Great Game Graphics: Who Cares?

[JellyBaby]

think you are missing a key word in your disagreements with the article on the "tennis" example. It says all the FUNDAMENTALS are already there for "realism". Now it IS possible to render more detail (individual hairs, sweat beads, tennis racket strings) BUT would detail make "gameplay better"?

Yes they would but I'm thinking way out into the future where we have wall-sized displays and life-sized rendering of people and tennis balls. If you don't think that will enhance gameplay then you've committed a foot fault!

 

[eviltoon]

If the graphics aren't good I won't play it for long. Of course if the game play is silly it gets uninstalled too. But for me graphics are very important.

 

[YaKuZa]

I like text based games.

 

[JellyBaby]

This generation can't handle text based games. They could never complete an old Infocom game. They need their imagination feed to them via the eyes.

No offense of course.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

think you are missing a key word in your disagreements with the article on the "tennis" example. It says all the FUNDAMENTALS are already there for "realism". Now it IS possible to render more detail (individual hairs, sweat beads, tennis racket strings) BUT would detail make "gameplay better"?

Yes they would but I'm thinking way out into the future where we have wall-sized displays and life-sized rendering of people and tennis balls. If you don't think that will enhance gameplay then you've committed a foot fault!

Are you kidding? I'm the one holding some hope to interact in a completely functional "holodeck" before I die.

 

[Chad]

Well, I have to respectfully disagree. Graphics are not just there to change/imporve gameplay, although as he stated, it did allow that. But they also provide atmosphere. Take movies for example... say, Lord of the Rings. One of the major factors that "sells" the movie is it's graphics and presentation (CINEMATOGRAPHY). Now, say for example someone filmed the entire LotR movie on a cheapo handheld camera... wouldn't be as great now would it? In fact, it would probably make the whole movie out and out suck, even though the content was great. Graphics certainly can set a mood that is very VERY important to convey the experience on another level.

 

[joohang]

Two words: Metroid Prime

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Chad
Well, I have to respectfully disagree. Graphics are not just there to change/imporve gameplay, although as he stated, it did allow that. But they also provide atmosphere. Take movies for example... say, Lord of the Rings. One of the major factors that "sells" the movie is it's graphics and presentation (CINEMATOGRAPHY). Now, say for example someone filmed the entire LotR movie on a cheapo handheld camera... wouldn't be as great now would it? In fact, it would probably make the whole movie out and out suck, even though the content was great. Graphics certainly can set a mood that is very VERY important to convey the experience on another level.

The difference is that a movie is for watching, while a game is for playing.

In a movie, the visual impression can really make or break the movie, since that's what a movie is all about, sound and such are complements, though of course if sounds/acting are absolutely horrioble, that's not very good either

In a game, gameplay is what counts, graphics and sound are to gameplay what sound and acting are to the visuals in a movie.
A crappy game with good graphics will still be a crappy game, while a good game with crappy graphics will still be a good game.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Chad
Well, I have to respectfully disagree. Graphics are not just there to change/imporve gameplay, although as he stated, it did allow that. But they also provide atmosphere. Take movies for example... say, Lord of the Rings. One of the major factors that "sells" the movie is it's graphics and presentation (CINEMATOGRAPHY). Now, say for example someone filmed the entire LotR movie on a cheapo handheld camera... wouldn't be as great now would it? In fact, it would probably make the whole movie out and out suck, even though the content was great. Graphics certainly can set a mood that is very VERY important to convey the experience on another level.

I would agree. Immersion is very important for games IMO. Without it, i'm just not interested in the game. Now, immersion requires more than visuals, but visuals does play a big role. Like i said, i've certainly enjoyed my games more since i've gone from 19" to a 24" widescreen monitor, and that's all visual.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: Chad
Well, I have to respectfully disagree. Graphics are not just there to change/imporve gameplay, although as he stated, it did allow that. But they also provide atmosphere. Take movies for example... say, Lord of the Rings. One of the major factors that "sells" the movie is it's graphics and presentation (CINEMATOGRAPHY). Now, say for example someone filmed the entire LotR movie on a cheapo handheld camera... wouldn't be as great now would it? In fact, it would probably make the whole movie out and out suck, even though the content was great. Graphics certainly can set a mood that is very VERY important to convey the experience on another level.

