Poll: Do high end graphics take more than they give?

[Samurai Goomba]

God Hand is kind of a good example of this. It had really excellent models because it was a martial arts game about kicking guys into the air and pounding the crap out of them, so the models needed detail to bring out the differences in purchased moves and stuff, but the environments, while varied and interesting as well as atmospheric, were never really all that GOOD to look at in terms of pure pixel count. If the game had focused on making EVERYTHING look brilliant instead of just models and special effects, the game probably would have had a terrible framerate. Part of designing good games seems to be recognizing one's limits.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Edit: My computer is crap.

 

[ultrachicken]

snip

I've always liked halo 3's graphics, because they were realistic only to an extent. All the buildings and soldiers looked believable, but it still had this fantasy feeling to it. Kind of like pseudo sci-fi. There were no seas of grey and brown. You go from lush forests, to sprawling orange savannahs littered with metal rings, to silver structures in a bright desert, to ice caps, to mountains, to the innards of a giant monster. The only areas I don't approve of in Halo 3 are "The Storm" and "Floodgate."

 

[The Cheezy One]

Sorry, this just seems to be someone stating something widely accepted and letting people agree with them. Most people on the Escapist prefer gameplay over graphics, and we (or at least I) knew that before.
It's a redundant question, as it's like saying "Would you rather have a house built out of plasterboard, but it's well painted, or one that is built out of bricks but isn't painted to as high a degree of quality"
Then again, this is all opinion.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I agree that too many games get a free ride these days because they look nice, but I do require at least [i/]some[/i] graphics to make a game enjoyable. For instance, I tried to play Fallout 1 and 2 and even though the game play was fun, the graphics were so old that it made the games very difficult for me to enjoy.

 

[Tears of Blood]

I think I'll embolden this sentence for extra effect and eye-catchiness.

Okay, so, I mostly disagree with you. Graphics are expensive, sure, but I think the visuals in a game are very important aspect. If you are able to achieve some excellent visuals with graphics that are worse, then go for it. Certain series such as Silent Hill 2 do great in this regard. However, in many cases, the best results come from upgraded graphics, I think.

And why the hell do we have to CHOOSE between graphics and gameplay? Most beautiful game I ever played was Metal Gear Solid 4. You can't tell me that game doesn't have interesting gameplay that was at least somewhat innovative, at least from their previous works. Smaller developers already don't focus on graphics, but big devs can afford them.

It just depends, man. I don't think upgraded graphics are hurting anything, however I also don't think if you downgrade them that it is necessarily bad. It just depends on the art-style you are wanting to achieve.

 

[Brightzide]

Great post lad/ladette, I see nothing but truth being uttered and I can only hope the industry moves away from this stupid cycle.

 

[Spark Ignition]

you raise an interesting point. I think it's shallow to say high-end graphics are the be-all and end all of games and refuse to play anything with dated/less than perfect graphics, but at the same time it's equally shallow to dismiss them completely. Graphics are a tool for building a game. If you can use them to enhance the game's appeal then why the hell wouldnt you? Graphics can make a beautifully designed game look that much better (looking at you, Bioshock). But I agree that it's a waste of time and effort using them to create hyperrealism. In some games that can work, but surely for most people games are escapism, thus it would make more sense to use realistic graphics to make a fantastic/unique world seem more real and involving rather than approaching it from the other side and making your fantastic world more mundane to fit the realism of your graphics?

I'm havering. But the other thing I will say is that if the focus in development is more on graphics than gameplay/plot then the game is not going to be as memorable/enjoyable. I'd rather play DA:O than Crysis.

 

[00slash00]

What if i don't like minecraft because playing with legos just isn't fun to me?

I'm going with this. However I will put forward Half Life 2 and the Dead Rising series as an obvious example of games that don't need high-end graphics. But I definitely appreciate high-end graphics. And when the two come together, you get great things, like Red Dead Redemption and Halo Reach. And that is all I have to say about that.

are you saying they dont have high end graphics, or that they would be just as successful if they didnt have high end graphics? because i remember when half life 2 came out, and at the time, that and doom 3 had the best graphics of any other game on the market

 

[00slash00]

I agree that too many games get a free ride these days because they look nice, but I do require at least [i/]some[/i] graphics to make a game enjoyable. For instance, I tried to play Fallout 1 and 2 and even though the game play was fun, the graphics were so old that it made the games very difficult for me to enjoy.

even by todays standards fallout 1 and 2 dont have particularly bad graphics. i played fallout 2 a year or two ago and thought the graphics were decent (not good, obviously, but still not what i would call bad). i do see where your coming from though but i feel that the test of a truly great game is if it can stand the test of time. like i can still play final fantasy 7 and ill never forget that the graphics suck, but the game is so good that i can easily overlook the shitty graphics

 

[Dys]

I wish that graphics were worse.

