• Is graphical quality important in video games?
    234 replies, posted
Time and time again I've been bashed for saying something like "Well, <highly anticipated sequel> does not look much better graphic-wise when compared to <original game>" I understand that story is an incredibly important, if not the most important, part of a video game. I realize that a game can be good if it has a good story and average visuals, but is generally not good with great visuals and no story. However, I do not understand how people say graphical quality does not matter in the least. I can understand if they said "In my opinion, graphics don't matter", but a lot of people seem to take it as a fact. Are we not to expect advancement in such things and are instead just supposed to be content with what has already been provided to us? I don't know about you guys, but when something "New" comes out, I expect it to be better in some way. I suppose if a game has marginally better graphics and a much better story, it is acceptable, but that's rarely the case. Now, I can play a game like 8 bit Mario and be completely content, as it's a fun game, but if the sequel is no different, what's the point in making it? As an example, let's compare a few games that are not well respected on Facepunch (and honestly, for good reason): The modern Call of Duty series. I'm not sure how applicable this is, considering the stories are lukewarm at best, but I digress. World at War (2008) [t]http://mrsaturnjr.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/call-of-duty-world-at-war-20080715043818781_640w.jpg[/t] Modern Warfare 3 (2011) [t]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20111002051639/callofduty/images/thumb/e/e7/Fb1.jpg/695px-Fb1.jpg[/t] That's not a great deal of difference, and I do not understand why more people don't nitpick. As a better comparison, let's view The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and Fallout: New Vegas. Oblivion (2006) [t]http://www.swotti.com/tmp/swotti/cacheDGHLIGVSZGVYIHNJCM9SBHMGAXY=U29MDHDHCMUTVMLKZW8GR2FTAW5N/imgThe%20Elder%20Scrolls%20IV4.jpg[/t] New Vegas (2010) [t]https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/videogames/detail-page/1069HeliosOne.jpg[/t] Both great games. Both great gameplay. Both based on the same graphical engine. But, 4 years later and no improvement. I mean, it can be forgiven because of how amazing these games are (whereas Call of Duty really can't), but it is still a point to bring up. What do you guys think?
It doesn't matter as much as gameplay, but if a game looks like 10 year old crap I can guarantee that people won't buy it.
Yes, as I've said I don't think it matters nearly as much as gameplay, but it still does. I can't stand people that say it doesn't.
Graphics do not make or break the game, but they can certainly make a great game better. As for graphics quality, I'd mainly lay the blame on the consoles, although they still somehow find a way to squeeze some more juice out of them (and I still love my PS3 to death). Also, [IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2149114/NEW/images/November/deeplinking.png[/IMG]
Halo CE:A is a good example, it looks graphically stunning in the new mode, plus it has coop over live which is a huge bonus. But it's like reliving the same game over again - with a friend in Massachusetts.
graphics almost always means good technology in games, which affects directly in gameplay, which is the most important fact in video games, for me.
When I play Battlefield 3, regardless of how much I suck or not, I always have fun and feel enthralled simply because of how real the war seems. On the other hand, some games are archaic, graphics wise, but keep me rapt through the story or with emergent complexity of the gameplay (ala Roguelikes). Oh, and as Falcon mentioned, good graphics implies powerful machinery, which implies better A.I, more enemies, more complexity, etc.
Many games use graphics to immerse the players, but that can be, if with a little more difficulty, done without tens of thousands of polygons. There is no substitute for gameplay.
I'd like to bring the example of Deus Ex: HR. A good game by itself but the amazing attention to detail and the art style and quality, that bumps it up to a great game.
Well, graphics matter, of course, as usual, not as much as gameplay, but it's definitely important. Graphics are the pictures in the story, obviously. Without proper pictures we won't get a clear idea of what's going on.
IMO graphics, including art direction, physics, and technical features are all as important as any aspect in a game. It's all in one package. What people don't get is that each game has to be held to different standards based on what it was trying to accomplish.
Gameplay is the main meal graphics is the sauce/seasoning. you can't really have the sauce / seasoning on it's own but it makes the main meal a whole ton more enjoyable.
