It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Fenixp: Indeed, I'll punch next person who says graphics don't matter.
avatar
Ivory&Gold: It's an interesting issue. I do believe that the importance of the technical (as opposed to artistic) quality of graphics decreases drastically after a couple of hours of gaming. Certainly, that's my experience - and it does cut both ways. I remember replaying the original Half-Life two years ago, and after the initial shock at how dated it looked, I quickly became accustomed to it all. jackalKnight's comment about Minecraft is right on the money, too.
Conversely, spectacular graphics tend to loose all relevance after a certain phase of... familiarization.

There are certain notable exceptions, though. The Elder Scrolls games are an example, as are, to a lesser degree, Mass Effect and Crysis. In these cases, the sense of awe never left me.
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'!
avatar
Heretic777: ...remember seeing that on every Origin game back in the early 90s. Back then, we really had to use our imagination to immerse ourselves in the games made from pixels (Ultima7, Wing Comm 2, etc). These days its getting to a point in graphical quality that we no longer have to imagine worlds from pixels........
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.
avatar
Sachys: Quite agree - good design and art / mechanics etc will always be the core priority of enjoying games, but quality graphics to bolster it really add to the immersion levels and make it more effortless.
Though as to the next 10-20 years, some of the potential leaps in technology equally intrigue and disturb me.
What he ^ says
Post edited December 28, 2012 by LoboBlanco
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.
Post edited December 29, 2012 by Soyeong
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.
avatar
bevinator: Am I the only one who thinks that text can be wonderfully atmospheric?
Perhaps this depends on a few factors. Though I've been gaming since the Atari 2600, I never got into text based games when they were a bigger thing. So, for someone like me, after gaming for a few decades, I think it'd be difficult to go back to text based games without any nostalgia tied to them. Whether or not a person played those types of games in the past may make a big difference.

Also, I'm not a reader. I read books as a child, but haven't read for leisure it probably two decades. So that may be a factor as well. Someone who really enjoys reading may be able to get a lot more out of a text based gaming experience than someone who's more stimulated through visual sensory input.
Post edited December 29, 2012 by Qwertyman
avatar
bevinator: Am I the only one who thinks that text can be wonderfully atmospheric?
avatar
Qwertyman: Perhaps this depends on a few factors. Though I've been gaming since the Atari 2600, I never got into text based games when they were a bigger thing. So, for someone like me, after gaming for a few decades, I think it'd be difficult to go back to text based games without any nostalgia tied to them. Whether or not a person played those types of games in the past may make a big difference.

Also, I'm not a reader. I read books as a child, but haven't read for leisure it probably two decades. So that may be a factor as well. Someone who really enjoys reading may be able to get a lot more out of a text based gaming experience than someone who's more stimulated through visual sensory input.
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.
Post edited December 29, 2012 by Heretic777
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...
avatar
Garran: 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.
Ah, yes. I misunderstood what he/she was getting at.
avatar
bevinator: Am I the only one who thinks that text can be wonderfully atmospheric?
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.
Post edited December 29, 2012 by jefequeso
avatar
jefequeso: 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.
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.
Post edited December 29, 2012 by timppu
avatar
timppu: 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.