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.