You wish that graphics were worse? Really...Stop for a second and think how stupid that is. Do you refute all games that sport these pretty graphics? That, is of course, a loaded question. Since you've mentioned minecraft in the OP I'll go right ahead and assume you prefer games with graphics. Based on what I've seen of minecraft, you're preference is for games with individual, effective and interesting graphics.

I don't know what you base "high end graphics" on, but for graphics to be "good" they need to be clear and practical (in that they should not impede game play). Sure, sometimes developers aim for the graphics to look a specific way, but that's secondary to their function and largely irrelevant to their role.

Unless you exclusively play text based games, or games that have objectively "bad" graphics, you need to first stop that stupid crusade against something that's obviously subjective (good vs bad) and accept that when things are subjective, what pleases one may not please another.

 

[P47R1CK]

snip

First Point:
Yeah I agree with that, but high end graphics are what people expect, and what every AAA game has. By foregoing high end graphics, developers miss out on what would be a large percent of the market share. And business is all about maximising market share.

Second Point:
Boo hoo I cant afford a good PC. Deal with it.

Third Point:
I dont think high end graphics are responsible for all the brown and bloom going on. Developers are going for a gritty sort of feel, and by putting in that brown it gives it that feeling. I hate it. The games you mentioned have a variety of colour because of their content. Mario has never been brown and bloom, even today.

 

[Windthor]

I really don't think making so much detail to a game to where you can actually see a drop of sweat clinging to someone's eyebrow for five minutes before falling to the ground is necessary. Gameplay, to me, is the deciding factor for any video game.

That being said, if I can't see what the hell I'm doing, or if the foreground blends too much into the background to the point where I can't tell the difference, I'm probably gonna stop playing, if only for a little while, before the gameplay brings me back in.

So, I like fair graphics, but high-end just seems unnecessary to me. Again, as long as I can see what's going on and it doesn't physically hurt me to look at the game, I'll play it, so long as the gameplay is at least adequate.

 

[Guffe]

Gameplay is my thing. I think the main reason is that I've always had a Nintendo and they have never been really graphically great compared to the other machines of same age. I grew up with always going to friends and seeing great graphics while at home they were a bit worse. I stopped caring about graphics and mostly enjoy the gameplay and the game itself. I didn't pick the "nice bonus" in the poll because there are different styles you can use as games to Nintendo have shown (Red Steel 2 and Okami) which aren't great in any way but they sync so well with the game that you think it looks good.

Are you sure about that?

NES - No competition
SNES - Better graphics than it's main competitor, the Sega Genesis
N64 - Better graphics than it's main competitor, the Playstation 1
Gamecube - Better graphics than it's main competitor, the Playstation 2

Only this gen have they dropped out of the graphics race.

You sure about that? I never really look at graphics but all my friends always said they think I'm childish for bearing with Nintendo's sucky graphics. I am not sure, you might be right but not according to people in my town. I just don't care but I have the impression that Nintendo's always been after because the consoles are so small that they can't have the same sort of "machinery" in their products. Maybe I am wrong thou.

Yeah Nintendo has a kiddie reputation and it is deserved but that is because of their games, not their consoles. Their consoles, up to the Wii, have been graphically superior.

Well thanks for quoting my post ^^. now I have learned something new once again!

 

[jamesworkshop]

Can't say I agree

1. looking at old games through todays glasses sure on a technical level they have been suppassed but that has completly ignored the fact that they were the graphical power houses of their day in ten years time Crysis would have taken their place by that logic.

