• Is graphical quality important in video games?
    234 replies, posted
It all depends on what you're talking about while using the vague term that is "graphical quality". The visual unity and design coherency of a title is of course very important, no matter how old the game is, because you have to create a reliable, realistically made looking universe in order to make it likable and nice. It doesn't mean you have to make games with a design as close as possible to reality, it just means that whatever the universe you are putting your game into, things have to be coherent from one to another - design continuity is a must have, to make it short. You can't have, say, cartoon-like characters in a very real looking world. The actual graphics of a game, which are how pretty they are basically, are also very important, for a few reasons. First of all, at the actual state of computer technology, beautiful graphics are perfectly affordable. Second, it's very useful to dive the player into the game's universe and atmosphere, it allows much easier implication from the player. It doesn't mean we have to judge a game on its graphics, but it also means we are allowed to ignore horrible graphics with zero design continuity, because if a game designer can't come up with a decent looking game that looks like a whole and not a strapped-together-with-duct-tape title, it's not a good game designer. And before someone someone throws the Minecraft argument again, MC is a nice game and fits the definition given earlier of good graphics - the world is visually united and feels like a whole, and technically, the game is baffling - it's block based and pixelated, sure, but the world is totally procedural and the view distance is quite amazing. So, to sum it up, yes, graphical quality is important in Video games, just not the main criteria to judge a title on.
Graphical quality (the accuracy with which the ingame visuals conform to the art direction) contributes to immersion, which is important to SOME games. Important for skyrim, but not for quake.
I think graphics don't matter as long as the game is fun. Dwarf fortress only renders ascii and it's one of the funnest games I own.
I don't really buy in to the graphics vs aesthetics argument. From a technical point of view, aesthetics are the direct result of the graphics technology. You either have good aesthetics or you don't. So for that reason I totally think that graphics are one of the most important things of a game. It's the only way we can view the game, and you need to increase your graphics tech to display increased gameplay tech, they are almost the same thing. I'm not saying that you can't play a game that looks like shit, but I think that people have no imagination or vision when they think graphics don't affect gameplay. Like somebody else said, games use everything they've got as the whole experience, you can't just split it up.
Graphics are sometimes important mostly depends on how the game plays for example i tried playing some nes games (emulator) but i turned them off after a few minutes while i keep playing cave story and finishing it from time to time.
[QUOTE=Jookia;33295193][img]ttp://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/igf/Minecraft/screenshot.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] The difference being that Minecraft looks like 10 year old crap [I]on purpose.[/I]
[QUOTE=Philly c;33299928]I don't really buy in to the graphics vs aesthetics argument. From a technical point of view, aesthetics are the direct result of the graphics technology. You either have good aesthetics or you don't. So for that reason I totally think that graphics are one of the most important things of a game. It's the only way we can view the game, and you need to increase your graphics tech to display increased gameplay tech, they are almost the same thing. I'm not saying that you can't play a game that looks like shit, but I think that people have no imagination or vision when they think graphics don't affect gameplay. Like somebody else said, games use everything they've got as the whole experience, you can't just split it up.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. You can have brilliant aesthetics and mediocre graphics. And conversely you can have brilliant graphics, and rather mediocre aesthetics. Dues Ex Human Revolution, for example, wasn't entirely photorealistic - the characters proportions weren't 100% true to real life, the characters textures weren't made to look entirely realistic, yet the aesthetics of the game were well chosen. They stuck to the proportions and texture quality of character models throughout the game, they chose a distinct colour pallete, and, for the vast majority of the game, they stuck to it. That's the aesthetics of the game, and they were incredible for Dues Ex Human Revolution. The graphics were good, but nothing spectacular.
[QUOTE=Naelstrom;33299904]I think graphics don't matter as long as the game is fun. Dwarf fortress only renders ascii and it's one of the funnest games I own.[/QUOTE] Also this. It can depend largely on the game itself whether good graphics are desirable or not.
