Mount and Blade is indeed sufficiently awesome, if slightly mindless, to not need good graphics. ^_^Sir_Tor said:No, Mount and blade proves this. At first look the graphics are quite bad but you'll get used to it!
Are graphics really that big of a deal?
- Thread starter Cody211282
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If games are (or can be) art, then the "looks" of artists' work DO matter.Cody211282 said:
I don't think they really want aliasing, I don't think they want their artistry hid behind blur and pixelation, graphics are not priority... but they DO matter.
High resolution does matter if you want to use a big screen, blowing up the image across 24 to 50 inches can look REALLY bad if you have sub-HD source. Distractingly bad, so bad you miss details that often a lot of work went into.
Pimary: Gameplay
next: framerate and resolution (call this the framebuffer)
THEN: actual graphical fidelity, whether it's a Crysis or a Team Fortress 2
I'd say that if the graphics seem "sloppy", as in noticably lackluster in certain points, it only serves to distract from gameplay, which is never a good thing. Graphics needs to always be a part of the art style for the game, and use whatever technology they have at the time of realese in order to provide a better experience. Braid is 2D yes, but it's beautiful - the art style is clear and the dev team have a clear direction through the whole game. But Assassin's Creed's shadow effects can be noticably horrible sometimes or the 2D backgrounds (lazy) in Haze. Uncanny Valley.
Yes, gameplay always comes first, but if a gamer becomes aware that the developer's have... "cut corners" shall we say and slacked off where they shouldn't have, it cuts the immersion factor significantly and in some cases, enjoyment.
Yes, gameplay always comes first, but if a gamer becomes aware that the developer's have... "cut corners" shall we say and slacked off where they shouldn't have, it cuts the immersion factor significantly and in some cases, enjoyment.
only if the gamer is shallow or the game itself is under par, really so long as graphics are functional the game can still be fantastic, good graphics are not required for a good game.Ghostkai said:
Thats why I mentioned the Uncanny Valley.Continuity said:
It needs to be consistant, unlike in Haze for example. Those pixelated 2D backgrounds just break the immersion as soon as you see them. And the term "good graphics" is subjective, as I find Braid to be fantastic visually despite it being 2D. I think it's more to do with consistancy, which is what I was getting at. If theres a noticable visual flaw within a game that stands out like a sore thumb, you get the feeling that the dev's didn't work as hard as they could have.
They definitely help get me immersed in games. Not every game has to horribly maim my computer. For example, Alan Wake got some serious heat from crazy 20 year old retards who value immersion, atmosphere and great storytelling below the fact that the handrail Alan Wake stands near is not rendered to the fullest extent of graphical capabilities. If graphics suck horribly, especially now, may mark the game down a bit. It can never break my experience though.
Mm. I always thought the goal was to get the same or more advanced physics for the models, for example, with better graphics.bismarck55 said:
But that's not the case. The truth is that "people", as proven by the success of Call of Duty and Halo, vastly prefer very basic models for gameplay, as long as the assets are scripted and polished well for particular angles in the cutscenes.
Therefore, using more and more time on one-shot animation that can't actually be used in game has become a widely accepted practice, specially among those developers who have loud and obnoxious directors and producers who like to sell their games a lot better than actually making them.
So instead of ordering complex splines from the artists, with paths that could be affected by the physics engine, and dynamic hair, with realistic poses and steps that change subtly depending on speed - we get animations in two states with an on and off switch.
This is because of "people" who insist, again and again, loudly, that having anything else but smoke and mirrors in games is a waste of time. At the same time, they are also complaining that if they were to do anything better, they would have to spend even more money and get better paid to micromanage every scene step by step.
Of course, "current tech" on certain platforms also will struggle with updating models like that unless the requirements and methods change, and different requirements are inserted for the development process.
So what actually is going on is that these ***** developers are so invested in current backwards technology that they are never going to renew their methods, or attempt something new. They will then start to rag on tech - commercially available tech, and old tech - that /specifically/ addresses their particular issue in a very narrow and impossible to dismiss way, by simply saying they don't want it. That it is too expensive, and that it's not what "people" want.
So you are right - what developers should be doing is to create more immersive game-worlds with the new tech, instead of tweaking out slightly more anti-aliasing out of the xbox, because that sells boatloads of games if you add a Waterworld advertisement budget. That is a brilliant point, in fact.
