Good graphics contribute to a good game but can only carry it so far. I do like them a lot though.
Poll: Do high end graphics take more than they give?
- Thread starter Kpt._Rob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Agree. I have no problem with going back to PS2 era graphics. Still looks pretty good, but allows dor most of the things you mentioned, also. Just look at Ratchet and Clank.
I do agree with you on the fact that graphics aren't the most important part of games. My brother is one of those types of people that are big into games with great/latest graphics. I went mostly the console route, I have 360 and a Wii, plus a marginal computer(that's only because my dad bought me a new computer because my only one died). My brother on the other hand went the way of constantly upgrading his computer; I would say his computer could run just about anything. My point about him is, back before the Wii came out, I got Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker. My brother, when he did play console games, was big into Legend of Zelda games, but when I got Wind Waker, he wouldn't play it. He was mad that the game makers went with the cartoony cell shaded graphics instead of the regular progression of high end graphics, he thought they would make it look better than Ocarina of Time. Of course he wouldn't listen after I beat Wind Waker, that he had missed a phenomenal game.Kpt._Rob said:
I actually just started playing Minecraft. Though right now I have to play in peaceful mode to learn the ropes, and get faster. I tried it in the other difficulties, but on normal and easy, both times I got killed before I could make the shelter I wanted. Both times, I apparently chose a spot that all the enemies came to, I know they spawn in the dark, but it was just crazy. Two zombies a skeleton, two spiders, and a exploding creeper. I could never get a house built because they kept getting blown up.
But I'm fine now in peaceful mode, I guess enemies show up less often, or don't show up on the surface, because I have been caught out in the dark many times in peaceful mode and nothing showed up. Luckily I haven't seen a single exploding creeper. I now have a nice two story wood house with a balcony, and nicely light inside and out, though I haven't been able to find any more coal so I can start lighting my way to start mining in the deep.
So yes, I am the type of person that graphics really don't determine what games I play. I play just about any types of games. I even go back with emulators and roms and play all kinds of old school games.
But, I don't agree with setting graphics back. If a publisher can do it correctly, than I'm all for it. I leave the example of Castlevania: Lords of Shadow:
I don't care what anybody says, it is one of the best Castlevania games I have ever played.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 and Super Mario 64 are drastically different breeds of game. You won't find any dull greys and browns in Ratchet and Clank games, they're alive vibrant inspirational vast worlds of wonder and imagination, and made all the better for the power of current generation consoles. Crack in Time would not have benefited from losing the rendering power of the PS3.
But that's where I will stop contesting you on this point, the cost incurred in developing games constantly with the standard of graphics expected of the industry now does hinder some of the creative prowess of the better developers as well as give some of the less ardently innovative devs an excuse to churn out the same game with a new engine every year. Bioshock games run on the Unreal Engine which a very slick and easy engine to work with, doesn't incur obscene cost, and therefore is a very forgiving in the creative headroom.
I do look forward to maybe seeing Bethesda one day create Summerset Isles and the great High Elven cities in wondrous detail, and luckily for them they have no limit to the creative freedom there since an Elder Scrolls game is almost assured to make a good return.
They covered this in Extra Credits too, which I'm SURE has been said. Developers should fund private indie developer divisions, so they pump money into new ideas with minimal financial risk, and the indie devs get the backing of a big company. That way we get great games, then sequels to those great games with the big game budgets, meaning we get the best of imaginative gaemplay and story driven games and the graphical intricacy of A Crack In Time ;D
But that's where I will stop contesting you on this point, the cost incurred in developing games constantly with the standard of graphics expected of the industry now does hinder some of the creative prowess of the better developers as well as give some of the less ardently innovative devs an excuse to churn out the same game with a new engine every year. Bioshock games run on the Unreal Engine which a very slick and easy engine to work with, doesn't incur obscene cost, and therefore is a very forgiving in the creative headroom.
I do look forward to maybe seeing Bethesda one day create Summerset Isles and the great High Elven cities in wondrous detail, and luckily for them they have no limit to the creative freedom there since an Elder Scrolls game is almost assured to make a good return.
They covered this in Extra Credits too, which I'm SURE has been said. Developers should fund private indie developer divisions, so they pump money into new ideas with minimal financial risk, and the indie devs get the backing of a big company. That way we get great games, then sequels to those great games with the big game budgets, meaning we get the best of imaginative gaemplay and story driven games and the graphical intricacy of A Crack In Time ;D
It depends on the game. If the game is cartoonish, then graphics don't mean much. If you're going for gritty realism, at this point, you better have them.
I don't think i made myself clear enough then, i'm not just talking about bubble bobble or pong, i'm talking about games that are just a few years old, like last console gen old. Those games are still easy to find, and they're cheap.JaysonM said:
A good example would be half life, it can be bought cheaply, and it offers everything you could need if you want a shooter, but find that current shooters are lacking due to the HD graphics side efefcts mentioned in the OP.
