would make too much sense.

Graphics stopped being ugly towards the end of the last console generation. There's no need for games to look as good as they do now, it's just overkill.

..right. "16-bit is more than enough", hm? lol I hate the internet.

See above for a clue.