Poll: More poly less play?

[Squilookle]

Yes, so long as they complement content. Remember, visuals ARE content.

In most games the visuals are content in the same way the pages and typeface are content in a book, they have to be good enough to not detract from the book but I don't by the book for the feel of the pages or the look of the typeface.

Bad comparison.

Because games are also a visual medium the quality of the images is as important to the game as the writing style of a book.

A direct example of this the incredible views in Skyrim. They are content in the game.

No more so than the in-game books are. Also, books can have pictures too, and games can be and have been done and done well without any visualization at all.

Yes books can have pictures and games can be Zork style games without any visuals at all.

However that isn't how they are commonly associated. You dont think Book = Visual medium and Game = non-visual. Games are by their nature seen as a visual medium, where as books are seen as a text medium. Good graphics are content in a visual medium. Yeah the ingame books are content as well. Just like the music, story, gameplay ect.

What I am saying is that graphics are as important to games as music, enemy variety and even story.

You also don't think of books by what the paper is made of, but that's the thing- you shouldn't have to. As long as the paper and typeface bring out the words so that they can be read, they've done their job, and we can all get on with reading the book.

So really, graphics aren't even close to being as important as gameplay, variety, and control. As long as they present the content clearly, their job is done. Expecting anything more is akin to not reading books because they don't have glossy pages. In that sense, books are an excellent comparison.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Do you share my fears that creators will focus to much on looks and neglect content,

Personally I think we already passed that point some time ago sadly. It is one of the major reasons why I'm seriously considering giving up gaming as a hobby after nearly 25 years.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

So my good men and women of The Escapist, my subject of discussion is this. With the Advent of hyper powerful in-game engines coupled with modern rendering wizardry, do you think that we will see a decline in what you would call good games? Do you share my fears that creators will focus to much on looks and neglect content, or do you think this will make our beloved designers work doubly hard to impress us with blazing visuals and heart wrenching story? I may be an Xbot but I was blown away by "Beyond" at E3. Is Beyond the first of many great things to come, or just a power play. Share your thoughts and keep it friendly.
Peace out.

It depends on what the developer is trying to achieve. Also, if you were to ask the generation that came before you, particularly PC gamers and NES generation gamers, you would hear your fears as well... though in their case you're merely a belated echo of their own concerns.

There are plenty of people who already feel graphics have become the centerpiece and actual gameplay has become this trivial thing that enables people to progress through obscenely detailed areas. For those people, your current fear has already occurred and is now the socially accepted norm (except for them, which is infuriating).

My opinion on graphics is this... if it suits the game then the graphics are fine. Minecraft looks good, Bastion looks good, heck even last gens Ico and Shadow of the Colossus look good. None of these games stress the boundaries of Photorealism but instead work on abstract imagery (exception of Ico and SotC) and they still look great. If you want your game to be realistic, then power to you... though realism in games tends to create uncanny valley type scenarios (though next gens looks set to alleviate this in terms of environmental aesthetics... still iffy about Human models).

However, there are certain palettes that are over used (like gritty, rustic warzones) and I will judge a game as a result of that. The market is saturated with that aesthetic and it becomes distasteful in its abundance.

EDIT: See the Jimquisition episode on the best looking game of the year (spoiler, it's Viva Pinata). It's not the most amazing game ever, but it has a wildly different palette then what is currently trendy.

 

[dimensional]

Do you share my fears that creators will focus to much on looks and neglect content,

Personally I think we already passed that point some time ago sadly. It is one of the major reasons why I'm seriously considering giving up gaming as a hobby after nearly 25 years.

I agree seriously look at the scope of some of the old school CRPGS (the Ultima series for instance) and look at what we have today prettier much more accessible much less ambitious projects (with locked away content). I dont think ill be giving up gaming though I have just gone back to one of my first gaming loves fighting games atm after a very long break.

OT: as for visuals I find them extremely important if I cant see anything it usually spoils the game for me especially if its a graphic novel or something, different games need different levels of visual fidelity to compliment the gameplay some just need simple text and maybe a few dashes and dots others need top of the range graphics that being said for me good art direction has always trumped good graphics. Now we have more tools I wish we would see more range between top range graphics of AAA titles and extremely minimalistic indie titles. Ok there are a few such as Skullgirls and Journey immediately spring to mind but overall these dont represent a large amount in the market. So visuals are good but dont think they are the be all and end all or that they dont matter each game should use them intelligently.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

Yes, so long as they complement content. Remember, visuals ARE content.

In most games the visuals are content in the same way the pages and typeface are content in a book, they have to be good enough to not detract from the book but I don't by the book for the feel of the pages or the look of the typeface.

Bad comparison.