If you wanted RPG's try out baldurs gate, or neverwinter nights
Action ahck'n slash rpgs, go for diablo 1 and 2
RTS, tons of C&C games, warcraft 1-3, or the non new graphics starcraft AKA starcraft 1.
Try out the previous installments of GTA, give the thief series a try.
I could go on and on, these aren't even that old, and all these are just the PC games.
What these games all have in common is, that they're all good games, they're all dirt cheap due to their age.
Of course it's a lot easier to find PC games that are aged, especially with digital distribution. Getting hold of a N64/PS1 or older consoles and the games for it might be a bit harder, though nowhere near impossible.
Also, are these people you talk about the same people who complain about how graphixz are ruining gameing? cause i can mention shitloads of examples of older games where the only differences from their newer counterparts are the grahics and the price, and if they can't get into the older ones, they might just be bigger suckers for nice graphics (which theres nothing wrong with) than they care to admit, and just rage about how graphics are ruining gameing cause it's trendy and they think it makes them sound clever and edgy.
But if the graphics are holding them back, they're as big graphic-whores as the next guy, and if it's not the graphics, they'd have to admit, that games have gotten better in spite of the larger graphics budgets.
A last thought before this posts gets way too long, i'm also wondering what peopel think games would be like, if it wasn't for the big graphics budget. Sometimes i'm left with the feeling, that people think games would be the most amazing, mindblowing, awesome, geek-gasm-inducing things ever created if it wasn't for the graphics budgets.
But honestly, if it was like that, i really do think the developers would be willing to spare the extra bucks, if it meant creating the best game ever.
I agree completely.
Personally, I don't mind graphics unless they're really horrible.
Good graphics are nice and all but when you get down to it, does it really make any difference on the game itself?
I mean, fuck, my favourite game this year is one that has been harshly criticized for it's somewhat poor graphics, but does that really matter?
Personally, I don't mind graphics unless they're really horrible.
Good graphics are nice and all but when you get down to it, does it really make any difference on the game itself?
I mean, fuck, my favourite game this year is one that has been harshly criticized for it's somewhat poor graphics, but does that really matter?
Listen, you can complain about graphics as much as you want, but that won't change the fact that there are a myriad of games that do benefit from high-end realistic graphics and any other art direction/style would hurt its tone and visual aesthetics. You may say "realistic graphics is nothing but brown and gun metal gray", you be wrong, as most realistic FPS's only try to display the actual colors of the environment (i know there are some games that fail in this department, but hey, blame the carpenter, not the tool).
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.
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.
I will never go back to the days pre-graphics. Zork was fun then, but I much prefer to use a controller to move and interact, instead of typing in verb/noun combinations until something happens.
Oh wait you meant "old graphics." Gotcha!
Your friend is delusional: there is a difference between old, outdated and "did not age well" graphics and "stylistic choice" graphics like minecraft. As others have pointed out, you could enhance Minecraft's textures...and now that its creator is making money hand over fist I am sure he will, eventually. But it's a game that doesn't need the sophisticated graphics of AAA shooters.
That said, I still love cutting edge graphics, but only if they're in a fun game. Some games (the ones for which immersion is important) need those graphics; others, not so. Audiocraft, Super Laser Racer, Osmos....these aren't "state of the art" but boy are they fun.
On the other hand, I can't really stomach any games from the PS1 era and older anymore. Never was a fan of blocky low res textures, pixel sprites, or 8 bit anything. That's just me, though; I was a gamer who started with the Atari 2600 as a kid but missed all the Nintendo/Sega era of games and didn't come back until the original playstation showed up.
As for PC gaming and graphics....I own like 40 games on GOG so I guess I must not be offended by older graphics. Like I said, it's all about the gameplay.
Oh wait you meant "old graphics." Gotcha!
Your friend is delusional: there is a difference between old, outdated and "did not age well" graphics and "stylistic choice" graphics like minecraft. As others have pointed out, you could enhance Minecraft's textures...and now that its creator is making money hand over fist I am sure he will, eventually. But it's a game that doesn't need the sophisticated graphics of AAA shooters.
That said, I still love cutting edge graphics, but only if they're in a fun game. Some games (the ones for which immersion is important) need those graphics; others, not so. Audiocraft, Super Laser Racer, Osmos....these aren't "state of the art" but boy are they fun.
On the other hand, I can't really stomach any games from the PS1 era and older anymore. Never was a fan of blocky low res textures, pixel sprites, or 8 bit anything. That's just me, though; I was a gamer who started with the Atari 2600 as a kid but missed all the Nintendo/Sega era of games and didn't come back until the original playstation showed up.
As for PC gaming and graphics....I own like 40 games on GOG so I guess I must not be offended by older graphics. Like I said, it's all about the gameplay.