(Now, let's get back to noising about how anti-aliasing on the 360 is a selling point that should trump CUDA, OpenCL, Cell, or whatever else the industry can "hype up", for the next decade or so. Because this conversation suddenly made all to much sense all of a sudden).
I consider graphics very important. Appropriate graphics. It depends on what the game concept is like, and what the developers are aiming for in their user-experience vision.
For example, you can have a conceptual game (i.e. Darwinia, Tetris) which can only utilize basic, minimalistic graphics, and still be successful. This is because the game's "vision", or concept of gameplay doesn't require realistic (or better) graphics.
Now, can you imagine Crysis without its graphics? Sure, You'd still have sprites as trees, but the leaves of the trees won't be so elaborately made, won't approach realism, which will seriously hinder the gameplay mechanics by impacting the (more) realistic gameplay that the game employs. (For example, crawling through the bushes and sniping/scouting behind the leaves).
I'd conclude that graphics need to be connected to the gameplay. In this respect, photo-realistic graphics are absolutely essential in a game like Crysis, but simple, conceptual graphics would do just fine for a game like Darwinia.
Personally, I'm all for graphics. They really help me immerse in the game.
For example, you can have a conceptual game (i.e. Darwinia, Tetris) which can only utilize basic, minimalistic graphics, and still be successful. This is because the game's "vision", or concept of gameplay doesn't require realistic (or better) graphics.
Now, can you imagine Crysis without its graphics? Sure, You'd still have sprites as trees, but the leaves of the trees won't be so elaborately made, won't approach realism, which will seriously hinder the gameplay mechanics by impacting the (more) realistic gameplay that the game employs. (For example, crawling through the bushes and sniping/scouting behind the leaves).
I'd conclude that graphics need to be connected to the gameplay. In this respect, photo-realistic graphics are absolutely essential in a game like Crysis, but simple, conceptual graphics would do just fine for a game like Darwinia.
Personally, I'm all for graphics. They really help me immerse in the game.
I care about aesthetics. If the game is pleasing to the eye and I can tell what I'm looking at (ie graphics don't hinder the gameplay) then I really don't care if they're pushing the system specs. I'll take a game like Crash Bandicoot 3 over a prettier platformer with shoddier gameplay from this generation.
There are exceptions. Something like God of War just wouldn't work on less powerful consoles. The series didn't debut until the PS2 and while the PS2 did them justice I wouldn't want to see what they would have been like on the PS1 as spectacle is a huge part of the appeal. Similarly God of War III is one of the few games that has convinced me the horsepower of my PS3 isn't going to waste.
So in summary I like top-of-the-line graphics but I don't think they're appropriate for every game and most games wouldn't be worse off for being less pretty so long as they're functional.
There are exceptions. Something like God of War just wouldn't work on less powerful consoles. The series didn't debut until the PS2 and while the PS2 did them justice I wouldn't want to see what they would have been like on the PS1 as spectacle is a huge part of the appeal. Similarly God of War III is one of the few games that has convinced me the horsepower of my PS3 isn't going to waste.
So in summary I like top-of-the-line graphics but I don't think they're appropriate for every game and most games wouldn't be worse off for being less pretty so long as they're functional.
Yeah fair enough you have a point, there is a difference between well polished low tech graphics and just half-assed graphics.Ghostkai said:
I don't know about else, but Fallout 3 didn't have THAT good graphics... Compare Splinter Cell: Conviction to Fallout 3. You will see a difference.MiracleOfSound said:
Otherwise, graphics have never been that important to me. It certainly makes a game better to have good graphics (those that have gameplay and stuff), but overall I don't mind if a game like Assassin's Creed (which i really looked forward to) would have been released a year before it was actually released only with worse graphics.
For me graphics engineers have done their work if I don;t have anything to say about their work. We're at a point in graphics technology where they should be damn pretty by default. So if they aren't it's something to notice. Old games have poor graphics, sure, but like folks said, gameplay in Deus Ex and games of that era tends towards the solid. But then their graphics were the best they could be at that time. So in short, I'd expect new games to have good graphics ( not Crysis good, that's just silly) and good gameplay. But I won't be too upset if the graphics are slightly below par.
Graphics are pretty important to me, but there are definitely other things that make a good game. Like gameplay. A game doesn't have to look amazing for me to enjoy it, although it doesn't hurt. As long as I don't notice that it's bad, then that means it's decent. It doesn't bother me as much as crappy voice acting. I also have a pathetic graphics card, so it wouldn't help to be bothered about it anyway.