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

[MiracleOfSound]

[As I was typing that, I was thinking about Enslaved after watching the video supplement recently.

Here we have a "post apocolypse" setting, but the art direction transforms a typically dreary and washed out world into a melding of verdant plant life conquering decrepit metal and ruins. The visual style is a refreshing and incredible direction that is greatly enhanced by the amount of detail that can be poured into every scene during gameplay.

Yep, and it gets even more incredible later in the game (I won't spoil it).

 

[Daymo]

I love how the examples you use as reason we shouldn't have high end graphics such as Mario 64 and OOT were pushing the boundaries of the Nintendo 64 at the time. Games are also relatively cheaper now then in the past for consumers, there was an article on this on the escapist a few days ago.

Good graphics are part of making a game good, it's not as important as other parts of game, but it sure helps it out. I was put off trying Deus Ex because it looked bad, graphics help make a good first impression, but other parts of game can make up for this poor first impresion.

 

[Vault101]

I DO care about graphics, they can be an important factor in the look and feel, therefore imersion of the game

 

[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.

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

I get what you are saying, but I am simply not old enough to have ever grown up with that level of graphics. One of the first video games I ever played was Combat Mission and it looks like this:

Spoiler: Screenshot

[image/]http://www.gamedujour.com/games/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/barbarossa-to-berlin-2.jpg[/IMG]

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

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:

-snip-

Do my tastes make sense, at least?

I am no Halo fanboy, but why would you put it into "okay graphics"? The engine on which it runs is superior to Psychonauts. Yes, without a doubt Psychonauts is an extremely more artistic (and better) game, but you're thread is about solely graphics, and Halo has better "graphics" than Psychonauts.

OT: You're taste in graphics isn't bad, I prefer good graphics to play a game, but the gameplay itself can make me look the other way.

 

[gokenshadow]

I don't agree with your post title, but I agree with what you say.

 

[Little Duck]

My policy is simple. So long as you can see what's happenning on the screen and you know what it is off in a micro second, I don't care how good your graphics are. As a bare minimum for people though I say everything or nothing (on the gamecube) is the bare minimum as to what people should aim for:

So long as everything else can be told from a first glance (aka that bowl contains ice cream, that one contains chips etc) then everything is ok and there's no real need to worry.

 

[Zagzag]

I play Dwarf Fortress [http://df.magmawiki.com/index.php/Main_Page]. That's probably enough said.

 

[AdmiralMemo]

I would much rather play a good game with N64-era graphics than a bad game with high-end graphics.

 

[lacktheknack]

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:

-snip-

Do my tastes make sense, at least?

I am no Halo fanboy, but why would you put it into "okay graphics"? The engine on which it runs is superior to Psychonauts. Yes, without a doubt Psychonauts is an extremely more artistic (and better) game, but you're thread is about solely graphics, and Halo has better "graphics" than Psychonauts.

OT: You're taste in graphics isn't bad, I prefer good graphics to play a game, but the gameplay itself can make me look the other way.

Because the graphics, while crisp and high-res, didn't do anything for me. For graphics to be "good", then either they have to be Crysis-level, or the art palette has to grab my attention. In all three examples of "Good" (Uru, Shadow of the Colossus, and Psychonauts), I stopped at some point and just wandered around staring in awe at my surroundings.

 

[Chunko]

When I play console games I care about graphics. But I couldn't care less for PC gaming. Even though I own a 1,000 $ computer I play SC2 on low detail so that there's almost no loading time.

 

[The Great JT]

They're nice, but if the gameplay doesn't work or the story is crap I'm not gonna play it.

 

[velcrokidneyz]

i like a lot of classic 8bit stuff and play emulators a lot. not gonna say i hate nice graphics but thats not completely what its about for me.

 

[The Rockerfly]

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

Then you probably had a depressing childhood, and I'm sorry that instead of letting you have fun your parents forced you to balance an accounting equation every day. But at least you can go to sleep every night knowing that assets will still equal liabilities plus stockholders equity when you wake up tomorrow.

Actually I will have you know that total assets should equal the total liabilities + total equity. Plus stock holders aren't the only source of equity...

I will stop now

However, I completely agree. I've play through many games this generation but they are all hollow and uninspiring. I went back to my playstation, put in Spyro and felt he was more heroic than any character on any current generation console. The worlds had more charm and everything was so much more beautiful even though it was much more simple.