I mean Ocarina of time on the N64, a machine that had a 64 bit Risc processor released in June 1996 in Japan, 64bit processors were not introduced in the consumers desktop PC till 2003

2. the situation does not exist as you describe nobody is pushing the limits the most fully realised simulation of real life is 3 years old now

if graphics really took order over gameplay then

prototype
infamous
fallout 3
dragon age origins
dead rising 2
GTA4 (GTA never pushed the graphics over the priority of making the cities as huge as possible

would never have been made


2. Old games have better gameplay but new games offer the same gameplay but look better is a contradiction if they have keep the same gameplay then they are as equally good to play as the old games

 

[Adzma]

Not so much graphics but definitely resolution. This generation has spoiled me. It's almost impossible for me to play games now that don't run at 720p or higher.

 

[Hyper-space]

A serious and realistic FPS would probably suffer from having TF2-cartoony graphics, as would team fortress 2 or minecraft suffer from having ultra-realistic graphics.

Graphics is a tool and all depends on what kind of game you are making, so dismissing high-end graphics is close-minded at best.

My false dichotomy meter just exploded. I agree that there are some kinds of games that benefit from more costly graphics. I do however strongly doubt, that these games benefit more from advancements in the last 4 years, than the suffer from the cost in other aspects. In other words: Even the games that benefit from high end graphics have by now gone beyond their sweet spot.

Again, with this i do not mean going back to SNES graphics for these games - what i mean is that an engine that is now a few years old would be sufficient for such games (an additional reason why i claim this, is that IMO current gen engines are not used up to their full potential. Older engines can via artistic competence go much further than they went. A good example for this is mount and blade: This is stone-age tech! And yet, if you look at the visuals, it doesn't look as primitive as it under the hood actually is. If MnB can do that, imagine what a 4 years old modern engine can do)

MnB textures are very pixelated, but as it does not focus on the realism/exploration of the environment the comparison is wrong.

Take Just Cause 2 for example, JC2 had enormous landscape and beautiful graphics, which enhanced the experience tremendously, JC2 would have suffered from having heavily pixelated textures and sub-par graphics, as it focus lay on the environment.

 

[Urgh76]

Snip

While i do agree for the most part with what you said, there are always exceptions to the rule, there are some new interesting games out that dont go the graphics route. But unfortunately they are few and far between.

One exception im beating myself up for not being able to play (i dont own a ps3, yet...) is 3d dot game heroes. Se below.

i wonder how these guys are remaining clean from ripping off some other game...

I guess it's just

*puts on glasses*

Spoiler: A secret to everbody

[HEADING=1]YEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!![/HEADING]

 

[MrTub]

"I would love to play the computer games that are hitting the market today, but because of the high costs of a machine that can handle modern graphics I simply can't afford to, which means that I'm stuck as a console gamer. Granted, tossing high end graphics out the window will not completely solve this problem, but it would certainly make it easier for me to run many of the modern games that I can't run right now." To me that sounds you're qq over that u can't afford to buy a proper computer and cause of that nobody should get good graphic.

 

[Outright Villainy]

My enjoyment of a game depends on how bad the graphics are.

That said, I LOVE Minecraft because the graphics aren't bad. They're fun to look at and the blocky style makes sense. I guess my graphic judgment is weird.

So, here are:

<spoiler=Bad graphics>
http://diceofdoom.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/dwarffortress-big.png

http://ui19.gamefaqs.com/1042/gfs_49160_2_1.jpg



<spoiler=Okay graphics>
http://www.glidos.net/large/sphinx.jpg

http://www.quakewiki.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/minecraft-4.png

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/803/803187/halo-3-20070711001713324.jpg




<spoiler=Good graphics>
http://caterwauls.ca/new_page_11_files/Uru.jpg

http://www.justpushstart.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Shadow-of-the-colossus.jpg

http://www.theaveragegamer.com/wp-content/Screenshots/Psychonauts/Psychonauts%20-%20Doors.jpg



Do my tastes make sense, at least?

I'm with you there. That's not a case of detailed graphics though, that's just good art style vs bad art style. Wind waker is one of my favourite games visually, even today.
Killzone, most definitely is not.

So I think graphics do need a certain level, but that completely depends on the type of game you're going for. Minecraft is a fun build it yourself game; the pared down graphics give it a lego like feel, and it looks awesome. However, a game like Bioshock with those graphics would fail on every conceivable level, because it's trying to create atmosphere.

I think that source engine level of power could cover just about everything though.