Videogame Graphic Advances - Not That Important?

Thanks to the IGDA for its 'Culture Clash' column discussing the recent advances in graphics quality for games, and why increased detail isn't always a good thing. The author, referencing a previously Slashdot-covered article about "unsettlingly funereal" hi-poly face models in games, points out: "Dependence on increasingly real visuals alone to generate emotion will inevitably hit a wall: at some point game graphics will look as good as real life. Developers have an arsenal of emotioneering tools at hand; to limit themselves to just one, however prominent, would be ill-advised", before further warning: "Overfocus on hyper-realistic graphics and modeling, while not a bad idea in a general sort of way, can also impede quality of gameplay."

Comments

Gameplay

[kannibal_klown]

Firstly, I think graphics are over-rated. I still play System-Shock 1 and 2 for the gameplay. Sure, by today's standards they look like crap, but they're fun as hell to play.

Secondly, I think more games should have a cartoon feel, via cell shading or whatever. Too realistic, a la photorealistic, would just plain suck; unless we're up to VR or holodecks, but they're probably a LONG way away (if we ever see them at all).

While I didn't like the child-like nature of Zelda: Wind Wakers, I thought the cell shading looked great. "Gish" for the PC is also great.

Non-realistic, if done well, can still look superb, and might require fewer resources. It would also get those stupid people complaining about games causing Columbine-type situations, as they'd have a harder time justifying it if a game was cel shaded, than uber-realistic.