Poll: Graphics - Quality or Detail?

[Arachon]

The subject of video game graphics is usually up for debate around here, some claim that the trend of over-focusing on graphics is slowly killing the industry by draining resources that could be put in game design.

Bad or not, we all know that graphics are a central part of our video games.

However, graphics could loosely be split into two broad categories: High Quality graphics, and detailed graphics. "High quality graphics" is what we see most of today, games such as Crysis, Mirror's Edge or EVE Online, featuring almost photorealistic visuals, high resolution textures and advanced effects such as motion blur and bloom.

"Detailed graphics" is a little less common, featuring more detailed objects, such as objects having animated parts, blinking lights, rotating weapon turrets or displaying results of damage. A good example of this is Nexus - The Jupiter Incident.

So my question is: What do you think is most important, high-res textures and motion blur or animated spaceships and turning weapons?

 

[Theo Samaritan]

I would rather have the detail if possible, however if the Nexus 2 engine demo was the actual real engine, I would have orgasmed.

Currently for me EVE is the closest match for detail and quality together, however a lot of games include detail as a matter of course - Burnout Paradise for example has all the dodads you would expect on a working car (within reason) but is also of high standard graphically.

The second rendition of the source engine is also a perfect example of this (the edition that shipped in the orange box).

 

[MiketheBassMan]

I would say that World of Warcraft grade graphics are the best you'd ever need. Sure, you could have all the fancy, 'ultra-realistic' effects you see in games like GTA4, but what's the difference? The actual gameplay is all that matters.

 

[RYjet911]

To be honest, both descriptions are largely important to both high quality and detailed graphics. As terms, they are very close, considering the detail can include the amount of polygons in a model or the resolution of the textures. Animation, however, is the thing I look for most in graphics, of any kind, which is why I like a lot of American cartoons over Japanese anime. Animation can bring life to even the most static of characters, probably one of my biggest issues with Oblivion and Fallout 3 where everyone's completely stiff when they talk to you.

 

[Jandau]

I've always divided graphics into two aspects: Technical and design.

Technical is the various mumbo jumbo, polygon counts, etc.

Design is how the technical aspect is put to work.

For instance, Crysis is a great looking game when it comes to the technical aspect, but the design is bland, uninspired and boring.

Then we have, say, Psychonauts, which don't feature a cutting edge engine to do the technical side of things, but the game has a distinct visual feel, wonderful design and creative visuals.

Both these aspects are important. Your game will look like crap if you have a terribad graphical engine, but it will also be an eyesore if you can't put that engine to good use with well crafted visuals.

However, I have always placed a greater emphasis on design. I can endure technically lacking visuals if the game breathes atmosphere and draws me in.

 

[Arachon]

Currently for me EVE is the closest match for detail and quality together.

Really? I find that EVE has very good-looking graphics, but not very detailed (for example drones appearing from thin air when launched, all attacks impacting the same two spots on your ship etc).

 

[Madshaw]

a balance between the two would be good

 

[Good morning blues]

I've always felt that detail was more important, but you can use both very well.

Personally, I think you can make a low-poly model look better with high-detail textures than you can make a high-poly model look with low-detail textures. If you play Oblivion with low-quality textures and compare it to a game like Guild Wars, you'll see what I mean.

On the other hand, filters and effects can be used fantastically. I don't think there's a better example than Call of Duty 4 for this one. There was a lot of detail, but it was the full-screen effects and filters that made the game look so cinematic.

 

[Theo Samaritan]

Currently for me EVE is the closest match for detail and quality together.

Really? I find that EVE has very good-looking graphics, but not very detailed (for example drones appearing from thin air when launched, all attacks impacting the same two spots on your ship etc).

It is true while some things are missing its the less obvious things I pick up on which make me smile. Such as the way particular guns recoil, the scaling etc. Plus we have yet another additional graphics update in march that is putting a fair bit more into it.

It is not the most detailed nor the best quality but it certainly has a fair bit of both imho.

 

[Jumplion]

I prefer to call them visuals rather than graphics. "Graphics" implies that they're pushing every pixel to make it as high up to 1080p as they can and squeezing every last ounce of juice into prettiness (ala Crysis). They're basically what you see right away.

"Visuals" implies that there is detail to the piece, and while it may not be the most pixel pumping graphics you've seen, it's the atmosphere and aesthetics that are a treat to your eyes (ala any stylized game)

I prefer detailed "visuals" rather than high-end "graphics".

 

[NekoAnastasia]

I like detail, it feels more immersive and quirky.

 

[Abedeus]

I would say that World of Warcraft grade graphics are the best you'd ever need. Sure, you could have all the fancy, 'ultra-realistic' effects you see in games like GTA4, but what's the difference? The actual gameplay is all that matters.

Actual gameplay and WoW should not be used in the same post.

a balance between the two would be good

This. I think Portal, TF2 and other Valve games can achieve something like that - great graphics, low requirements.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I think another thing that is important but not HQ graphics and detail is style. Some games that ooze style don't need extreme detail or high quality graphics.

Braid, Okami, LoZ: Wind Waker, just a few to mention had fantastic style without either great detail or high quality.

 

[Shadow Law]

Detail because do you really need to see that cardbord box any clearer?

 

[Xvito]

Detail is definitely more important than quality.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

probably one of my biggest issues with Oblivion and Fallout 3 where everyone's completely stiff when they talk to you.

I also find this baffling, when you see the absolute gorgeous buildings and the amount of detail and attention put into even the tiniest of objects in Bethesdas games, why they couldn't get some decent motion capture is unfathomable.

 

[whyarecarrots]

Its the details and design are what count for me rather than pure graphics. I find a game like Left 4 Dead a million times more pleasing to the eye than something like Crysis.

I think animation is very important also, Fallout 3 is a good example. They put alot of focus on the graphics (so it sells on the console) and it looks pretty good but the animation work is terrible (the AI can be bad also) and makes the game look so dated. The characters are so stiff and look even worse when fighting.

I'd have to agree totally: I found the animation in Fallout 3 seriously off-putting. It was just so awful...

I've always felt that detail was more important, but you can use both very well.

Personally, I think you can make a low-poly model look better with high-detail textures than you can make a high-poly model look with low-detail textures. If you play Oblivion with low-quality textures and compare it to a game like Guild Wars, you'll see what I mean.

On the other hand, filters and effects can be used fantastically. I don't think there's a better example than Call of Duty 4 for this one. There was a lot of detail, but it was the full-screen effects and filters that made the game look so cinematic.

And it was the last point here that made Fallout 3 look so good as well: the texturing was actually pretty poor when you looked closely, but the atmosphere was done so well with the haze effects inside buildings. I also found the same thing in the COD4 demo: sure, Crysis is more technically good looking, but the atmosphere was just so much more impressive in CoD4.