Graphics are taking over Gameplay
- Thread starter Mista Stevo
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Gameplay is the backbone, and graphics are the skin. The backbone is more important, but I think you'd have quite a few problems if you didn't have skin.Continuity said:
Everyone knows that gameplay is important. Because everyone at one point or another has bought a fancy game, played it, and found it was crap. Gameplay is more essential than graphics, and if a game has bad gameplay, it will hopefully be panned by critics. However, graphics satisfy a different appeal. If gameplay is good or even just decent, graphics put to good use can drive a game home. Just like gameplay, graphics shouldn't just be there. They should have effort put into them, and they should add to the experience.
It's hard to go back to games lower end than what you started on. My first consoles were the Commodore 64, GameBoy and Lynx, so anything prior to that, like Atari 2600 games just are too simple and with crappy graphics. I also find certain games really thrive on them - First Person Shooters got good enough around Quake 2/Unreal, and subsequent games while the graphics are nice aren't that big of a deal (until you start getting into physics). Driving games on the other hand really do rely on graphics. I can't go back to playing GT2 on the PS1 (although possibly on ePSXe it would be fine) after experiencing GT HD Concept. Civilization II Test of Time is also too archaic for me after having played Civilizaiton IV (although when Civilization III came out I could go back and forth interchangeably).FinalDream said:
Graphics are not taking over gameplay, stupid controllers are taking over gameplay. Seriously, I'm fine (and I even like) the Wii having motion controls, but when everyone gets in on it, they just make it into nothing special. It's like having an especially delicious cupcake, but then being forced to eat tons of copies of that cupcake. Eventually, you will stop liking it (or die of obesity because you ate so many cupcakes).
Well I for one Actually really liked Killzone 2 because it had interesting weight to the way you play the game.
And No I don't think a pretty game is mutually exclusive to making a good game. Uncharted 2 for example.
And No I don't think a pretty game is mutually exclusive to making a good game. Uncharted 2 for example.
One aspect of graphics vs gameplay I'm not taking to kindly to is when some articles lump graphics fanatics like those on Modern Warfare as "hardcore gamers" despite the fact I can guarantee none of them could beat the first level of Mega Man 9... THAT game is hardcore.
Honestly graphics I think have really screwed up the games industry. Games cost and take enormous amounts of time and money because of the way technology is today. Gameplay has to suffer and the proof is in the pudding. Sure games look great mostly but everything else is just pushed away and its rather sad. Sure some games are still good but theirs less room for experimentation because you need to copy things wholesale so your investor doesn't attack you in the night with piano wire for not ripping gameplay from a few triple A titles and calling it original. I personally still really like Playstation one graphics. Final fantasy 7 graphics, I still completely love. Resident Evil graphics I still love. Ps2 stuff still looks pretty good to me. I'm not a graphics junkie I wish more people weren't so more games that could blow my mind would show up.
How many whiny "old school" nerds are going to make threads today? First it's Halo broke videogames, and now it's graphics broke videogames.
How about this, the OP isn't allowed to buy any games with good graphics. He clearly says he doesn't need them to be happy.
Personally, I think graphics are very important. You see graphics are what makes the world pretty and distinct. Without good graphics the world is less believable and simply less "awesome".
Now gameplay is more important than graphics, but you really need both to be good. Back in the day videogames had to make-do with bad graphics because that was the best companies could do. Today though they can do better, and should if they want people to give a damn about their game.
How about this, the OP isn't allowed to buy any games with good graphics. He clearly says he doesn't need them to be happy.
Personally, I think graphics are very important. You see graphics are what makes the world pretty and distinct. Without good graphics the world is less believable and simply less "awesome".
Now gameplay is more important than graphics, but you really need both to be good. Back in the day videogames had to make-do with bad graphics because that was the best companies could do. Today though they can do better, and should if they want people to give a damn about their game.
Firstly I'd like to say that it was this thread that finally convinced me to actually join the Escapist forums, as I feel that this is an area I might be able to contribute in and get some intelligent conversation going, so thank you Mista Stevo.
I believe that far too many people confuse graphics with 'visual aesthetics' for one is purely for eye pleasure and and the other rather ambiguous, covering so many lovely topics such as colour palette, form and silhouette, rendering technique and how it may well relate to a user who has more to do than stand, stare and maybe drink fine wine and discuss how the paint flows or that the nose is wrong.
Essentially, theres making a game look nice to make it aesthetic, memorable, charming and so on, and then theres making something look good to be functional. Both are important. to gain an understanding of that quickly, I highly recommend visiting both of Yahtzee's XP articles on character design, as they explain the practical use of visuals. Ultimately, being able to see things is something that Doom 3 didn't pick up on imo. That and that game felt like stale bread.
