you know what?...fuck it....graphics ARE important
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Anyone who tries to say graphics arn't important are usually just trying to jump on the bandwagon and have no concrete reasons to back up their arguement
Of course graphics are important. If you can't tell whats going on then how can you play the game?
Not only that but the style of graphics really can make or break the game.
Of course graphics are important. If you can't tell whats going on then how can you play the game?
Not only that but the style of graphics really can make or break the game.
Wouldn't animation and frame rates fall under graphics? at least in my mind they would, I don't see graphics as just being the shapes and textures of objects in the game.undeadsuitor said:
Is it just me?
I enjoy games more if they have pretty graphics. Each new generation of graphics enthralls me. I can remember the Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim progression. Each was awesome visually in it's own right, but each time the next one came out, I was surprised I was so enthralled with the one previous to it.
That being said, there are still some games that I don't mind that the visual aesthetics are not up to par, but as a general rule, graphics really detract from the game for me to the point I probably won't go back and play them.
That being said, there are still some games that I don't mind that the visual aesthetics are not up to par, but as a general rule, graphics really detract from the game for me to the point I probably won't go back and play them.
Yes, graphics are important - BUT
Graphics DO NOT EQUAL Technology
You can have better graphics with inferior technology. The best engines and games don't offer just a list of technically impressive features, but they employ them through great graphics design in creative creative (and sparing!) ways.
Too often, reviews mix up technology and graphics and praise features that might be ill-used in the final product or criticize the lack of tech demo-esque eye candy where clearly design has been more important in the game's development.
Graphics DO NOT EQUAL Technology
You can have better graphics with inferior technology. The best engines and games don't offer just a list of technically impressive features, but they employ them through great graphics design in creative creative (and sparing!) ways.
Too often, reviews mix up technology and graphics and praise features that might be ill-used in the final product or criticize the lack of tech demo-esque eye candy where clearly design has been more important in the game's development.
There was this guy, he's a pretty well-known kinda guy because he made this thing of films called...what was it, Star Trek?
I can't remember, anyway, he once said "A special effect is a tool, a means of telling a story. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." and I think that applies to video games with how the graphics of a game are a tool for the rest of the game. That's not to say they're not important, because they are, but it's not how many pixels you can fit into a cut-scene that's important, but rather the style of the game that bends around the other elements of a game.
I can't remember, anyway, he once said "A special effect is a tool, a means of telling a story. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing." and I think that applies to video games with how the graphics of a game are a tool for the rest of the game. That's not to say they're not important, because they are, but it's not how many pixels you can fit into a cut-scene that's important, but rather the style of the game that bends around the other elements of a game.
Vault101: Renegade + 5
I think it depends on the sort of game... and its complexity. You don't need bleeding edge graphics for a small-scale game. Though if the goal is maximum immersion, then a basic standard of graphics (say well-polished sixth-generation graphics) is essential. I love Shin Megami Tensei which tends to use anime-style graphics, so I'm not that fussed as long as it doesn't hurt my eyes.
Examples of what I mean:
I'm not fussy. It's not hard to produce graphics at that level. Although I'd prefer them to be at least as good as Persona 3's animations, it doesn't matter too much as long as they're at that entry level.
There's no problem with games which were made before such graphics became standard, but anything after should not slack on graphics if a player is expected to play all the way through for many hours.
I think it depends on the sort of game... and its complexity. You don't need bleeding edge graphics for a small-scale game. Though if the goal is maximum immersion, then a basic standard of graphics (say well-polished sixth-generation graphics) is essential. I love Shin Megami Tensei which tends to use anime-style graphics, so I'm not that fussed as long as it doesn't hurt my eyes.
Examples of what I mean:
I'm not fussy. It's not hard to produce graphics at that level. Although I'd prefer them to be at least as good as Persona 3's animations, it doesn't matter too much as long as they're at that entry level.
There's no problem with games which were made before such graphics became standard, but anything after should not slack on graphics if a player is expected to play all the way through for many hours.
If video games are an artistic medium, then you cannot say that they must be limited.
Deus Ex worked for the story... but it truly lacked in one-to-one interaction. The animations were stiff and simple with such basic expressions. This didn't hold the game back from
Metal Gear Solid, a very graphically basic game had to depend on tricks to avoid this, like how often important conversations were held in Codec where you had manga style drawn portraits rather than be limited by 3D faces as could be depicted in the early 90's.
Faces.