Because games are also a visual medium the quality of the images is as important to the game as the writing style of a book.

A direct example of this the incredible views in Skyrim. They are content in the game.

No more so than the in-game books are. Also, books can have pictures too, and games can be and have been done and done well without any visualization at all.

Yes books can have pictures and games can be Zork style games without any visuals at all.

However that isn't how they are commonly associated. You dont think Book = Visual medium and Game = non-visual. Games are by their nature seen as a visual medium, where as books are seen as a text medium. Good graphics are content in a visual medium. Yeah the ingame books are content as well. Just like the music, story, gameplay ect.

What I am saying is that graphics are as important to games as music, enemy variety and even story.

You also don't think of books by what the paper is made of, but that's the thing- you shouldn't have to. As long as the paper and typeface bring out the words so that they can be read, they've done their job, and we can all get on with reading the book.

So really, graphics aren't even close to being as important as gameplay, variety, and control. As long as they present the content clearly, their job is done. Expecting anything more is akin to not reading books because they don't have glossy pages. In that sense, books are an excellent comparison.

You're entitled to your opinion, but stating it as a fact is just silly.

When there's a commercial on TV for a game, it's advertising the visuals, not the gameplay. When we get trailers online, it's advertising the visuals. Graphics have been a major selling point of games since the beginning of gaming.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

Do you share my fears that creators will focus to much on looks and neglect content,

Personally I think we already passed that point some time ago sadly. It is one of the major reasons why I'm seriously considering giving up gaming as a hobby after nearly 25 years.

Were just at really shitty point in terms of game development.

Graphics are advanced enough that they are expected to look a certain way, however whats needed to make them that way is terribly inefficient.

Most models, map detailing, etc is done in ZBrush (or other sculpting program these days). Then the low poly mesh is made in a different program. The normal, spec, etc textures are then baked onto the low poly mesh. If someone decides they want to add a detail in during the color texturing phase, they need to go back to the high poly model to adjust it otherwise it'd stick out like a sore thumb.

All these steps take time. Not to mention the added emphasis that has to be put on early development concepting. In the past a team could get away with modeling from rough concept art, because before normal mapping came around it was always pretty easy to adjust things later on.

Point being, when game engines can support the triangle count the models have straight out of ZBrush then everything will become much quicker and less painful, at that point it should free up some resources to focus on other aspects of the game.

I remember an article about Cliffy B saying something like "dragging gamers into the next generation, they want better graphics even if they don't know it", of course everyone was quick to attack him for saying it, but he's right none-the-less.

 

[Mikeyfell]

I don't know what you mean by visuals.
Do you mean graphics, because graphics don't matter.
Visuals, as in what a game looks like matter.

One of the best looking games I've played is Record of Agarest War, which is mostly sprite graphics and anime stile drawings.

You stack that up against the most impressive graphics of the day used to render chest high walls and the barrel of a gun.

Putting some thought into art direction will take you miles further than tricking out your dynamic lighting engine, or moving half a trillion polygons. Rendering ugly perfectly is still ugly.

 

[Sidiron]

I, like most people here will not argue that Terracide/Asteroids/Montezuma's Revenge/Tomb Raider etc are the best games ever because they had bad graphics, as we have plenty of nice looking and well implemented games out now. We also have games like Dwarf Fortress/Towns/Minecraft that have exploded despite having basic graphic levels. Alternatively we have plenty of games that are more based around pretty blood/water/lighting effects and suck in terms of story, gameplay and all that.
What is rather odd is that we have this bi-partisan (two camps) idea that it has to be either one or the other and you cannot have a continuum between the two points.
For example (a recent issue that's gained my attention), Steam, the first major cloud gaming system, is selling games like Magicka and others that are rather cheap and worthy of attention, however they will not work on many many computers because the developers have decided that Intergrated Graphics Chipsets are too much hassle to bother with and thus aren't going to be supported in the near future. This is catching many folk out and it's wasted money.
This is why we had graphics options, do you want to play the game for the story and not melt your computer or do you want to oggle the scenery?
This type of thing is starting to infiltrate difficulty selection where easy is seen as Story mode, and normal or hard are for the challenge.

Ignore me, if I'm covering old ground, (which is entirely possible here on the Escapist ) and also I'm not trying to blast developers from making these types of decisions like everything there are probably very good reasons why it happens.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Do you share my fears that creators will focus to much on looks and neglect content,

Personally I think we already passed that point some time ago sadly. It is one of the major reasons why I'm seriously considering giving up gaming as a hobby after nearly 25 years.

I agree seriously look at the scope of some of the old school CRPGS (the Ultima series for instance) and look at what we have today prettier much more accessible much less ambitious projects (with locked away content). I dont think ill be giving up gaming though I have just gone back to one of my first gaming loves fighting games atm after a very long break.