I feel that it's also important to note that game designers and artists might not be the same, even if they are both in the same dev team. Even better is that they have to work together to produce something that is both aesthetic and functional. For example, a ghillie suit should effectively match the surrounding grass. This can't happen if say, the contrast between the two is too high, and too effective if too low. Likewise Team Fortress 2 would not be so great if the Heavy wasn't so easy to recognise, or if the team colours were grey and brown instead of the simple blue and red. These are decisions from a graphics design origin, which serve to make the gameplay portion more enjoyable.
It is obvious that publishers and developers would put a lot of time and effort into visual aesthetics because it IS advertisement, but at the same time advertisement is ultimately the reason why many of us even get suckered in and buy games in the first place. A cel-shaded game or a game that claims to push the boundaries of our hardware, or claims to imitate life naturally picks up more attention and perhaps admiration, if blind. Advertise visually first to get early adopters, maybe release a demo depending on the risk. It doesn't help that gaem design in itself is a bit ambiguous too.
In short, graphics and gameplay go hand in hand with each other. You can't seriously say that you'd play a game that looks awful, because that would actually mean that you wouldn't be able to see anything, worst case scenario your framerate will drop significantly, all while the enemy AI fires bullets auto-aimed for your skull. These factors actually bring harm to the gameplay part. This makes both parts of this as important as each other.
I do wish more thought may be put into actual game design, and innovating something beyond the high poly version of the 40mm underslung grenade launcher and the amount of UV space dedicated to its normal map, but you can't have one without the other in order for a modern game to be enjoyable. Again, the investment in high visuals is an understandable one, but remember that its absence would only make the game worse. I don't think either should be sacrificed in favour of the other.
Slightly Off-topic: You think the graphics versus gameplay war is bad? What happened to background music in multiplayer FPS's? All that adrenaline pumping goodness gone because someone cared far too much about the sound of footsteps or something? I'd like some music designed to fit with the game as well as it enhances the gameplay. I also apologise if this is tl;dr.
I believe that far too many people confuse graphics with 'visual aesthetics' for one is purely for eye pleasure and and the other rather ambiguous, covering so many lovely topics such as colour palette, form and silhouette, rendering technique and how it may well relate to a user who has more to do than stand, stare and maybe drink fine wine and discuss how the paint flows or that the nose is wrong.
Essentially, theres making a game look nice to make it aesthetic, memorable, charming and so on, and then theres making something look good to be functional. Both are important. to gain an understanding of that quickly, I highly recommend visiting both of Yahtzee's XP articles on character design, as they explain the practical use of visuals. Ultimately, being able to see things is something that Doom 3 didn't pick up on imo. That and that game felt like stale bread.
I feel that it's also important to note that game designers and artists might not be the same, even if they are both in the same dev team. Even better is that they have to work together to produce something that is both aesthetic and functional. For example, a ghillie suit should effectively match the surrounding grass. This can't happen if say, the contrast between the two is too high, and too effective if too low. Likewise Team Fortress 2 would not be so great if the Heavy wasn't so easy to recognise, or if the team colours were grey and brown instead of the simple blue and red. These are decisions from a graphics design origin, which serve to make the gameplay portion more enjoyable.
It is obvious that publishers and developers would put a lot of time and effort into visual aesthetics because it IS advertisement, but at the same time advertisement is ultimately the reason why many of us even get suckered in and buy games in the first place. A cel-shaded game or a game that claims to push the boundaries of our hardware, or claims to imitate life naturally picks up more attention and perhaps admiration, if blind. Advertise visually first to get early adopters, maybe release a demo depending on the risk. It doesn't help that gaem design in itself is a bit ambiguous too.
In short, graphics and gameplay go hand in hand with each other. You can't seriously say that you'd play a game that looks awful, because that would actually mean that you wouldn't be able to see anything, worst case scenario your framerate will drop significantly, all while the enemy AI fires bullets auto-aimed for your skull. These factors actually bring harm to the gameplay part. This makes both parts of this as important as each other.
I do wish more thought may be put into actual game design, and innovating something beyond the high poly version of the 40mm underslung grenade launcher and the amount of UV space dedicated to its normal map, but you can't have one without the other in order for a modern game to be enjoyable. Again, the investment in high visuals is an understandable one, but remember that its absence would only make the game worse. I don't think either should be sacrificed in favour of the other.
Slightly Off-topic: You think the graphics versus gameplay war is bad? What happened to background music in multiplayer FPS's? All that adrenaline pumping goodness gone because someone cared far too much about the sound of footsteps or something? I'd like some music designed to fit with the game as well as it enhances the gameplay. I also apologise if this is tl;dr.