I would agree. Immersion is very important for games IMO. Without it, i'm just not interested in the game. Now, immersion requires more than visuals, but visuals does play a big role. Like i said, i've certainly enjoyed my games more since i've gone from 19" to a 24" widescreen monitor, and that's all visual.

Well let's looks at a Movie example:

Take Star Wars, for example. The original 3 movies didn't have particularly "exciting graphics" in comparison to the (later pre-sequals) Ep 1 and 2. However - IMO - the first 3 were "story-driven" and very exciting where as the last 2 were awesome grapics but with a CRAPPY story (and acting).

Now which do YOU prefer?

 

[Chad]

I prefer both. Which was my point.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: YaKuZa
I like text based games.

 

[Sunner]

I like good games.

Text based, impressive graphics, in between, I don't care.

I like good games.

 

[alm4rr]

check out this link if you like the games where it's content over pretty pictures =)



http://www.the-underdogs.org/

 

[JellyBaby]

Are you kidding? I'm the one holding some hope to interact in a completely functional "holodeck" before I die

No, not kidding.

Taking our tennis game example, I believe graphical improvements will continue to enhance gameplay. An example: real tennis players read their opponent's body queues to anticipate tactics. Current screen resolutions, rendering detail and frame rates don't provide enough oompf to model such a dynamic.

Wait a few generations of video card updates and a generation or two of monitors and I think we're there, dood, and it all happens in your lifetime I would think.

Graphics really do matter. I used to be in the other camp not too long ago but now I firmly believe graphics and gameplay are two peas from the same pod.

 

[apoppin]

I'll try just one more time before giving up (and realizing we just have 2 different points of view) . . .

Which do you currently prefer, An excellent game with average graphics or an average game with excellent graphics?

In that tennis game, I really don't think it will matter what the AI Opponent's "body cues" are until the AI is better and the screens are MUCH bigger and better. That is a LONG (long) way off . . . maybe a resurgance in arcades will first offer this . . . but we'll probably have to wait for the "googles" to experience anything of that "realism" at home . . . again, years off.

 

[Looney]

Take Star Wars, for example. The original 3 movies didn't have particularly "exciting graphics" in comparison to the (later pre-sequals) Ep 1 and 2. However - IMO - the first 3 were "story-driven" and very exciting where as the last 2 were awesome grapics but with a CRAPPY story (and acting).

Now which do YOU prefer?

I never said that visuals were the only criteria to enjoyment, did i? What i'll like to see, is how much of the current population of kids enjoy the original Star Wars series. The graphics are certainly consider 'cheesy' now, so i'll like to see if there's as much attraction for this generation of kids as opposed to the earlier generations, when Star Wars was revolutionary.

Which do you currently prefer, An excellent game with average graphics or an average game with excellent graphics?

You can already see your bias with the way you phrase the question. Maybe a fairer question would be "A game with excellent content and story with average graphics, or a game with average content and story with excellent graphics.?

For me, certainly the first... content and story is much more important to me than graphics... but that's not to say graphics aren't important. When i judge a game, i judge it on many things... much similar to how IGN or Firingsquad would do a review. Graphics, sound, story, immersion, interactivity, learning curve, difficulty, etc... there are many variables, with story/content playing a 50% important role probably... but graphics/immersion certainly play a big role as well, probably as much as 30% in my case.

My new 24" monitor doesn't really make crappy games good now... a crappy game is still a crappy game. But on good games, they're now excellent. I'm certainly enjoying them more than i previously did. Unreal 2 was mediocre at 800x600 for me, but at 1920x1200, it's much better. Everquest was excellent at 1280x768... but at 1920x1200, it is soooooo sweet. Everquest is a good example of a game with both 'oldschool graphics' (textures and models of when the game was first released, back in 1998 or 1999 now?) and new graphics (graphics released in 2002?). You can play EQ with all the old textures and models, or you can play it with new textures and models... most people i would assume certainly enjoy the game more with the newer graphics.

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

What's up with all the movie comparisons? Movies and games are two different things... movies don't have the "gameplay" factor at all. Movies don't have the bugs that can define bad games , (except the kind you step on maybe).