OT: as for visuals I find them extremely important if I cant see anything it usually spoils the game for me especially if its a graphic novel or something, different games need different levels of visual fidelity to compliment the gameplay some just need simple text and maybe a few dashes and dots others need top of the range graphics that being said for me good art direction has always trumped good graphics. Now we have more tools I wish we would see more range between top range graphics of AAA titles and extremely minimalistic indie titles. Ok there are a few such as Skullgirls and Journey immediately spring to mind but overall these dont represent a large amount in the market. So visuals are good but dont think they are the be all and end all or that they dont matter each game should use them intelligently.

Good art direction? You mean like this:

tee hee hee.

EDIT: Cookie if you can guess which object represents the Player Character.

 

[baddude1337]

They both complement each other. I really don't mind a game with what some what call terrible graphics if the game is great fun, but games like Dwarf Fortress are a no for me.

 

[dimensional]

Good art direction? You mean like this:

tee hee hee.

EDIT: Cookie if you can guess which object represents the Player Character.

LOL yeah thats the shit I think we went backward from here, I think games today have better art direction just ultimately less ambition in many ways i.e they aim to push graphics not the overall experience.

Id guess the little starship is the player the hourglass is an object and the D is the staircase. Did I get my cookie or do I have to go hungry for another day

 

[GonzoGamer]

There is nothing more irritating to me than plunking down $50-60 on a game that looks absolutely amazing, but then sucker punches you in the nuts with a measly 4-5 hours of actual story mode game play.

That's why I rent now.
It's funny because I thought at the beginning of the cycle that the games would get bigger and bigger on the ps360 like they did on the ps2. But it seems that they're just keeping the games with the same amount of content they had at the beginning of the cycle and then adding more with dlc.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Good art direction? You mean like this:

tee hee hee.

EDIT: Cookie if you can guess which object represents the Player Character.

LOL yeah thats the shit I think we went backward from here, I think games today have better art direction just ultimately less ambition in many ways i.e they aim to push graphics not the overall experience.

Id guess the little starship is the player the hourglass is an object and the D is the staircase. Did I get my cookie or do I have to go hungry for another day

Starship? I always thought that was a club, as in playing cards; like the ace of clubs kinda thing.
Anyway I guess it was kinda obvious. So here's your cookie:

Spoiler: Cookie

In any event, I think you're right, but you have to wonder how much of ambition ends up on the cutting room floor.

 

[loa]

This is silly, why do you equate a higher poly count with "better" visuals?
We should have grown out of that by now, focus on the things that actually matter.
Especially with that torrent of samey games that all surely have a very high polycount but an incredibly bland, boring art direction that you surely must have noticed if you haven't been living under a rock?

 

[Vegosiux]

When there's a commercial on TV for a game, it's advertising the visuals, not the gameplay. When we get trailers online, it's advertising the visuals. Graphics have been a major selling point of games since the beginning of gaming.

And that is why we can't have nice things...

Seriously, if I want to see dazzling visuals and cool explosions, I'm going to bloody well go and see the latest blockbuster movie. I'm not sold on visuals when it comes to games, and going "oooo shiny!" in the advertising campaign will only put me off, cause they wil make me thing there's hardly any "game" they have to show.

So, in other words; advertise visuals if you're advertising movies. Games? Sorry, you need to deliver something else if you want me to buy it.

This is silly, why do you equate a higher poly count with "better" visuals?

I don't get it, either. And I'm one of those mathy people who get off on numbers and all that.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

"Hi, you've reached the Repeat Thread Auto-Response Hotline! Please select the repeated thread you are viewing!"

*beep*

"You've selected "graphics versus gameplay". Your response will arrive momentarily. Please wait."

*do do de do*

[Of course graphics matter, but without gameplay, you're not playing a game! It can be the most impressive technical display yet, but it won't matter in the slightest if you don't have the gameplay to do anything with it. And that's not even touching the idea of graphics versus aesthetic, and how aesthetic is exponentially more important than graphical prowess.]

 

[Kahunaburger]

If they didn't everyone would still be playing text based games.

I am still playing text-based games - although in my case, it's not technically "still," since I discovered how awesome ifiction and roguelikes are relatively recently.

(Which tells you a lot about my opinions on the graphics vs. gameplay issue.)

 

[Martin Toney]

That's just not true, and that's a fact not an opinion. Text based games, are text based because of technological impairments. With the Coming of better technology and the ability to display discernible sprites on screen the obvious (I'm loath to saying "logical") step forward. Besides, graphically powerful games have allowed text based games to become a highly appreciated sub genre of truly fantastic games.