• Is graphical quality important in video games?
    234 replies, posted
Good graphics in a game are like butter on bread. If the bread (game) is high-quality, and the butter (graphics) is high-quality, then it's just that much better. However, good butter will not make bad bread good. Sorry for the shitty metaphor but that's the best I could do. EDIT: Just realized there was another food metaphor earlier in the thread. Now I feel unoriginal.
[img]http://i55.tinypic.com/213kacj.jpg[/img] A certain purple dragon showed me that graphics is very different from atmosphere, which really makes the game.
Graphics don't make a game what it is, but they can enhance the experience.
Graphics aren't as important as aesthetics. Fancy shaders and high-resolution textures help, sure, but they're not a standard to judge a game by. Things like SSAO, DirectX11, tesselation and the like are tools, not solutions.
Hell, I still play my Nintendo 64 and Gameboy Color. Gameplay is where it is at
The point of confusion is back in the days of lore: the Atari 2600. "What was this? It killed me? What do I control? What do I do?" Modern power may add, but the atmosphere is the most important aspect.
What do you mean 'no improvement' between Oblivion and Skyrim?
If by quality you mean the amount of detail and effort put into making the graphics and models look nice, then yes. The strive for new and creative game play has equally creative use graphics at it's basis, or at least backing it up. If you mean by amount of detail, then no. Any shmuch game with high quality textures and models can claim to be the best game ever and have nothing else to back it's self up with. games from older times with lower quality graphics have a charm and nostalgia to them that make them timeless.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;33296339]What do you mean 'no improvement' between Oblivion and Skyrim?[/QUOTE] Nobody said this
Fuck graphics I just want to see more innovative features in a game. Mount & Blade has a robust as FUCK combat system, sandbox environment, the ability to start as a fucking peasant and eventually conquer the entire land as your own, and allows epic fights and battles of over 100+ players online and thats why I love it. Not to mention the huge modding community. Mount & Musket + cRPG being two great examples. And the recently released Last Days mod for the original Mount & Blade The graphics aren't like Skyrim's or Crysis. I won't look out into a ridiculous view of a mountain valley or an island paradise but I don't give a fuck. I shouldn't give a fuck. The gameplay mechanics themselves are great.
[QUOTE=ILY;33296457]Nobody said this[/QUOTE] Misread op oops
Aesthetics matter a lot, but I think it's style over anything else. Some games want an overly realistic look, fine. Some games want cinematic mixed with realism, fine. Some games want to look cartoony, fine. As long as it fits the game's style, I'm all for the developers making the game look as good as it can, without coloring outside the lines, if you will.
I agree that for many games, improving or changing up the style of the graphics in the games next installment is important. This is not necessary for all games, though.
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;33293883]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.[/QUOTE] Oh hey look someone that does not own a pc that is good. Thinks a game that is from looking realistic (2001) to a cartoon (2011) as graphically stunning. Even microsoft talks about it as 10 years of graphical advancement making all of the console fanboys believe them because they have not seen better. The thing is the halo cea remake could have been done in 2004 on pc and look the same.
[QUOTE=Civil;33296659]Oh hey look someone that does not own a pc that is good. Thinks a game that is from looking realistic (2001) to a cartoon (2011) as graphically stunning. Even microsoft talks about it as 10 years of graphical advancement making all of the console fanboys believe them because they have not seen better. The thing is the halo cea remake could have been done in 2004 on pc and look the same.[/QUOTE] on a 2004 pc? maybe the very top of the line and still not running very well. the xbox 360 was released in 2005. really your argument makes no sense, what are you talking about with realism vs a cartoon? I don't see it.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;33296776]on a 2004 pc? maybe the very top of the line and still not running very well. the xbox 360 was released in 2005. really your argument makes no sense, what are you talking about with realism vs a cartoon? I don't see it.[/QUOTE] Halo 1 was looking realistic comparing to other games in 2001. Now in 2011 they have changed that by making overly saturated colors, etc to trick people into thinking that it "next gen" graphics. When it actually is looking like a cartoon comparing to other games. [QUOTE=sltungle;33296831]Developers should do something like go off of the fucking deep end and use tonnes of purple and green and blue and completely over-saturate them, like in Halo: CE Anniversary. It's a MUCH nicer change.[/QUOTE] Yeah and causing the game to look like a cartoon instead of the brown wasteland trend that today has. There is actually a way to use a lot of colors and not only just use colors that are not used in modern fps games + look realistic. By simply having more than 10 colors on screen at the same time. It does not matter if those colors are good looking if they are used wrong.
To me graphics are one of, if not the least important aspects of a game to me - I'd prefer a good plot, story, good characters, good writing, good voice actors and good gameplay over a game with none of those and good graphics, but if you CAN manage good graphics, go for it - obviously the more crisp a game looks the more immersive it is, and that's what really makes a good game; a game that's immersive, a game that you can lose track of hours in and have a blast playing. Of course, you have to also ask what 'good graphics' means anyway. If you take 'graphics' to mean a measure of photorealism, then I'd say good graphics can sometimes RUIN a game. Not all games would be made better by being photorealistic. Some games intentionally have non-realistic graphical styles and it suits them very well. Also, as a final note, if a game is going to go with a restricted colour palette it SHOULDN'T do with the whole, oh so cool and popular, modern 'grey and brown' colour palette. It's getting boring. Developers should do something like go off of the fucking deep end and use tonnes of purple and green and blue and completely over-saturate them, like in Halo: CE Anniversary. It's a MUCH nicer change of pace to see all of those vibrant colours if you ask me. Or do something neat like Deus Ex Human Revolution's yellow/gold/orange and black colour pallete - THAT was neat. I'm fed up of the whole, "all colours take a vacation during war," way of thinking.
