Graphics Do Not Gameplay Make? 26
Thanks to Boomtown.net for their article discussing the importance of higher-quality graphics in making good games. While the article comes to fairly mundane conclusions: ("..it's not just the graphics that are important... if there isn't good game design present, there isn't a good game"), it makes some good points about better graphical technology affecting gameplay ("With Alone in the Dark, 3D was used for an entirely different purpose. A fully polygon rendered environment allowed the developers to move the point of view around, to view the same scene from many different angles, resulting in some memorably shocking moments.") There's also links back to the first article in this series, discussing how bad level design affects gameplay.
Seem's kinda obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
What Graphics do is help or hinder your ability to immerse yourself into the game. Good gameplay with bad graphics can be just as hard to "get into" as bad gameplay with good graphics.
Where is the inspiration? (Score:4, Insightful)
Think back to the days of NES and SNES. There were all kinds of crazy ideas for games. Yeh, I know, a bunch of them sucked. But many of those crazy ideas changed video games forever. Back then you really didn't have to worry about graphics so you had to either make it fun, different, or just so crazy that people couldn't ignore it. Now we just have a bunch of people running around trying to make the prettiest graphics. It got old really quick with me...I'm just wondering how long it will take everyone else to get tired of it as well.
Give me back the days were people make games that are fun, games they would actually want to play, not just games that fit the pattern of money makers.
GBA? (Score:3, Insightful)
Gameplay and story over graphics. Fun, without all the flash, yum.
Graphics and abstraction (Score:5, Insightful)
In games, the job of graphics is to maintain a consistent level of visual abstraction. We use computer graphics in games to build the impression of a character, a shiny sword or an alien world of fantasy in the minds of the players.
Back in the 8-bit days we only had low resolution 2D graphics; still, that was enough to give us a chance to experience our dreams on screen. Sure, the cars didn't look like much but we were racing like champions. The football had a few corners in it, but our team still kicked ass.
The limited graphics we were treated to were symbolic or iconic; now they are often aiming for realistic representation. Ironically, as we now have the capability to display much greater degree of realism in games, our minds jump at what they do best; pick out artifacts, inconsistencies in the patterns of representation. Realism is a double edged sword, when we are represented a picture that looks almost real we become more likely to pick at its faults than its merits.
Games as a visual media are closer to cartoons than they are to movies. Live video is rarely used, instead, the images are generated with modeling programs and digital paintbrushes. It's no accident that some of the greatest designers like Sid Meier and Warren Spector refer Scott McCloud's book Understanding Comics [amazon.com] as one of the most important pieces of literature to read if you want to make games. When I say literature, I mean it - don't be put off by the fact that the book itself is in cartoon format.
Just as well it's no accident that recent gaming masterpieces like Zelda: Wind Waker and Metroid: Prime avoid representing realistic humanoids altogether. It's also easy to see Pixar's reasoning in animating worlds that have no humans at all; living toys, silly monsters and talking fish slip under our radar of artifact perception.
Abstraction extends into all areas of game design; properly abstracted games let you complete the play in your head. Grand Theft Auto series leaves the main character almost a blank slate and The Sims speak a sort of abstract gibberish that relays the message via tone of voice. The grand master of abstractions in recent history - ICO [gameshark.com] - should not be missed by anyone who is even remotely into games.
The general ignorance about the role of graphics was summed up best by someone who said, a few years back, "Soon all games will be done with polygons so they will all look the same."
They could. Luckily for us, they don't have to.
Jouni
Re:Good graphic != High resolution (Score:2, Insightful)
You want to be able to see where those resources are, see where your units are and be able to click on the right thing when browsing the map. That's why you get big black outlines around stuff, contrasting colours and what could be said to be unrealistic map elements (like the bright pollution in civ, or the chessboard-style strategy map in the Total War series).
However the artists still have a responsibility to make this stuff easy on the eyes, or it will just annoy you! There's a minimum level of professionalism that has to be attained to make the game look acceptable - graphics are part of the atmosphere. If the game looks shoddy, you're going to think the gameplay is shoddy or obscure all the time. Master of Orion 3 is a great example of this. It's more like a redundant open source operating system project than a game, and suffers terribly from its awful presentation.