Graphics; yay or nay.
- Thread starter Girlysprite
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Graphics is only a bad thing when they try to replace good play with them. Graphics sell the games, but it's the gameplay that keeps you coming back to them.
after my brief encounter last time, ive decided to add some more points, as ive already said, graphics dont do much for me, cmon, my favourite game is Dungeon Keeper, honestly, it is one of the best games ever. Download it or something, or even just go out and buy dungeon keeper 2, thats pretty much the same, with a feature or 2 added, slightly better graphics, and a better flowing storyline.
graphics are unrelated to fun, aka gameplay, which is all that matters to me.
graphics are an easy target for game reveiwers, because anyone can glance at two screenshots and like one more than the other- but if anyone can have that opinion, is it worth anything?
graphics are an easy target for game reveiwers, because anyone can glance at two screenshots and like one more than the other- but if anyone can have that opinion, is it worth anything?
I want the graphics good enough to understand all the action. That's about it. So long as you're not looking at something pertinent to the plot of the story and it's not an indecipherable blob, it's okay. Other than that I want gameplay...I definitely think they can be merged, look at The Orange Box, the games on board are great, and they all look good too. But I don't empasize it much at all.
I do kind of like graphics as an extra layer to a game, as long as it was kept seperate from the rest of development, and doesn't cause major framerate hitches. But when comparing something like Final Fantasy 5-million-polygon-faces to Super Mario 12, I'm not going to bring graphics into the debate.
Still, it is possible for a game's graphics to be just too bad. Now stop groaning because of the previous sentence; this DOESN'T happen often. As the guy above said, as long as they're good enough to indicate what's going on, and can convey what's needed (emotion, level of destruction; ie no 2d explosions for a nuke) then I'd say don't bother going excessive.
Still, it is possible for a game's graphics to be just too bad. Now stop groaning because of the previous sentence; this DOESN'T happen often. As the guy above said, as long as they're good enough to indicate what's going on, and can convey what's needed (emotion, level of destruction; ie no 2d explosions for a nuke) then I'd say don't bother going excessive.
You wouldn't get alot of the games that you do now without the aid of higher graphics, since they would be needed to portray the game and things you are doing within that game clearly.
However, I do think that the graphics side of design has almost hit it's peak where it's not really needed to go any further. I think the industry might be turning their head towards something else.
However, I do think that the graphics side of design has almost hit it's peak where it's not really needed to go any further. I think the industry might be turning their head towards something else.
You all know of Crysis I'm sure seeing how this debate is about graphics. Now, I don't care for competitive gameplay anymore after several hundred TK's from APM's in BF2 and 2142, getting shot through a wall in Counterstrike and I could rant about any FPS. The only FPS I cared for was Halo and that was simply because custom games (ie tower of power) were just fun to mess around in and it didnt matter if you win or lose.
I also don't care for the story, something about your a group of american super soldiers trying to rescue some people (or as stated in a trailer "investigate a crash site") on this large island full of koreans. If anyone owns the game, has played the beta, demo etc etc. you would know not only is this game as shiny as it was told to be but it also has a remarkable physics engine.
The Crytek engine is a new milestone in not only the physics but the environmental destruction. Destroying buildings in every possible way: Throwing grenades, using explosives, punching them with your fists, throwing enemies/boxes/barrels/chickens/turtles into them, driving a car/tank, using a nuke etc etc etc creates a pretty big gameplay element.
You think that Halflife: 2 looked good? That the source engine was amazing? They dont even compare.
The point is that this game tries to satisfy all audiences for Gameplay and Graphics. And yes the multiplayer is fan-freaking-tastic as well, or at least the Beta was other than a few bugs which is to be expected and is the entire reason in participating in a Beta in the first place.
Crysis serves as a great example of why graphics don't sacrifice gameplay and can actually add to it, even if you have poor eye sight and don't understand what anti-aliasing does.
I also don't care for the story, something about your a group of american super soldiers trying to rescue some people (or as stated in a trailer "investigate a crash site") on this large island full of koreans. If anyone owns the game, has played the beta, demo etc etc. you would know not only is this game as shiny as it was told to be but it also has a remarkable physics engine.
The Crytek engine is a new milestone in not only the physics but the environmental destruction. Destroying buildings in every possible way: Throwing grenades, using explosives, punching them with your fists, throwing enemies/boxes/barrels/chickens/turtles into them, driving a car/tank, using a nuke etc etc etc creates a pretty big gameplay element.
You think that Halflife: 2 looked good? That the source engine was amazing? They dont even compare.
The point is that this game tries to satisfy all audiences for Gameplay and Graphics. And yes the multiplayer is fan-freaking-tastic as well, or at least the Beta was other than a few bugs which is to be expected and is the entire reason in participating in a Beta in the first place.
Crysis serves as a great example of why graphics don't sacrifice gameplay and can actually add to it, even if you have poor eye sight and don't understand what anti-aliasing does.
I agree that Crysis is a great example of why really good graphics don't mean the rest of the game has to suffer. I had to run the demo on the lowest settings so I didn't get much out of the eye candy Crysis is known for, but the game play was a lot of fun. Switching between different suit powers to fit the situation makes it more than a run of the mill FPS, but maybe I just get a kick out of throwing my enemies twenty feet with one arm.
