Do good graphics really matter?

Recommended Videos

heavyblues

New member
Feb 27, 2008
19
0
0
They do matter. they matter a lot.
but the thin is, many people don't know the difference between "good" graphics and "HD" graphics.

The reason people can still go back and play games on the Nintendo is that the graphics are simple but still good (in the case of most classics, anyway).

You can have good graphics without the use of the next gen HD stuff that everyone's all over nowadays - just look at games like Zelda: The wind Waker and "and yet it moves". Wind Waker's graphics were simplified cel-shaded illustration style graphics, and they were wonderful to look at.

And yet it moves' graphics are all seemingly made from cut paper, and they feel very good together.

etc.

Graphics are part of the experience, and if you can't enjoy the graphics you can't typically enjoy the rest of it. Just like Music. and gameplay. they're all part of the package.
 

Zaik

New member
Jul 20, 2009
2,077
0
0
For me, I can't say they don't matter at all. Graphics have to be functional and appropriately represent what they're attempting to represent.

In Dwarf Fortress, without using anything to alter graphics, "E" can be an Elephant, an Eagle, an Elf, a Forgotten Beast, an Ettin, and probably something else I forgot. Some or all of those can be on your map at the same time. However, any of the graphics packs can fix this easily and I have no trouble from there.

It was also a problem playing The Elder Scrolls: Arena. Your character can only see about 5 feet in any direction, beyond there is an impenetrable haze that makes trying to find your way around next to impossible. I can't be bothered to even try, I wasted 20 minutes trying to figure out WTF was going on and gave up. Daggerfall was good though.
 

Dr. HeatSync

New member
Aug 5, 2010
55
0
0
Isla said:
So I propose to you a question.
Do graphics in games really matter to you?

But more importantly the game can have the best graphics in the world but if the story is terrible what's the point in playing?
Well, lets think for a moment: I define good visuals as:

Being able to see what's actually going on
A high and consistent framerate
No visual errors
and finally the visuals being able to describe the mood and setting of the game, wearing it as a badge of personality. The succeeders here are the ones that stick to your mind.

Simply put this is the functional purpose, going beyond this is increasing the level of fidelity, which in turn means the engine has to be optimised even more, and considering the amount of effort required just to get it actually at the minimum point of tolerance (i.e. an FPS of 30 and being able to damn well see), it really is beyond the call of duty and deserves respect, something that most people perhaps even on this forum don't seem to want to give out.

If you're getting brilliant visuals (meaning a playable game) but a rather mediocre story (but still a playable game) it is because the failure lies in designers and writers of the narrative. If the opposite occurs (non-functioning visuals - this does not mean Text based adventures) means you dying and not even knowing why, and you'll soon lose interest in whatever story it may have and wish it was a book instead. One thing everyone seems to think is that a developer is a single person 'who prioritises what gets the most attention' which is not true, it is made of teams with their own jobs. If you say 'they got shiny grafix but crap X' not only do you slam the teams that incredibly hard to bring that experience, but you don't even acknowledge effort of the individual teams.

You could argue that the dev/pub would put more money into the concepts/visuals team and less into funding writing staff, but that's like saying that you need more than ten people to get a single light bulb working; writing's strength does not come in numbers but instead the thought process of debunking the narrative, and last tiem I checked, every good developer has some writing staff (although they should be brought in earlier).

The rather hilarious thing about games (and even films) as opposed to a book is that their narratives are not told the same way, meaning that your set pieces, characters and environments need to be well visualised. I think you can see where I'm going with this: The elements of a game should not be seperated and categorised, Visuals and sounds go hand in hand with game mechanics, all of which tell the narrative. Where one fails, the other will not save it, it has to all blend together.

Oh, and if you say 'well *insert pretentious retro-console game here* had (what you believe to be) crap graphics and its better than *insert modern title here*' I can't help but call you ignorant: Developing costs were lower back then and many techniques were used to ensure the game ran at a solid framerate whilst still making as much use of the hardware. The chibi look to some Final Fantasy games ensure the characters carry emotion and meaning to the player (visuals conveying something) whilst still being in a form that is easier for the hardware to handle i.e. good visuals.. So yes, visuals are on the same standard as they were 20 years ago: Still about optimising and dodging problems as they come along, its just that this time, it might cost more, but we can now do so much more.

