Graphical quality, its advancement and its place within gaming.

[Soopy]

Following on from a couple of related threads, I thought it might be interesting discuss the place high fidelity graphics have within video games and gaming culture.

As we know, there are many different sides to this debate and personally I feel all bar a select few are justified.

In my own opinion, the relevance of high fidelity graphics is totally dependent on the genre of game being played.
For instance, I don't believe that a game like Final Fantasy benefits at all from the time and effort spent crafting the visuals they do. It's never been about the visuals. Not for me anyway. How ever, on the flip side, I feel that games in the vein of Left for Dead do benefit greatly from the best graphical prowess they can muster. The visceral combat and effects make up a very large portion of that game, and without the visual stimuli it just wouldn't work (If you would like to try it, pick up the Australian version of the game.)

In many discussions surrounding this topic a lot of people flatly disregard the need for graphical improvement and feel that gameplay values are far more important. Truth be told, I too value engaging gameplay greatly, even to the detriment of graphical ability, in most cases. But is it really as simple as having awesome gameplay and graphics simply good enough to allow the player to discern friend from foe?

What do you think?
Is it genre dependant, or can you play any game with 1970's pong graphics provided it allows the game to be played?

 

[skywolfblue]

In my own opinion, the relevance of high fidelity graphics is totally dependent on the genre of game being played.

I'd say that pretty much ANY genre could benefit from better graphics.
Even puzzle games with highly stylized/cartoony graphics.
Even the Tetris clones of today look a lot prettier then the original.

"How" much benefit (or "relevance" as you put it) is the subjective part.

 

[Tupolev]

Ultimately, it's the aesthetic and functional result that matters.

If your game is targeting an art style that requires more powerful graphics in order to accomplish what it needs to accomplish, you'll create a better product with more powerful graphics. And I can't imagine being bothered to break this up by genre, as I've played FPS games from the mid-1990's which visually hold up beautifully, and I've played FPS games from the last few years which were artistically well conceived but which could have benefitted enormously from better image quality or an overall more dense distribution of detail levels.

 

[Dragonbums]

At the point we are with graphics now, it is not really important to either push it more, or waste money adding more polygons.
However certain games do benefit from it.
Skyrim aside from lore rely heavily on it's graphics to give it a sense of immersion. In that sense one could say visuals are a great deal important to the franchise.

Similarly games that are heavy on the story don't need it as much.

People loved the first Mass Effect games. However for all intents and purposes it got so many things wrong.
Bad vehicle controls, useless squadmate abilities, useless squadmates, bad shooter implementations, etc.
However the fans all put up with it because the story was to die for.

Similar to Pokemon.
Up until X and Y
Only indie devs and medium budget JRPG developers would utilize pixel graphics. Yet to this day and age that was practically a staple in Pokemon art. Pixel graphics.
Did the fans want a 3D Pokemon game? Yes.
However the main series not being in 3D in no way affected people's decision of whether or not to purchase the game.

The issue with graphics now comes in the fact that people keep touting it around as the magnum Opus of game advancements when it's not.
So much stock is put into how great a console can make a game look that we forget that it's the gameplay that makes a good console, not it's looks.

 

[Soopy]

At the point we are with graphics now, it is not really important to either push it more, or waste money adding more polygons.
However certain games do benefit from it.
Skyrim aside from lore rely heavily on it's graphics to give it a sense of immersion. In that sense one could say visuals are a great deal important to the franchise.

Similarly games that are heavy on the story don't need it as much.

People loved the first Mass Effect games. However for all intents and purposes it got so many things wrong.
Bad vehicle controls, useless squadmate abilities, useless squadmates, bad shooter implementations, etc.
However the fans all put up with it because the story was to die for.

Similar to Pokemon.
Up until X and Y
Only indie devs and medium budget JRPG developers would utilize pixel graphics. Yet to this day and age that was practically a staple in Pokemon art. Pixel graphics.
Did the fans want a 3D Pokemon game? Yes.
However the main series not being in 3D in no way affected people's decision of whether or not to purchase the game.

The issue with graphics now comes in the fact that people keep touting it around as the magnum Opus of game advancements when it's not.
So much stock is put into how great a console can make a game look that we forget that it's the gameplay that makes a good console, not it's looks.

Couple good posts there, but I will address this one.

Firstly, very well said.
I agree with most of what you have said (I even had Skyrim in mind when I started this thread, but that game has been used as an example too often.)

You mentioned the fact that graphical quality/power being a bench mark for advancement. Yeah, that's true. Is it soley for the most obvious fact though?
I mean, if a game can showcase state of the art graphics and play well, does that not also speak for the generations ability to handle many other complicated tasks?

Perhaps graphical quality is simply the most tangible benchmark? (And easiest to advertise I suppose)

 

[Dragonbums]

At the point we are with graphics now, it is not really important to either push it more, or waste money adding more polygons.
However certain games do benefit from it.
Skyrim aside from lore rely heavily on it's graphics to give it a sense of immersion. In that sense one could say visuals are a great deal important to the franchise.

Similarly games that are heavy on the story don't need it as much.