They are most important in a game that is trying to tell of any sort of human interaction. You need to be able to accurately show all the expressions or doomed to highly impersonal storytelling, or lean on a crutch like being heavily text based or with pre-animated sequences.
But where do we go from here? Where the likes of Alyx Vance has since 2004 been able to show a wide range of subtle emotions from facial expressions? I think right now we are staring into the precipice of the uncanny valley and we are not yet ready to vault it, but when we do, on the other side will be truly photo-realistic graphics, at least for faces.
That is the limit we are facing with the uncanny valley, but it will not be a permanent barrier.
Deus Ex worked for the story... but it truly lacked in one-to-one interaction. The animations were stiff and simple with such basic expressions. This didn't hold the game back from
Metal Gear Solid, a very graphically basic game had to depend on tricks to avoid this, like how often important conversations were held in Codec where you had manga style drawn portraits rather than be limited by 3D faces as could be depicted in the early 90's.
Faces.
They are most important in a game that is trying to tell of any sort of human interaction. You need to be able to accurately show all the expressions or doomed to highly impersonal storytelling, or lean on a crutch like being heavily text based or with pre-animated sequences.
But where do we go from here? Where the likes of Alyx Vance has since 2004 been able to show a wide range of subtle emotions from facial expressions? I think right now we are staring into the precipice of the uncanny valley and we are not yet ready to vault it, but when we do, on the other side will be truly photo-realistic graphics, at least for faces.
That is the limit we are facing with the uncanny valley, but it will not be a permanent barrier.
I don't think most people who argue graphics aren't important believe that graphics aren't important, I think the main argument which is spouted over and over is that all it really needs is a good aesthetic. I've seen games that are photo realist and games that employ cell shading and both can be considered beautiful and both can be considered immersive. I don't mind that you need pretty graphics to feel immersed, that is perfectly fine in my opinion, you go for broke, but I think a lot of what you say comes down to a good aesthetic. I've never played Deus Ex and don't know what the quality of the Aesthetic is, but I've played games with similar graphics and been completely immersed in the experience, simply because the world was built well and employed the aesthetics to the fullest extent. All in all in comes down to personal preference, but I still don't think graphics are important, in the sense that I need them for immersion, Aesthetic is.
I disagree, the first scary thing that came after me I was able to keep at bay by smacking the shit out of it with a hammer, Those ghost wolfs were not invisible, or frightening.Ultratwinkie said:
OT: I'm pretty much with you there OP, It's just so hard for me to be engrossed in a game when it looks like it might cut me to hug one of the characters.
The games I've put the most time into over the past few months are either DS games or PS2 games and I can honestly say that the graphics didn't phase, the game play or the characters and story arcs have held my interest and caused me to lose an entire day. I think of Graphics like seasoning, if you add some herbs to a nice bit of lamb that's been cooked well it will be near perfect. But if you sprinkle them on shit, it's still going to be shit.
The graphics themselves aren't the important part; the aesthetics and art design are. There have been more than enough technically strong games that look like complete shit because of their art design, while there are also plenty of games running on dated technology that can still impress, or at least look nice, because they made good use of what they had.
Granted, this largely can become a problem with 3D games more than 2D ones, but I'm not that hung up on such things as long as they aren't designed horribly.
Granted, this largely can become a problem with 3D games more than 2D ones, but I'm not that hung up on such things as long as they aren't designed horribly.
I couldn't agree more. I actually logged quite a few hours playing Oblivion, but it was more to drool over the graphics and the vistas than anything else. It had really clunky gameplay, and nothing special in the story departement either. Skyrim is a tad better, but I still prefer the way the old JRPG's used to be, in the sense that the games seemed more focused and put way more emphasis on characterization than the open world, western RPG's. Looting for example, is a totally frustrating experience, as there are billions of chests and things to pick up, yet you can't carry 1% of it. Gone is the feeling of old when finding a chest actually made you feel excited and brought some real value. Now it's just a tedious repetive process.arc1991 said:
Also, the character faces in Oblivion were all ugly as hell, which again brings up the importance of the overall art direction.
Of course!
But it greatly depends on the game. Now take the Minecraft, which is a veteran in discussions like this - that game looks block, low res etc etc etc, and I got absolutely sick of people questioning it. But when you understand the game, understand how it works, the basic block by block idea behind it - you stop seeing miles cubes and start seeing amazing and unique vistas that go on forever and are as temporary or permanent as you choose to make them. Isn't it better to be god of cubes, than a slave to polygons?