Graphics can make a good game better but often don't mean shit if the gameplay isnt up to scratch.
Graphics aren't a make or break thing to me, though I'll admit it helps a lot with immersion when things look how they should. The only time I really notice something being terrible is when I occasionally play things like the original Diablo which was designed for monitors much smaller than my current one.
I think some of the better Nintendo Wii games (such as Metroid Prime 3 and Skyward Swords being good examples) go to show that great, HD graphics aren't necessary for an amazing game. That being said, as one of those douchebags with a $1,750 custom built "symbol of pointless excess" computer owner, I would fucking love Metroid and Zelda in Frostbite 2 :v:
Graphics add to the immersion. You'll probably enjoy a game with high poly models and high resolution textures more than the same game with really pointy models and ugly as hell textures. I'm saying graphics in regard to the actual graphical quality, not the artistic direction. A game can look amazing graphically whether or not it goes for realistic graphics or fantasy-ish graphics. While many portions of Alice: Madness Returns had an absolutely amazing artistic direction, something that dragged the graphics down was the rather low resolution textures, and the frame cap (at around 30fps) which didn't make things appear as smooth as they would be capable of.
[QUOTE=JustGman;33293841]It doesn't matter as much as gameplay, but if a game looks like 10 year old crap I can guarantee that people won't buy it.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/igf/Minecraft/screenshot.jpg[/img]
Completed Deus Ex I for the first time in my life recently. Now it is my favorite game And I think while graphics are important, they should [I]never [/I] become completely photorealistic. I think that the current graphics are perfect for games
Good graphics can add a lot to immersion and can really make it stand out if it's got a great style.
[QUOTE=superstepa;33295482]Completed Deus Ex I for the first time in my life recently. Now it is my favorite game And I think while graphics are important, they should [I]never [/I] become completely photorealistic. I think that the current graphics are perfect for games[/QUOTE] I don't know about never. Imagine Heavy Rain with photorealism. That would be incredible.
The general gaming population likes to shoot people with no meaning. No I am not just talking about CoD, or Battlefield just any random shooter. In my opinion it 80% has to do with gameplay and that other 20% will just affect what I think of the game and it's developers, it won't affect how much or if I play it. Although, mentioning Bethesda was a great thing to do. I am a fan of Oblivion and a bigger fan of Fallout. The only problem I have with using the same engine is it gets really old, and the only things that would have changed are the skins and story.
I think the graphics [I]have[/I] to be good for it to be a good video game. That being said, I don't mean good as in photorealistic. Minecraft, for example, has good graphics because everything fits together and it all looks nice. This, meanwhile (on the topic of Minecraft), has absolutely horrid graphics because things just don't blend well and it looks awkward and shit. [img]http://thegamefanatics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/FortressCraft-Xbox-360.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;33295568]I don't know about never. Imagine Heavy Rain with photorealism. That would be incredible.[/QUOTE] I think that games should always have that "cartoonish" feel
Half-Life. Not too great graphics, but the gameplay is completely addictive. Completed it 6 times. Conclusion: Both are important.
Don't care for graphics at all, gameplay and story is where it's at,
hey look, the thread's entire debate, neatly summed up and explained in video form! [url]http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/extra-credits-graphics-v-aesthetics/357632[/url]
i dont really care about graphics in games just as along as there fun
It depends on what the game is trying to be. A game like Saint's Row, AMAZINGLY EYE POPPING BEAUTIFUL graphics aren't expected nor needed. But games like Skyrim, RAGE, and even Portal 2 just for source updates, graphics do matter. I could still play Skyrim if it was running on gamebryo, but the new engine and graphics just make the game so much more immersive.
[QUOTE=Jookia;33295193][img]http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/igf/Minecraft/screenshot.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]No game 10 years ago looked like this.
Graphics often give a first impression to gamers on how the game is. However, in the long run, it's gameplay that matters most. Again, however, some games have a legacy just for how they look, rather than how they play.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.