People loved the first Mass Effect games. However for all intents and purposes it got so many things wrong.
Bad vehicle controls, useless squadmate abilities, useless squadmates, bad shooter implementations, etc.
However the fans all put up with it because the story was to die for.

Similar to Pokemon.
Up until X and Y
Only indie devs and medium budget JRPG developers would utilize pixel graphics. Yet to this day and age that was practically a staple in Pokemon art. Pixel graphics.
Did the fans want a 3D Pokemon game? Yes.
However the main series not being in 3D in no way affected people's decision of whether or not to purchase the game.

The issue with graphics now comes in the fact that people keep touting it around as the magnum Opus of game advancements when it's not.
So much stock is put into how great a console can make a game look that we forget that it's the gameplay that makes a good console, not it's looks.

Couple good posts there, but I will address this one.

Firstly, very well said.
I agree with most of what you have said (I even had Skyrim in mind when I started this thread, but that game has been used as an example too often.)

You mentioned the fact that graphical quality/power being a bench mark for advancement. Yeah, that's true. Is it soley for the most obvious fact though?
I mean, if a game can showcase state of the art graphics and play well, does that not also speak for the generations ability to handle many other complicated tasks?

Perhaps graphical quality is simply the most tangible benchmark? (And easiest to advertise I suppose)

If a game can pull off both of great quality and great games then that would be the best thing ever.
In fact there are plenty of games that manage to do just that.

However most games can't focus on both equally.

Personally if I-the lead developer- had the choice between fine tuning my game play or improving graphical quality in the final stretches a game's production, I would choose game play.

Ultimately when people review games (unless they were paid to be biased) visuals tend to be the icing on the cake for reviewers and it's how the game actually plays that make up the bulk of the reviews.

EDIT: In addition, I haven't really seen graphics being used as a selling point anymore to be honest.
Most people just assume a new console means it's mandatory to have better graphics.
However with the increase of bad games that look good last gen, and people being more frugal with their money, only the most extreme of graphics hogs will even remotely care to by the game based on looks alone.
Immediate buyers are usually the people who trust the brand name behind the game, and trusted quality.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

I 100% agree with you. In my opinion, games with top graphics can make up a niche in gaming. Does every game need to be Crysis? No I don't think that. But I do think Crysis's high quality visuals and physics adds to the experience of the game. I do agree that we need more unique looking games like Team Fortress 2 but I hate it when people demonize a game for looking good. More over, I think photo realism in scifi and fantasy games is great because the developers are still visualizing things that don't exist so its less redundant than photo realism in games like Call of Duty and Battlefield

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Graphics can help mood etc, but not when that all it is. Crysis 3 was a bad fps, crappy story but great graphics. Now some games dont need good graphics, they do well with the quality of the story they tell or the experience you get playing it.

But i do think that with each gen in consoles, the graphics get better. But then the costs go up and im sure all that extra processing power is spent moving those higher polygon characters and textures, when they could better spend it on the experience. Bigger levels or more ai enemies/allies on the screen.

I just think we keep playing the same old games just with nicer graphics.....like CoD games, they dont change at all. I dont know, maybe this is just how it is. PS1 was a huge leap forward, 3D graphics on a home console. PS2 gave lots of new ips and different types of gameplay. Maybe with experienced it all now.

 

[bug_of_war]

Snip

Like most things, graphics can be however they need to be, so long as there is context. Borderlands uses it's stylized graphics to add depth to the whacky world that it presents players. There is no way a game like COD could get away with having a mission where in which you are given a quest by someone where in which they plead for you to shoot them in the face just for shits and giggles, but in Borderlands 2 we see just that. Without the cartoon/comicy style of the game the writing and plot of the Borderlands series would be seen as very morbid.

Then look at a games like Skyrim where in which they ditched the preceding games fantasy colourful graphics in favour for a little more grittier scenery. There are still moments of lush bright fields with the beaming sun, but they are not over the top and thus help to keep the player's attention focused on a story of war, adventure and the possible destruction of all life. It still has less than realistic features, animations and designs, but it is sitting just right in which it balances out so as that the game doesn't fall into the uncanny valley.

And finally, look at the Assassin's Creed series. Whilst not boasting top quality 10/10 graphics, it uses the engine provided to create a realistic rendition of the world the characters live in. Jerusalem, Damascus and Acre all look like what we would assume 12th century middle east would look like, the whole of Italy and Constantinople feel very much like 15th/16th century periods, and the depiction of the Americas in the latest game seem very much like a realistic interpretation.

So to come back to your initial question of graphics placing in video games I'd say graphics very much have a place in gaming, however I do not believe that their place is to keep looking more and more realistic. Everything requires context and justification, if either of them cannot be answered then it is a detriment.

 

[___________________]

I can't pinpoint when it happened, but I think we've reached a point in graphic development in the past where games looked good enough already and now all we needed to do was focus development resources more on making games larger, last longer, bigger environments with more things to do, etc.

But don't tell the graphic chips and cards companies I said that, or they'll have my head. They need to make money too, don't they? Oh....