These days it's almost like the game itself is a middle-man, between the player and the visuals... some gamers need the visuals to be explained to them slowly, some gamers need a dry slap. Now I played Minecraft and dealt with about a dozen hipsters asking what the hell that game is, why it looks bad, why it's blocky, why the man is made from boxes... and on and on and on and on... until I stab them in the face with a soldering iron, cable tie them to the chair, and make them play it. Low and behold, turns out the graphics aren't actually that important with Minecraft after all. That's not really the case though, it's more that people understand that the hill is made from cubes, unlike most games where it would be a 2D heightfield... but this means you can dig it up and change it - make it into a house if you like. Then the penny drops, Notch makes 40 Billion and buys a gold plated gold plating machine based on the recoil from hipsters kneejerk reactions.
Yawn, minecraft, I know - it's a tired old subject, but before it, us old-school gamers only really had old-school games to validate our 'graphics mean nout' argument, and that's a tough argument when you only half believe it yourself. Old games are getting older, new gamers just aren't interested - so many people these days start with a 360, or PS3, or decent PC... I think gamers should all start with an older machine - not going to far back though. Like, why not get your kid a GameBoy Advance instead of a 3DS - let them cut their teeth on an old crappy handheld that costs very little. Then when you do get them a 3DS, they'll at least have a point of reference. There is a lot to be said for buying a second hand PS2 with a shitload of games, instead of a PS3 with 1 game. Young kids DO NOT NEED the latest games, they mostly just want cool games to play. I would take my son to the game store (ha, that's going back a while, game stores!, how retro) - and let him decide for himself, does he want a shiny new 360 game, or does he want a dozen PS2 games. PS2 would win every time, games like Beyond Good and Evil, GTA:SA, that dog game where you get to throw shit at people... gamers should earn their stripes just like they should have to earn their opinion.
Hey, maybe we should have achievement badges for real life gaming achievements. Like a badge for succesfully tuning the Azimuth head alignment on a tape based computer system, anyone from the UK over the age of 35 has probably done that. Old school gamers, the ones who spend the money, we should take back gaming - take it back from the hipsters and the posers, and we should ration it to the youngsters... wanna play Halo4 young man?, well not till you've finished your mushroom cup. We deserve to be in charge, because we survived the 'games are bad' period of the 80's, we survived Dominic Diamond, and we stuck with gaming through the troubled 32-bit era, when prices went through the roof and Phillips thought they could cut it in the industry.
Sorry for such a long rant, it's been a long week - I hope at least one 30-something Spectrum victim reads it, and bro-fists the screen, I'll be waiting
.
But it greatly depends on the game. Now take the Minecraft, which is a veteran in discussions like this - that game looks block, low res etc etc etc, and I got absolutely sick of people questioning it. But when you understand the game, understand how it works, the basic block by block idea behind it - you stop seeing miles cubes and start seeing amazing and unique vistas that go on forever and are as temporary or permanent as you choose to make them. Isn't it better to be god of cubes, than a slave to polygons?
These days it's almost like the game itself is a middle-man, between the player and the visuals... some gamers need the visuals to be explained to them slowly, some gamers need a dry slap. Now I played Minecraft and dealt with about a dozen hipsters asking what the hell that game is, why it looks bad, why it's blocky, why the man is made from boxes... and on and on and on and on... until I stab them in the face with a soldering iron, cable tie them to the chair, and make them play it. Low and behold, turns out the graphics aren't actually that important with Minecraft after all. That's not really the case though, it's more that people understand that the hill is made from cubes, unlike most games where it would be a 2D heightfield... but this means you can dig it up and change it - make it into a house if you like. Then the penny drops, Notch makes 40 Billion and buys a gold plated gold plating machine based on the recoil from hipsters kneejerk reactions.
Yawn, minecraft, I know - it's a tired old subject, but before it, us old-school gamers only really had old-school games to validate our 'graphics mean nout' argument, and that's a tough argument when you only half believe it yourself. Old games are getting older, new gamers just aren't interested - so many people these days start with a 360, or PS3, or decent PC... I think gamers should all start with an older machine - not going to far back though. Like, why not get your kid a GameBoy Advance instead of a 3DS - let them cut their teeth on an old crappy handheld that costs very little. Then when you do get them a 3DS, they'll at least have a point of reference. There is a lot to be said for buying a second hand PS2 with a shitload of games, instead of a PS3 with 1 game. Young kids DO NOT NEED the latest games, they mostly just want cool games to play. I would take my son to the game store (ha, that's going back a while, game stores!, how retro) - and let him decide for himself, does he want a shiny new 360 game, or does he want a dozen PS2 games. PS2 would win every time, games like Beyond Good and Evil, GTA:SA, that dog game where you get to throw shit at people... gamers should earn their stripes just like they should have to earn their opinion.
