What's the Importance of Graphics In Video Games? 506
An anonymous reader writes "I develop games as a hobby. I've experimented with games on almost every platform available. For me, the gameplay is the most influential factor of a game, with history and graphics dividing second place. But, for some reason, it's not the technical beauty of the graphics that appeal to me. I have played Crysis, and I've played Pokémon games. The graphics of the Pokémon games entertain me as much as the graphics of Crysis. I think both are beautiful. So, why is the current generation of games giving so much importance to the realism in graphic games? I think it is sufficient for a game to have objects that are recognizable. For example, while the water in some games may not look as good as in Crysis, I can still tell it's water. What are your opinions on the current direction of game graphics? Do you prefer easy-to-render 3D scenes that leave space for beautiful effects, like with Radiosity, or more complex 3D scenes that try to be realistic?"
What does "good graphics" mean? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think that plot and good gameplay is much more important that graphics in the kind of games I do like, but this is not true in any kind of games.
IMHO Gameplay come always first, a game must be fun to play, then came the rest in an order depending on the game kind, as an example an online fps doesn't really need a plot.
Anyway it is also difficult to describe what "good graphics" means.
Saying that "good graphics" means high-resolution and photo realism is like saying that a photo is better that a painting.
It's not a matter of pixel, is something more complex, it's a form art, you have to choose your canvas, and you have to use it well.
An example is Okami (wii and original ps2 version), its low-resolution/low definition graphics to me is the most beautiful eye experience I had from a videogame. The plot and the game-play are just as beautiful, so to me is one of the best game ever.
Anyway It's a matter of taste ;)
Cya
Re:Eye of the beholder (Score:2, Interesting)
Abstract games do work. It's just that they don't work unless they're compelling in every other way.
A pretty but otherwise bland game will leave you bored. The key point here is the ability to entertain comes from several angles. The ability to be entertained by something is also subjective. There's no point in Slashdot routinely knocking Doom IV as bland and an attempt to put a new engine to use, because it has a target market who enjoyed it.
Games with good gameplay, good graphics and a compelling storyline are, sadly, a little rare. Part of the reason games like Portal are perceived as winners in every category is that Portal was unique and fresh. Therefore speed of release is also a factor in our perceived enjoyment of a game.
So what's left? What sure-fire thing can a game developer do to ensure his game is well received once he's met all other criteria for an entertaining game? Be original - that's pretty much it.
Yes, graphics are important, but.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Crysis had perfect graphics, and not that bad gameplay. Still, it scores low on my list, because it's to short in my opinion. They sacrificed game length for graphics, they shouldn't have.
Braid is a perfect combination of gameplay and graphics, the whole environment blended nicely with the game, and the gameplay was a wonderful experience. It's not that long, but also not that expensive to buy.
The new resident evil on the Wii is a perfect example of fail in my opinion. The graphics show horrible aliasing and the controls work frustrating making for a bad experience.
Now, as a hobby game builder, you don't always have access to perfect graphics. So you'll have to make up with gameplay for that. But still work on the graphics, they are very important. A screenshot can 'sell' your game, if your game looks like an old 8bit nintendo game, it's harder to get people to try it. But not impossible (see 'Cave Story')
Graphics are also an important gameplay element. I'm working on a GuitarHero clone which plays FretsOnFire songs for the Wii. And I noticed the game became much more enjoyable AND playable with a few very simple effects. As they provided more visual feedback on your actions. See [imageshack.us] how the dark grey area and small gauge on the left and right don't seem to fit that well. A few simple things [imageshack.us] can make a whole lot of difference. The gray star provides feedback that you hit a note, and the rest just makes it more pleasant to look at. While you are playing you don't even notice the backdrops that much, but notice how they caught your attention just now
Re:A good combination of a storyline and graphics. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's clear that graphics alone do not make a good game. But graphics do remain very important in games, especially in 3D oriented titles.
For one, better graphics capabilities give game artists more flexibility in creating the right look and feel in a game. Think for instance how Team Fortress 2's unique visual style has been made possible by the advanced capabilities of modern 3D hardware and the Source engine. While graphics are getting closer and closer to photo-real, many game developers in the future will likely favour a more pseudo-real, stylised look. Why? In order to avoid falling into the uncanny valley.
While there is an obvious trend towards photorealism (this trend is nothing new), many of the best games of this generation aren't quite photorealistic. For example, in GTA IV, while the cityscapes are rendered in a more realistic style, the characters are rendered differently. Even in Crysis, while the environment looks amazingly real, the human characters are ever so slightly cartoony.
But ultimately, your question, pitting the world of Pokemon against Crysis is a bit pointless. It's like asking why people shoot live action film when animations can be just as entertaining. I'm not sure if titles like GTA IV or Crysis or CoD4 would have the same impact if they looked like Pokemon.
Re:A good combination of a storyline and graphics. (Score:1, Interesting)
I immersed just fine in Chrono Trigger, Xenogears, Final Fantasy VI, Avatar Tuner, Xenosaga, Dragon Quest III, Ar Tonelico, etc...
None of these games were at the cutting edge in terms of graphics.
Re:A good combination of a storyline and graphics. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think that kind of immersion is much related to the graphics, really. Graphics is more like this: Imagine you were sitting down to watch the latest Bond movie. You don't think you're Bond, you have no control over the action - but there's a story unfolding. Now Bond trips over something so it breaks and you see it's only a cardboard prop. That'd break all the immersion and remind you it's all just illusion.
Of course, in a movie they'd cut it but since a game is rendered live you don't have that luxury. Every time the graphics act unnatural it breaks the fantasy, reducing you back to "Yeah, it's just a bunch fo pixels thrown together". Of course you knew that all along just like you know Bond is a fictional movie character but it doesn't matter. It's not about making the fiction reality, it's about not breaking the fiction.