[QUOTE=Civil;33296818]Halo 1 was looking realistic comparing to other games in 2001. Now in 2011 they have changed that by making overly saturated colors, etc to trick people into thinking that it "next gen" graphics. When it actually is looking like a cartoon comparing to other games.[/QUOTE] I can remember asking, "Are those... animated polygon heads?? Holy crap!" when Keys spoke for the first time. [editline]16th November 2011[/editline] As for a need for graphics... [img]http://diceofdoom.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/dwarffortress-big.png[/img]
Graphics are important because they sell the game. Before the game comes out you have nothing but videos to tell if it's worth a preorder. If a game looks shit then you probably won't buy it as it looks un appealing. This doesn't mean that the game is bad, many games look bad but are amazing, it just means that if you're going to spend all this time developing a AAA title, don't let aged graphics let you down. [editline]16th November 2011[/editline] Also comparing games like minecraft to other games saying "Look the graphics are bad but they sell" is different because minecraft has an artistic style, it doesn't need a top notch (hehe) lighting engine because that doesn't fit the theme. Its simplicity sells it. Good graphics doesn't always mean realistic. To me good graphics means that the game looks good and in my opinion minecraft, Evil Genius, dwarf fortress, and others look great
It matters and anyone who says it doesn't is lying. Whilst there are degrees of aesthetic match and fit, the higher the level of presentation, the more sales you get. There are extremes on both sides, but when you have playability nailed, graphics and kinaesthetics matter.
Yes, graphical quality matters. Especially if the game is supposed to be immersive, but it really depends on what you mean by quality..
[QUOTE=Civil;33296818]Yeah and causing the game to look like a cartoon instead of the brown wasteland trend that today has. There is actually a way to use a lot of colors and not only just use colors that are not used in modern fps games + [B]look realistic[/B]. By simply having more than 10 colors on screen at the same time. It does not matter if those colors are good looking if they are used wrong.[/QUOTE] And half of the point of this thread is whether or not games need to look realistic. Halo has always used a lot of colours, and certainly not sparingly. It wasn't so noticeable in Halo: CE or Halo 2 because the lighting back then wasn't so great, but the colours were still there (hell, look at Blood Gulch or Coagulation in Halo: CE and Halo 2 respectively - the orange (and where it appeared, green) was pretty intense). When they got around to Halo 3 they took advantage of the introduction of better lighting, of bloom and went to town with colours and bloom effects (and it's stuck SINCE Halo 3. Halo: ODST, Halo Reach, and, as mentioned, Halo: CEA are all the same way). It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's simply the artistic path that Bungie chose to take with the development of the Halo games, and it's stuck - 343i were just holding true to the Bungie philosophy when they made Halo: CEA look the way it does. Admittedly I probably most preferred Halo 3's graphical look out of all of them (bloomy and colourful, but not insanely so), but I still like Halo: CEAs look. I think it's a nice change of pace from what's being churned out by most companies nowadays.
[QUOTE=DoctorSalt;33295568]I don't know about never. Imagine Heavy Rain with photorealism. That would be incredible.[/QUOTE] Woah! Then it could be like watching a real guy brushing his real teeth! Look at some Crysis mods. They took photos and you can't even tell the difference between the real photo and Crysis. Yes, it matters. Really just opinion.
I think graphics can have a lot to say in certain genres and atmospheres, but they're not vital.
[QUOTE=Civil;33296818]Halo 1 was looking realistic comparing to other games in 2001. Now in 2011 they have changed that by making overly saturated colors, etc to trick people into thinking that it "next gen" graphics. When it actually is looking like a cartoon comparing to other games.[/QUOTE] are you serious really this is the strangest thing i have ever heard. halo has never been about realism. I don't know what makes you think this but honestly if there's anyone that did a good job making halo look like a modern game it's 343 they aren't tricking anyone. that's just stupid to suggest. the fact that you bring up the next-gen graphics concept just makes you seem like you don't have a clue
Graphics aren't as important as gameplay. Dwarf Fortress is the best example of that, one of the deepest, most complex games ever made yet it uses ASCII graphics.
To be honest I'd say the entire graphics|gameplay battle really started with the adoption of 3d. As you had a fairly high amount of possible detail, albeit not scalable with good old 2d games (2.5d). That said, I think we sort of get used to a certain minimum level of graphical fidelity. A game that looked awesome ten years ago, now suddenly looks horribly outdated most of the time. I think we forget how to fill in the blanks in that regard. But I also have to agree - artistic direction > graphical fidelity.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;33295922]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][/QUOTE] Educational.
I love Dwarf Fortress and Liberal Crime Squad, but I still think there is a need for a certain quality of visuals in most games. If the masses didn't need graphics we'd probably all be playing DnD
Minecraft has the graphics that looks like it can run on a Sega Saturn or PSX. It's still an awesome game. Graphics shouldn't matter as long as it decent. Just because a game has a shit load of brown bloom and a crap load of DOF and other post-processing effects doesn't mean it will be a good game.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.