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.Hyper-space said:
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)
You see,graphics are only important to the degree of the player being able to tell the difference between different enteties,and important visual cues/features. The more resources you put to graphics beyond that,the less resources you have to put towards other,infinitely more important things. Things like gameplay. Entity count and identifacation.
My primary piece of supporting evidence is the same as the OP's.
Minecraft.
My primary piece of supporting evidence is the same as the OP's.
Minecraft.
Not really relevant to the topic, but from the way you talk, i think the following article by me may be interesting to you (its a lot of text though): http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.235354-Iconic-Visuals-A-different-approach-to-communicate-content#8358453Riddle78 said:
*nods seriously* You're very right. Personally, I love high-end graphics ("ooo! shiny!") but there is definitely something to be said about the effect they have on game development. I'd much rather have a team dedicated to story and/or gameplay than graphics. And I am loath to shell out any more than $30 for a game. Old games with atrocious-by-today's-standards graphics have captivated countless gamers, thereby proving that graphics are certainly not the decisive aspect for many of us. In fact, many people say there is much charm to be found in old-school graphics.
I care about graphics somewhat, unless it's a PC game. High-end PC games don't run well for me due to limited RAM.
I play Dwarf Fortress.
That said, I think graphics ARE an important part of games. I don't demand Crysis, But you do need a certain level of fidelity depending on the Gameplay in your game. Plus, no matter how much you like it, you aren't going to sell a million copies of something that is just downright ugly.
By the way, those games on you played on the N64, yeah, they were damn good looking for their time. Don't let Nostalgia cloud your vision.
That said, I think graphics ARE an important part of games. I don't demand Crysis, But you do need a certain level of fidelity depending on the Gameplay in your game. Plus, no matter how much you like it, you aren't going to sell a million copies of something that is just downright ugly.
By the way, those games on you played on the N64, yeah, they were damn good looking for their time. Don't let Nostalgia cloud your vision.
I'd say it's a bit of a mixed bag, really. On the one hand, it's wrong to judge a game's worth solely on its visuals, but on the other, I'd argue it's equally wrong to fault the progression of graphics technology over the years.
It's very easy to argue that too much time is spent on creating beautiful visuals rather than perfecting gameplay, but it's worth noting that many games wouldn't be nearly as good were it not for the art design and utilization of all the latest effects. Let's take a look at say...the original Spyro the Dragon. The graphics have a unique charm about them, even today, and these are backed up by the awesome gameplay (even by modern standards). Compare that to, say, the original Unreal. The game doesn't look impressive anymore, and the gameplay doesn't hold up at all.
Graphics can be easily as important as the gameplay, assuming they're utilized properly. Half-Life 2 used all the latest visual effects and the game benefited tremendously for it (especially the physics system and realistic water).
All that in mind, I do agree that the focus on graphics lately has gotten excessive. I personally want to punch anyone who says "I hated the game because the graphics suck." And I honestly think that sometimes development teams focus too much on the visuals rather than the rest of the game. Despite that, I still think that keeping the graphics technology moving forward is an overall benefit to the industry. I know that Bioshock, Prince of Persia, Crysis, etc wouldn't have been nearly as unique and impressive were it not for the beautiful visuals.
It's very easy to argue that too much time is spent on creating beautiful visuals rather than perfecting gameplay, but it's worth noting that many games wouldn't be nearly as good were it not for the art design and utilization of all the latest effects. Let's take a look at say...the original Spyro the Dragon. The graphics have a unique charm about them, even today, and these are backed up by the awesome gameplay (even by modern standards). Compare that to, say, the original Unreal. The game doesn't look impressive anymore, and the gameplay doesn't hold up at all.
Graphics can be easily as important as the gameplay, assuming they're utilized properly. Half-Life 2 used all the latest visual effects and the game benefited tremendously for it (especially the physics system and realistic water).
All that in mind, I do agree that the focus on graphics lately has gotten excessive. I personally want to punch anyone who says "I hated the game because the graphics suck." And I honestly think that sometimes development teams focus too much on the visuals rather than the rest of the game. Despite that, I still think that keeping the graphics technology moving forward is an overall benefit to the industry. I know that Bioshock, Prince of Persia, Crysis, etc wouldn't have been nearly as unique and impressive were it not for the beautiful visuals.
I dunno mate, graphics can help to create atmosphere, though it isn't always entirely necessary.
Think about Minecraft: yes, it's an immensely enjoyable game, and I like it a lot, but the graphics constantly remind me of the fact that it's just a game.
High-end graphics in games like Oblivion or Uncharted, however, can create immersion with beautiful vistas which you can gaze and admire at.
Think about Minecraft: yes, it's an immensely enjoyable game, and I like it a lot, but the graphics constantly remind me of the fact that it's just a game.
High-end graphics in games like Oblivion or Uncharted, however, can create immersion with beautiful vistas which you can gaze and admire at.