I think companies that try to overemphasize graphics these days will fall on their face. Back when video games were fairly new, and catered mostly to impressionable kids that might have worked, but now there are adult gamers, and kids who have been playing games all their life that have been graphically impressive compared to the Pong I started with. They aren't as wowed by eye candy.
A lot of times on a site like Kotaku when a new game preview is pre-rendered CGI the first comment will ask where the video of the game play is.
On the other hand there are a lot of people dismissing Kane and Lynch because it lacks shiny graphics so there are at least some people who value eye candy.
I think companies that try to overemphasize graphics these days will fall on their face. Back when video games were fairly new, and catered mostly to impressionable kids that might have worked, but now there are adult gamers, and kids who have been playing games all their life that have been graphically impressive compared to the Pong I started with. They aren't as wowed by eye candy.
A lot of times on a site like Kotaku when a new game preview is pre-rendered CGI the first comment will ask where the video of the game play is.
On the other hand there are a lot of people dismissing Kane and Lynch because it lacks shiny graphics so there are at least some people who value eye candy.
tell that to the studios that bank their game budgets on looks and not game play design....sadly it is part of the problem when devs focus on graphics as filler because they don't have the time to work on game play issues.Yanarix said:
Since the whole eye candy thing has been going on for a solid 6ish years will there be a end to it, games are starting to grow shorter because graphics are being focused on to much.The Irrelevant Gamer said:
This is an argument that has been on my lips for the last ten years. What the mass of those who condemmn the advancement of graphics engines don't understand is that ALL advancement in the coding and hardware of graphics, physics, sound, and interactivity lead to the advancement of games and to the introduction of new playtypes that WOULD NOT EXIST if these things that they deem "unimportant" were actually of little improtance. Think of how many games today would'nt be around without the push from FPS' and Simulation games for better graphics and physics modeling? Can you imagine your games collection without them? Can you imagine never playing them? It's like everything else in the world of video games. It all starts as ludicris, bleeding edge eye candy and numbers talk. But eventually it becomes a tool of innovation and creativity. Are graphics, physics and the like nescesary for good games? Undoubtedly the answer is no. Do they allow for fantastic experiances to be created that could not have been created otherwise? You'd have to be a fool to think not.
Thats all well and fine but if gameplay dose not advance with physics and graphics theres lil point to keep on playing when 80% of all new 60$ games are mediocre or worse.EvilEngineNumberNine said:
I like graphics, but I think there is a distinction between "graphics" and "art." Crysis has better graphics than HL2 Ep.2, because it has motionblur and more polygons etc. But even though it has more fidelity, it doesn't always look as good as HL because Valve has, in my opinion, the best art team of any major developer in the world. Saying that graphics don't matter is ludicrous. Games are a visual medium and can be visual art. That is the most important part of graphics. More polygons are always nice, but what you really need for a game to look good is a good art direction and solid style. Gameplay and graphics are both part of the puzzle of game design, but graphics itself has the two subdivisions. I think the more important part of the debate should be around art vs. polygons as opposed to graphics vs. gameplay. Again, not mutually exclusive, but more interesting to talk about.
Why on earth would anyone think that great games come from the hands of god? It takes effort on all fronts to produce anything worth playing. It should go unsaid and thus does not need to be added as a side note.
Edit: In reply to innocent's post I and others like you are in complete agreement about one thing; The Source engine does NOT get enough credit for how flexible it is.
Edit: In reply to innocent's post I and others like you are in complete agreement about one thing; The Source engine does NOT get enough credit for how flexible it is.
MMmmmm TF2 is cool looking and plays well but only has 2 levels or was it 4, alil lacking, for me each game carries its own art and most art is the "same" or at least no better/wore than most others.innocent42 said:
Its all in the details of what they do not so much the art but what can be done with the player/weapons/enemies and enviroment it all mixes to make a game this is what I judge a game on before I start dissecting graphics, I rarely find any real issues with graphics Halos glitches(including partical) and BSs 50's style doll human models(they look more like dolls from the 50s than people from the 50s)
You sound like you're coming down on the side of graphics being less important, and I agree to the extant that more polygons is not always better. But what I was saying in my earlier post is that I don't like it when it comes down to polygons.ZippyDSMlee said:
When that happens, you get two factions, one saying "More polygons are great, and I only like games with lots of cool effects." The other one says "No, developers waste too much time cramming as many polys as they can into a frame buffer, what they should be doing is focusing more on gameplay/controls/balance/etc." As I said earlier, the more interesting debate is about the relevance of art style in games, and I think it is incredibly important. One thing that games strive to do is create believable, compelling worlds. Good art direction helps immensely in that regard. To cite HL2 again, its graphics impress me even to this day 3 years later, and they do so because, though they are not photorealistic or effects-laden like Crysis, the art is so good that it creates a wonderfully believable and compelling world.
This brings me to my second point. You say that most art in games is pretty much the same. I agree with that, and I think it's too bad. However, it makes games with unique art styles, like TF2, really stand out, just as games with incredible polygon counts, like Crysis, stand out. Hopefully developers will realize this and stop cranking poly counts in favor of more original styling.
Note that I am not ragging on Crysis; I think that one of the reasons that its graphics are so good is because it also has a strong art style. However, I don't see it as hugely better than HL2 Ep.2 in terms of graphics, because you just cannot beat Valve for art.
When you're talking about art style, don't forget Bioshock! The game had a very, and also very consistent style overall, which greatly helped the experience.