While graphics themselves do not make a good game, some games are unappealing or straight up unplayable if their graphics are shite. As long as there aren't too many graphical glitches and things look like they should, then I'm okay with it.
Personally I can't play a game if I don't enjoy its graphics to some extent. Of course not all games require amazing graphics, that's why I don't upgrade my card every month, but sometimes when a game just doesn't run the best it can I will consider a new bunch of components.
Graphics can sometimes add to the gameplay. Volumetric lighting? More stealth possibilities. Higher resolutions? Much easier to see. Higher limits? More monsters on the screen. With that said, I'd rather look at a beautiful but unrealistic game than a realistic but ugly game. Compare GTA IV to Oblivion. One is full of unnecessary bloom, the other is colorful and well designed, all without looking like real life.
2 words: Quake 3. Looks bad nowadays but people still play it because it's[I]addictive as fuck[/I].
If all bad graphics match each other it doesn't matter to me. A game can have low polycount models, bad animations and lighting as long as they fit in with the other bad graphics. If a game has [I]some[/I] bad graphics and the rest is good, I can get really annoyed with it. Personal example would be oblivion where faces looked like garbage and the rest of the game was pretty good looking.
I like nice graphics. I like art style, and being able to see the art style clearly. However, if the gameplay sucks, then graphics don't mean shit to me. I can however, enjoy a game with shitty graphics. Back when I had a pentium 4 I put a few hundred hours into TF2 playing on DXlevel 7 with everything turned down to low, even my resolution. Now that I have a decent gaming computer, I've put a few more thousand hours into TF2 with all the graphics maxed out. I enjoyed TF2 a little better having nice, crisp graphics, not only being able to see everything better, but enjoy the art style that I couldn't on DX7.
[QUOTE=Philly c;33299928]I don't really buy in to the graphics vs aesthetics argument. From a technical point of view, aesthetics are the direct result of the graphics technology. You either have good aesthetics or you don't. So for that reason I totally think that graphics are one of the most important things of a game. It's the only way we can view the game, and you need to increase your graphics tech to display increased gameplay tech, they are almost the same thing. I'm not saying that you can't play a game that looks like shit, but I think that people have no imagination or vision when they think graphics don't affect gameplay. Like somebody else said, games use everything they've got as the whole experience, you can't just split it up.[/QUOTE] I don't think you quite understand the definition of aesthetic. [quote=The Dictionary]adjective /esˈTHetik/  Concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty - the pictures give great aesthetic pleasure Giving or designed to give pleasure through beauty; of pleasing appearance[/quote] Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It's not a binary thing. A Picasso painting is not inherently better than a painting by Van Gogh or Rembrandt because of the techniques used. Just because something like Call of Duty looks better than Area 51 (the arcade game) doesn't inherently mean it's more fun or fulfilling to play [sp]or less expensive oh ho ho[/sp]. Visuals are not important because they're a benchmark of the technology used to render them. Visuals are important because of the valuable information they convey to the player about the game and its mechanics (which is the argument I think you're getting at). Still, a dragon model doesn't need to be made of several million polygons for me to realize that the big, giant red thing is bad and hurts me if I touch it. As I said before, fancy new rendering techniques can help a game's visual style but they do not define it. I would say a game like The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker looks infinitely better than Modern Chainsaw Shootfest 3 or what-have-you because of its style. It doesn't have tessellation, or ambient occlusion, or god rays, or any other modern industry buzzword. You don't need a computer with the size and cooling capacity of a refrigerator to run it, but it still looks fantastic eight years later... which is a lot more than can be said for any more realistic-looking game that's come out since then, like Deus Ex : Invisible War or Half-Life 2.
Aesthetics over Graphics. You can have top notch volumetric lightning and texture resolution up the ass but if you have shitty art direction, your game will still look like crap. Graphics are only tools and are there to serve aesthetics, not the other way around.