Re:A good combination of a storyline and graphics. (Score:3, Interesting)
From time to time i load up Dune II to play it once again. And it has never spoiled my memories of it being a great game.
Re:A good combination of a storyline and graphics. (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm glad someone else mentioned this!
X-COM still has the distinction of being the only game that has ever caused me to jump out of my chair. If you don't think you can get scared by 640x480 graphics or whatever that was...try it.
I still think the original was the most terrifying though; Terror from the Deep never quite worked for me.
Re:A good combination of a storyline and graphics. (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh hell yeah. The moments when you twitched when you heard that PZAUH from behind your team when you thought you already scouted an area, only to find out one pesky grey managed to hide behind a blind corner. Especially during night missions when you couldn't see well, plus the general creep factor of the music.
I hope I can still find my copy, I think I know what I'll play when I come home. Anyone know how to run it sensibly on XP or Vista?
Re:Wii, NDS... (Score:3, Interesting)
As a counterexample I look at the new Ghostbusters game. The entire point of this game is immersion; it is a decent game by itself, but as a Ghostbusters game it's a lot more fun. The Wii/PS2 version, while cute and stylistic, doesn't capture the immersion of Ghostbusters. You never really feel like you're in one of the movies, whereas the 360/PS3/PC version is cutting edge graphics and hyper-realism. And you know what, in another 20 years when computer game graphics are even better... you could redo this game from the ground up, replace every piece of art/texture/model... and it would be even better. The closer the game gets to being a realistic take on the films, the more accurate and immersible it will be.
This article has some of the best comments I've seen on Slashdot about gaming graphics. Instead of "Graphics =/= fun" crap everyone usually posts, there are tons of insightful posts about the importance of visuals in games and when/how they matter.
Graphics are limiting (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A good combination of a storyline and graphics. (Score:5, Interesting)
So Might and Magic V had, wait for it, bad graphics! You just made the argument that graphics go hand-in-hand with gameplay. You can have great gameplay that is ruined by bad graphics, you can have great graphics that are ruined by bad gameplay, or you can have both.
Now let me explain "good" and "bad" here. "Good" graphics are those that support the immersion of the player within the game. Good graphics complement the gameplay. Good graphics let you slip into the story. Bad graphics remind you that you are just moving pixels.
Good and Bad gameplay and graphics are purely subjective of course. It's possible that someone out there thought that Might and Magic III was a neat game crippled by horrible graphics, and fanatically adores Might and Magic V.
Re:A good combination of a storyline and graphics. (Score:3, Interesting)
IMO you can tell if a game is innovating or not when you look at what they are boasting. If people only talk about the graphics in the game, you can almost always be sure there are no real innovation in game play. It's a long and annoying running theme in FPS games. In the end, a FPS is a FPS is a FPS. Regardless of story or mini games, the core game play of these games changed very little since the 1990s. How people can get immersed in the same thing over and over again is beyond me. Why people would 'escape' to a war zone is even more mind boggling. I think that rather than being immersed in a FPS, people play those kind of games to vent frustration or to prove superiority at the comfort of their own home. If it is only about realism, they might as well stop playing games and start playing paintball.
Depends on the game, and that makes it an art (Score:4, Interesting)
If the game is abstract, for example, realistic graphics generally don't make a lot of sense. Should somebody do an abstract game with realistic graphics, I would appreciate the art of doing that, but I don't feel it's needed.
Simulation type games lean toward realistic graphics. On those, I find quite a high value associated with realism. The game is more immersive when this is done well.
RPG games are all over the map, but generally best done with recognizable objects and good art direction. These things are an escape of sorts, and too much realism breaks that.
Then there is the simple text adventure. No graphics at all! I'm quite sure somebody could do up a 3D "Zork" like place, and a whole lot of people would recognize it for what it is, just like many people "recognized" places depicted in "Lord Of The Rings".
Pretty graphics alone don't add a lot of value, unless the game is lightweight, or maybe some kinds of puzzlers.
There just isn't one answer to this question. There are enough variables to make it an art, not a science IMHO.
Re:This issue was thoroughly hashed out in the 199 (Score:3, Interesting)
Furthermore, right in the guy's post he states that the graphics need to match a games settings. A simple puzzle game doesn't need to look like Crysis. But Crysis would sucks pretty hard if it had Tetris level graphics. Understand? Graphics don't have to be cutting edge, but they have to be good enough that they don't detract from the gameplay.
Re:A good combination of a storyline and graphics. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hell, I've seen text adventures that are scarier (and way, way better written) than the average horror movie.
Babel [microheaven.com]* comes to mind.
* it's down that page a bit, you'll need TADS to play it.
Re:A good combination of a storyline and graphics. (Score:3, Interesting)
So I'm sure that studio special effects people like Ray Harryhausen and the people who did /Forbidden Planet/ would have done just as well.
I totally disagree. While I enjoy Forbidden Planet for what it is, Star Wars was so appealing to me when I first watched it not in small part because it was a pioneer in special effects and really was fun to watch. I agree that the story holds its own, but can you imagine having the same kind of intensity if Luke's fighter was a cardboard flat grey "rocketship" firing super crappily animated lasers into a super obviously cardboard deathstar?
Basically, I think that Star Wars story was kind of cheesy, but the effects legitimized parts it and made it feel somewhat feasible. It's the difference between having a scene where you get really into it and hear "Use the force Luke!", then react with a "hahaha" "yea right" when you see the crappy effect. And hearing "Use the force Luke!", and then getting the hairs on the back of your neck on end and reacting with an "ooohh!" "hell yea, nice!" after the semi-realistic effect.