Agreed after a while the graphic lose their wonder.
As for Elder Scrolls, I say it's more Bethesda brilliant creation of worlds than the graphics that's keeping you in awe.

I remember when Comanche Maximum Overkill (helicopter sim) came out in 1992, the graphics literally blew... me... away. I remember sitting in this very room where I'm sitting now, with the lights turned out, sitting back an extra foot from the monitor (helped the pixels look smaller! :)) and thinking, "this is totally unbelievable! How could they make this game look so real?"

I think every few years I reach a similar pinnacle of graphic amazement and immersion... and if we're lucky, it just won't stop! I thought the same thing when Far Cry came out. And again with Skyrim.

Keep 'em comin'!

Tell me, I grew up playing with the Atari 800XL. And I do share the feeling of graphics making you immerse more in the world. It´s like reading a book with great drawings, BUT (there´s always a but huh) as much as I´m curious about the future of graphics, that won´t change the age old rule.....(and we are talking games here, not themed parks) even if the graphics are like being in the Enterprise´s holodeck but in your room, it´ll just be a nice theme park, not an engaging game ;P. If the story and/or gameplay stay on par with the graphics, then, we have an engaging game. What he ^ says

There are some games where not having flashy graphics suits them just fine and others, especially with menu animations, where they are a hindrance. Apart from that, it's not that graphics don't matter, it's just that I'm not usually particularly bothered by poor graphics. Graphics can certainly add to or subtract from the experience, but whether a game is good or bad generally has to do with other issues.

Am I the only one who thinks that text can be wonderfully atmospheric? Even in Morrowind a lot of the most interesting stuff is in books and letters. The fact that you can stumble across some of the areas where events in various books happened is even better (like Chance's Folly). And there are games like Wizardry 6+7 where virtually the entire experience is done with text, and many of them are truly superb. The conversations with the Bane King/Queen, Brother Tshober's singing, and the musings over the Savant Troopers' goals are all things that aren't affected by graphics in the slightest.

Not to say that graphics don't help, of course. But I for one am far more impressed by the meat of a game than the visuals.

I no longer play RPGs for the story. I dislike reading any text ingame especially ingame books, i skip them. I play RPGs these days for the cool settings, atmosphere, immersion, combat, leveling and equipment. I dont really care about the story at all. Little things like having to carry and use torches in caves and darkness is very immersive.

He wasn't describing a text-based game in the sense of Colossal Cave, but rather in-game text - usually in the form of books - and interfaces that present much of their info as text rather than graphics (bars/orbs/etc). The Fallout games (1-2 and Tactics) are probably a more well-known example of the latter than the ones he gave.

What games will be in 10 or 20 years? I remember while in senior high, a friend and I were found of Diablo 2, and he was playing Guild Wars as well at the time and was amazed by its graphics. On the way to school every morning we had a discution about video games and their future, wondering how great graphically would be an eventual Diablo 3 etc (though it seems Diablo 3 was not really what some people did expect) So I am really curious to know how it will be in the future as well as everyone. Will we have some extraordinary stuff or will it reach a limit that no one will be able to surpass? The same question applies to all technologies as well (remember when back in the 90's people had those big cellular phones, but now we have Iphones and things like that...

Ah, yes. I misunderstood what he/she was getting at.

No, you aren't.

Text has the advantage of requiring you to fill in blanks with your imagination, which can make a game even more engaging and more personal. Of course, sometimes it can also be irritating. It depends on the context, the type of game, and how well it's done.

On the subject of graphics, it's silly for anyone to ever ignore how much graphics have on games. Even minor visual changes that don't effect gameplay can still effect the experience of playing the game. However, I don't believe that photorealism is some sort of ultimate good. Technically inferior visuals can sometimes be even more evocative than cutting-edge visuals. As with text, approaching videogame graphics from the perspective of suggestion rather than realistic representation leaves the player to fill in gaps with their own imagination.

I agree. It's really more of an art form than anything. However the graphics do have to fit the game type. For instance, games like Zeno Clash, The Void, Limbo, Machinarium, etc. can all have unique art styles that are very appealing, but that doesn't mean you'd want a realistic military shooter to look like any of those games. For something like that you'd just expect the closest thing to photorealism as possible, I guess.

YouTube: Errant Signal - Photorealism

My take on the subject: Nice graphics are great as long as they can actually run on my machine.

It's also a plus in my book if the graphics avoid the "real is brown" thing. And as much as the brown graphics are seen in modern AAA releases, I also see this in just about every 90s PC game that uses pre-rendered sprites instead of proper pixel art (I'm looking at you, Baldur's Gate and Might and Magic 6-8 :P ). Of course, brown graphics may be excused if the game's supposed to be dark and gritty like STALKER or something.

Oh yeah, and like the video I linked to above says the art style should try to match the game's theme instead of try to be the Matrix.

Little branching, but still in the same ballpark:

I wish AAA title developers still keep making also games where all dialogue is not necessarily voice-acted. It is just too expensive and time-consuming, hence limits the amount of dialogue branches etc. the game can have.

I can't even remember when was the last time I was impressed by voice-acting in games, not even Joker in the Batman games, sorry. It always makes it feel like some some bad D-grade movie or TV-series. Or those cartoons coming out of the telly on Saturday mornings.

It may be partly related also that it is some stiff plastic-looking 3D-modelled character on the screen that is doing the talking. But then I don't remember being impressed by real FMV acting either.

Mostly, I agree... but I disagree on a couple instances in Arkham City:
Joker is great, and Penguin if pretty good. Most of the rest I've encountered is mediocre though.