[QUOTE=Snuffy;33302142]Half-Life 2.[/QUOTE] HL2 still looks just fine, a lot of the textures are fairly low res though. I'm sure Valve still have the source files, maybe we'll get higher resolution textures one day.
Yes and no. If the game is visually unappealing and hard to look at it's not going to be as popular as it would be. But also the game doesn't have to be really detailed and all that to look appealing, it just has to have a consistent style that matches the gameplay. Graphics don't make the game, but they can sure help it.
In some cases it could be useful. Dwarf fortress for example, it's like the ideal game that I would love to play, however, they used an ascii interface and game graphics so I can't be bothered to learn it, and would much rather play it if it was like 'evil genius' for instance. At the same time a lot of people probably like it for that reason.
I'd say yes. I like my games to look and play good. A game has to look beautiful to have full immersion. Especially for RPGs. While graphics do not make a game, they sure as hell add a lot. They don't need to be realistic, they need to be good.
I honestly don't care about looks. I'll take gameplay over looks anytime. Take Dwarf Fortress. [IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HRCu35WfqcY/TG8tgi5vfcI/AAAAAAAAAUM/aG04HjnNPIo/s1600/Dwarf_Fortress_Ascii.png[/IMG] This game is easily one of my top ten games, along with Skyrim, Deus Ex, Half Life and so on. It is insanely fun, even though it hasn't got good graphics.
I think it's, to a degree, necessary. At the least I need to know what I'm supposed to be looking at on the screen; beyond that is eyecandy.
[QUOTE=Terminutter;33303079]I honestly don't care about looks. I'll take gameplay over looks anytime. Take Dwarf Fortress. [IMG]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_HRCu35WfqcY/TG8tgi5vfcI/AAAAAAAAAUM/aG04HjnNPIo/s1600/Dwarf_Fortress_Ascii.png[/IMG] This game is easily one of my top ten games, along with Skyrim, Deus Ex, Half Life and so on. It is insanely fun, even though it hasn't got good graphics.[/QUOTE] Considering I have never played that game, I have no idea what the hell any of that is. I'm assuming it makes more sense once you play it.
[QUOTE=Demache;33303417]Considering I have never played that game, I have no idea what the hell any of that is. I'm assuming it makes more sense once you play it.[/QUOTE] The learning curve is a bit steep, but once you learn it, you'll either love it or hate it. Also, there are graphical tilesets if the (not pure, but mostly) ASCII is too hard to understand.
[QUOTE=Demache;33303417]Considering I have never played that game, I have no idea what the hell any of that is. I'm assuming it makes more sense once you play it.[/QUOTE] It's the perfect example of a gameplay over graphics game, try it. Surprisingly enough it doesn't take long to get used to the interface, after a short while you just sort of understand that this is this and that is that. Once you do, it's easily one of the most enjoyable experiences in any game. Arguably it also has the best graphics since you're imagining what's happening in your mind's eye.
Graphics don't matter to much for me but Call of duty has looked exactly the same since 4 and I just think its bull shit that after 4 years the game still looks like ass. Call of duty 2 looks better than MW3. I never liked ASCII graphics that much.
The thing that generally makes a game favorable is it's level of innovation in all different aspects such graphics, storytelling, interaction, interface, voice acting etc. Innovation in graphics usually means "improved" graphics (not necessarily "photo-realistic", take The Witcher 2 for example), so you could say that advances in the graphics department is one aspect of innovation that is considered when judging how "good" a game is. If a game has lots of innovation in other areas then lack of innovation in graphics may seem less important, and vice versa.
Think of your favourite game. Now think about how fun it would've been if it graphically on par with DOOM.
I don't really care that much about graphics, I'm more bothered about the gameplay. I play Minecraft for instance. But hey, if my PC can run it on high I'll throw it on high and admire the graphics, but gameplay comes first.
Honestly if the graphics aren't distracting from how bad they are then I'm okay.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.