This generation can't handle text based games. They could never complete an old Infocom game. They need their imagination feed to them via the eyes.

You got that right. The furthest back I'd go would probably be a SNES emulator. Ah, the nostalgia of playing the games you first played when you were 7 or 8 years old. Don't think I'd ever touch text-based... I'd be asleep in 5 minutes.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: ArmchairAthlete
What's up with all the movie comparisons? Movies and games are two different things... movies don't have the "gameplay" factor at all. Movies don't have the bugs that can define bad games , (except the kind you step on maybe).

This generation can't handle text based games. They could never complete an old Infocom game. They need their imagination feed to them via the eyes.

You got that right. The furthest back I'd go would probably be a SNES emulator. Ah, the nostalgia of playing the games you first played when you were 7 or 8 years old. Don't think I'd ever touch text-based... I'd be asleep in 5 minutes.

I'm going to assume that text-based doesn't really include Nethack.

 

[KillerKing]

yea, most games these days focus too much on graphix

 

[Grimner]

Adding my voice to the choir. It's just like a book - no fancy package is going to help a dead story. Why do John Grisham or (even better) Stephen King sell books? They are both able (at times) to drag you into a different world - poke at your feelings etc.

My favorite example in games is the old Homeworld. I know that if I start that game once more, I'll be playing until the end. Simple story, but it pulled me in - your fix is going to be different
On the other hand I have Hitman 2. I never played the first, but while starting I found there was no way I was going to "feel" for this assassin - no matter the nice graphics, enviroment or assorted tools. So why waste time on it?

And yes - with online games one does feel a lot more

 

[Superself]

It seems to me that many have twisted this thread. I don't think there is any argument on whether graphics or gameplay is most important.

Looking at games coming out these days, I think that the speaker of the article has a valid point. Using the graphics technologies game publishers have available to them now, more time/effort can be spent on pouring more gameplay into games. The tools to do that are there, but will they use them?
One example is Vice City. Why not give the ability to interact more with your own gang? Why not make it more involved? These are gameplay issues that today's graphics can handle.

I find that most issues with doomed games are control/mechanics, viewing angles and the situation you find yourself in when you do the expected or unexpected and get a dumb result....the more often this happens, the crappier the game is.

Now about that tennis game...If you are talking about playing live tennis at home with a fully rendered court with a lifesize player standing across from you....well that obviously surpasses todays standards. Although this technology may be availble somewhere (maybe in one of Saddam's palaces), the average consumer will not be able to afford the equipment to get this done.

As far as gameplay is concerned (tennis), the only real improvement that can come about to make the game more exciting is to improve AI and maybe add more animations....similar to what goes on with Madden every year.

Lastly, I think that we would have less crappy games to hit the market if software companies pour more money into their in-house quality assurance testers. Instead, those guys are bottom feeders and don't really have as much, if any, input into what they are testing.

 

[JellyBaby]

As far as gameplay is concerned (tennis), the only real improvement that can come about to make the game more exciting is to improve AI and maybe add more animations....similar to what goes on with Madden every year.

And in a tennis game the graphics are tied to AI and animation! If the devs spend way too much time on facial animations, throwing rackets, etc. it doesn't add much if anything to the gameplay. That's all fluff. But better visuals makes better AI possible. Enhanced animation makes reading opponent body language possible.

So to answer the thread's question, "Great Game Graphics: Who Cares?". I do!

Again, great graphics can't make a bad game great but they are important in most games and continued visual improvements will bring forth better games.

 

[everman]

Graphics are important if you can use them to enhance the real content of the game. I like to have deep story lines and a huge amount of variety in games. Take morrowind, Baldur's Gate, or NWN as an example. Nice graphics in them all, yet the core content was amazing. Half-Life had good graphics for the day, but the scripted scenes and story line and ai helped a lot. (I still remember the time I crawled into a sewer pipe, almost at the end when an alien tosses in a grenade and closes the door!)

So graphics don't make the game, but they certainly can make it better.

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

It's just like a book - no fancy package is going to help a dead story.

But some people judge a book by its cover : /

Probably the same thing with some people when they see screenshots of an upcoming game.