Maybe having nicer models and more polygons on objects but I like textures that are colourful and beautiful. The only thing I've found this generation is Banjo and Kazooie nuts and bolts and Halo (which is pushing it)

I'm hoping that the next generation of consoles will have worse graphics, ps2 level of graphics where almost anyone can play them and development costs aren't that bad

 

[Rock Beefchest]

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.

I feel excatly that way dude.

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

Then you probably had a depressing childhood, and I'm sorry that instead of letting you have fun your parents forced you to balance an accounting equation every day. But at least you can go to sleep every night knowing that assets will still equal liabilities plus stockholders equity when you wake up tomorrow.

Why not do both. Legos were and continue to be badass.

Thats a bit harsh..just cause i don't like legos means i have to be a evil money grubber? What if instead of Legos to play i had Super Mario 64....why the fuck would i play with legos when i had that game.

 

[brtshstel]

You wanna know what I think of graphics in relation to game play? I have two PS3 games, and I am still actively collecting PlayStation 1, Sega Saturn, Mega Drive, SNES, Turbografx, NES, and Atari 2600 games.

GTA4 looks great an accurately depicts New York City in visuals but the combat and driving mechanics are as broken as a crystal bowl carried by a four year old climbing down a stone staircase.

On the other hand, Contra III, Castlevania(1, 2, 3, Super IV, Bloodlines/New Generation, and Symphony of the Night), Gunstar Heroes, Legendary Axe, and various other 2D games provide a hundred times more fun and real challenge (not frustration) because of the limited graphics and the required use of imagination and requisite need for developers to make good games because they can't shroud broken games with pretty graphics. ::breathes::

 

[Physics Engine]

Fuck graphics?

Uhh, no. I kinda like to see what I'm doing

Seriously though, couldn't publishers have a much better ROI if they weren't so concerned with their graphics engine running the latest and greatest bling mapping and uber bloom? Wouldn't it be cheaper to make a game running on say 5 or 10 year old tech so that a greater percentage of the population (read: regular people not PC gurus) can run the game on their machine? Would people freak if developers used 10x less polygons or something?

Yes there's a market for graphics showpieces but it's small. Any game that doesn't look pretty enough will be modded anyway so why spend your money if others will do it later?

Meh, maybe I'm just crying for the loss of mainstream pixel art... don't mind me.

*sulks

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

graphics are almost completely unimportant to me, except as they apply to visibility. but, at that point it's a gameplay issue anyway. i think that's part of what made the first Halo a good game: visibility was great, and that was a new and fresh idea for a FPS. then the sequels lost that concept (along with other problems). many other games have done the same thing, and often it comes down more to clutter than to actual pixel-counts. sure, the resolution may be higher, but if there is also 20x more junk in any given shot, it's going to look worse and be harder to play.

also, some people have mentioned graphics relating to "atmosphere". but the most "atmospheric" and engaging game i ever played was Fallout 1, and that game looks like ass by modern standards (and, to be fair, it is also plagued with gameplay issues).

 

[Fightgarr]

For the record: graphics take a lot less time than you think to create. Getting them to run on the hardware is difficult and animating them can be a challenge, but the actual creation of the models takes significantly less time to create than you think. Notice how preliminary trailers always have effectively the same graphical quality to the finished product? It's because they have them already. You know what takes up all the time? The testing and development cycle. I'm both a digital artist and a games tester, so I know relatively well that the testing cycle (particularly the beta cycle) is the longest part of development and that the art-side takes relatively shorter. Seriously, demanding that games be visual appealing is a product of high-end technology and there is no reason we shouldn't take advantage of that. The reason that games aren't creative is not due to graphics, it is due to uncreative people, and the marketability of ideas. If the market was more willing to take risks, so would producers.

I also don't buy that people think that N64 graphics had charm. That's nostalgia talking, to me. N64 graphics look fucking awful. They've aged terribly, and the only reason why anyone tolerates early 3D is because it's what we played as chidren and we have memories of that. I tried to play through OoT recently and I gotta say, it was ok, not bad, not amazing, but ok and if you seriously think that game looked great, you have some problems going on.

If you want more creative gameplay and more risks, then support the indie market. Don't buy Triple A titles, because then they're marketable and will be reproduced. Supporting indie titles gives developers who are taking more risks the marketability they need to get published.

I understand that graphics aren't the most important thing. I just really really don't buy that they are the reason that Triple A gaming is bland and uninteresting. That's on the market, not on the art department.