I apologise for this long rant, but I'm still modelling a WWII tank for my Unik assignment, and it proves quite difficult, and topics like this with predictable 'Pro STORY/GAMEPLAY! BLEH GRAFIX' only help to suggest that the target audience don't actually appreciate the efforts developers go toin order to give players a compelling experience.
 

Palademon

New member
Mar 20, 2010
4,167
0
0
They do matter, but mostly for me in the sense of giving the game a high quality version of whatever art style it's going for, not how realistic it looks. I'm far more worried about pixels than slightly higher definition. And old games can still be fine on their graphics, because they represent the time, and sometimes the simplicity well represents the simplicity of the game.
 

e2density

New member
Dec 25, 2009
1,283
0
0
Woodsey said:
e2density said:
No, they do not matter...
Or all of the games in the past 10 years would have been "failures" except for Crysis, which really wasn't all that interesting.
Just because graphics are worse than Crysis' doesn't make them bad.
Thanks for repeating what I just said.
I'd recommend you take some time and actually read posts instead of responding randomly after reading a random selection of 5 words...
 
Feb 9, 2011
1,735
0
0
Graphics? I love nice graphics, but that doesn't make or break a game for me. I mean, I play more older games than newer ones, and considering how many times I go back to playing games like Minecraft, any Super Mario and games like Metal Slug, I'd say quality graphics are great, but not everything.
 

thelonewolf266

New member
Nov 18, 2010
708
0
0
Good graphics are only needed if they actually make the game better like in heavy rain you feel like the npc are more real so you get more involved with the story than if it was just three big square pixels whereas minecraft has "bad" graphics but the blockiness of them is there for a gameplay reason and i wouldn't have it any other way
 

adderseal

New member
Nov 20, 2009
507
0
0
Graphics, when put up against gameplay, definitely come a distant second for me. For example, the KOTORs look absolutely shocking on the lowest graphics settings (especially KOTOR 2, 1 not so much) but I can still be completely absorbed by it.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
e2density said:
Woodsey said:
e2density said:
No, they do not matter...
Or all of the games in the past 10 years would have been "failures" except for Crysis, which really wasn't all that interesting.
Just because graphics are worse than Crysis' doesn't make them bad.
Thanks for repeating what I just said.
I'd recommend you take some time and actually read posts instead of responding randomly after reading a random selection of 5 words...
Fair play, completely misread that xD
 

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
vongola_storm_G said:
No, gameplay and storyline matter because you can't posh a shit so don't try.
...you actually can polish a turd [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI]. The question is, does the shine you put on it make it worthwhile? I'd say no.
 

lord.jeff

New member
Oct 27, 2010
1,468
0
0
I think graphics are important but I don't use the more polygons equals better graphics, good graphics sell a games story and environment
 

migo

New member
Jun 27, 2010
2,698
0
0
Anyone who says graphics don't matter hasn't played Where's Waldo on the NES.
 

Irriduccibilli

New member
Jun 15, 2010
792
0
0
Good graphics cant save a game, but it can definitly help making a game better. All game needs good gameplay to work, good graphics with terrible gameplay is still a bad game, but a game with good gameplay with bad graphics can still be awesome (Unreal Tournament)
 

MadarseLizard

New member
Jul 13, 2010
36
0
0
From what I've seen, games with "teh best grafixs evar!11!!" have great graphics but they detract from the story or gameplay. Take for example Dungeon Master and MineCraft. Both highly addictive and have great gameplay mechanics yet one is from the 1980's and has a total of one background image and the other has graphics literally made out of blocks.
 

DarthFennec

New member
May 27, 2010
1,154
0
0
Graphics matter sometimes, but not usually. It normally depends on the game we're talking about. Usually this is about the 2D/3D thing, because some games that work great in 2D (or 2.5D) are shit in 3D (Sonic, Metroid, etc) and some games that work great in 3D wouldn't work at all in 2D (Portal, Katamari, etc). However, unless it's something like that I generally don't care for graphics. I always hate when people bash some game just because the effects aren't up to their standards, and I also always hate it when people release higher-res versions of their old games (FireRed and LeafGreen, etc).