Hey, maybe we should have achievement badges for real life gaming achievements. Like a badge for succesfully tuning the Azimuth head alignment on a tape based computer system, anyone from the UK over the age of 35 has probably done that. Old school gamers, the ones who spend the money, we should take back gaming - take it back from the hipsters and the posers, and we should ration it to the youngsters... wanna play Halo4 young man?, well not till you've finished your mushroom cup. We deserve to be in charge, because we survived the 'games are bad' period of the 80's, we survived Dominic Diamond, and we stuck with gaming through the troubled 32-bit era, when prices went through the roof and Phillips thought they could cut it in the industry.
Sorry for such a long rant, it's been a long week - I hope at least one 30-something Spectrum victim reads it, and bro-fists the screen, I'll be waiting
.
You can't call COD drones people who really care about graphics. MW3's textures are often ripped straight out of COD 4, which didn't look great back then.
But yes, I agree it can help. It's not necessary for most games, but some, it is very important.
But yes, I agree it can help. It's not necessary for most games, but some, it is very important.
Graphics are important, as long as they service the other elements of a game. Graphic fidelity will do justice to a striking aesthetic (see Team Fortress 2). Graphical flair will assist in making characters believable. A capable graphics engine will improve the gameplay experience - like in Alan Wake, where the light effects really do hook right back into the state of play.
People say "graphics aren't important" because, often, you can strip out all the polish and you'd have a similar experience. Graphics often don't add anything to an experience; it's all surface-level sheen. Good point made about RPGs, where graphics can often be more of a distraction. And too much time spent into making a game look good - since graphics are what most of the budget tends to go towards - can actively subtract from an experience.
So yeah. It basically depends on context. Great graphics are important if they're required. If not, they might as well stand out on their own, or in another game. Alice: Madness Returns does this. The game looks great, but it could look great in another game, or even an art book, and it'd be as good a use of the graphics as in-game. That's where irks start to come in, really.
So you're right and you're wrong, basically. Plus this doesn't even brush the surface of games whose lo-fi or shit graphics add to the experience. Would Deadly Premonition be the incredibly flawed gem it is if it weren't for its hilariously bad puppet-like animation and rendering? No, it wouldn't. Of course not.
TANGENT TIME
I'm surprised Deus Ex is getting bought up. I thought people accepted it was an ugly fucker, and that its actual goodness comes from the open-ended level design and story structure, which objectively trumps all of Human Revolution's attempts at both. People who like it generally don't care, or think it suits the game. I've had it compared to the old series of Doctor Who, from like the mid-70s. Sure, it's dated and sloppy, but if it wasn't dated and sloppy, it just wouldn't feel the same.
People say "graphics aren't important" because, often, you can strip out all the polish and you'd have a similar experience. Graphics often don't add anything to an experience; it's all surface-level sheen. Good point made about RPGs, where graphics can often be more of a distraction. And too much time spent into making a game look good - since graphics are what most of the budget tends to go towards - can actively subtract from an experience.
So yeah. It basically depends on context. Great graphics are important if they're required. If not, they might as well stand out on their own, or in another game. Alice: Madness Returns does this. The game looks great, but it could look great in another game, or even an art book, and it'd be as good a use of the graphics as in-game. That's where irks start to come in, really.
So you're right and you're wrong, basically. Plus this doesn't even brush the surface of games whose lo-fi or shit graphics add to the experience. Would Deadly Premonition be the incredibly flawed gem it is if it weren't for its hilariously bad puppet-like animation and rendering? No, it wouldn't. Of course not.
TANGENT TIME
The first Penumbra game was crap. It had two sequels, each removed combat completely and was much better. Then Amnesia blew them all out of the water. The first Penumbra is more like a failed experiment than anything.tobi the good boy said:
You can download a HD texture pack for Half-Life! FOR FREE! ...it's surprisingly adequate!Luftwaffles said:
I'm surprised Deus Ex is getting bought up. I thought people accepted it was an ugly fucker, and that its actual goodness comes from the open-ended level design and story structure, which objectively trumps all of Human Revolution's attempts at both. People who like it generally don't care, or think it suits the game. I've had it compared to the old series of Doctor Who, from like the mid-70s. Sure, it's dated and sloppy, but if it wasn't dated and sloppy, it just wouldn't feel the same.