Slashdot Mirror
Graphics Don't Matter
Dave Long writes "My column at GamerDad features some musing on how unimportant graphics are becoming to enjoyment of games. Everything looks great today which removes the excitement of that bullet point on a game box. There's some historical context and speculation on next-gen consoles and graphics' effect on consumers." From the article: "I guess we're getting closer to photo-realism, but I just don't care. The games shown don't look markedly better than anything from this generation. I guess they're impressive in a 'that's close to the movies now' kind of way but the graphics aren't changing gameplay in any way that I can see. It just makes old types of gameplay look prettier. For the people who absolutely adore technology and this incessant need to replicate the real world, there will certainly be things to cheer in the next generation. I'm sure I'll eventually buy the new consoles myself and be at least modestly excited at the graphics, but I've just grown so accustomed to things looking nice on current machines that there's no 'wow' factor anymore."
Better is... better.
Gran Turismo 4 is light years beyond the original Gran Turismo. If I was a late adopter, I would be WOW'd (BIGTIME) in moving from a PS1 (Gran Turismo 1) to PS2 (Gran Turismo 4).
I imagine the same thing will happen, in time, with the new generation.
Because we are video game addicts, we (I assume the poster is like me, in being somewhat addicted to getting my favorite latest games) are constantly upgrading, and getting the latest release, etc. GT1 - GT2 - nice difference. GT2- GT2, really nice difference. GT3-GT4, somewhat nice difference (read: difference==improvement).
But the GT1 - GT4 hop is unbelievable.
Now use the above analogy with any of your favorite games. Final Fantasy VII vs. Final Fantasy X-2? Huge.
Grand Theft Auto 1 vs. Vice City/San Andreas? Unbelievably huge difference.
In 2 or 3 years when the best of the best come out for the next gen consoles, it will blow the pants off whatever came out in the early months of the current generation consoles, IMHO.
Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM
I mean, just look at games like Final Fantasy 7. It had a great story, the people looked retarded. Didn't stop me from playing the hell out of it. IMHO, developers focusing too much on graphics actually makes a game suck, because they don't put enough effort into making the game have a compelling story, or, for that matter, making the game long enough to justify a pricetag of 50 dollars (or more). Just look at games like Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Fable, God of War. These were all good games with pretty cool graphics, but they were just flat out too short for what it should have been.
Trolling is a art,
Will it make any difference to me if each individual drop of water in a waterfall is individually rendered and given its own physics? No. But will it matter if the waterfall doesn't look like a real waterfall or doesn't seem to fit? Yes.
It's not about how photorealistic something looks, but whether or not the art style used enhances the game by making you feel as if you're there. After a certain point, the graphics won't get any better. We'll be able to pump out more polygons than we know what to do with. Game designers need to use them to create a world that we can immerse ourselves in.
For example, I absolutely love the graphical style used in Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2. The world I'm exploring feels so much deeper than Halo 2's. Don't get me wrong, Halo 2 has excellent graphics, but they just weren't used to design the same type of rich world that Metroid has.
Some people are real gamers. They care about games. These people don't care about graphics, only gameplay.
There are others who are not gamers. They just happen to be people who play or enjoy playing games. These people are often prejudice against games with less graphics and towards those with better.
Just like people who care about movies often go to see movies based on quality regardless of budget, while people who simply enjoy movies see big budget blockbusters.
The key is that the big money is in making the big games with fancy graphics. Because there just aren't that many people who actually care about games as opposed to people who just enjoy them.
Need proof? Play counter strike. You make a lot more money selling some fancy looking piece of poop to those shitcockers than you would selling a balanced work of art to the 100 guys who actually care. Look at the MMOs where you have people addicted to collecting worthless digital items and customizing avatars that look cool, obviously they never played a MUD. And of course, the people who didnt like Wind Waker before ever even playing it based on it's looks. They do realize that at heart it is essentially the same game that Zelda 64 was and the new one is going to be? No, because they aren't real gamers.
Those of us left who ARE real gamers have to stick together. Gotta make sure that quality games keep getting made for us to enjoy regardless whatever fancy graphics crap comes out. I have high hopes for Civilization 4 and the Revolution. Let's see if they can be fulfilled or not.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
All women look great today which removes the excitement of that bullet point on a dating profile. There's some historical context and speculation on younger womans' effect on men." From the article: "I guess we're getting closer to super-models, but I just don't care. The girls shown don't look markedly better than any woman from this generation. I guess they're impressive in a 'that's close to the porn movies now' kind of way, but the looks aren't changing lifestyle in any way that I can see. They just make my traditional lifestyle look prettier. For the people who absolutely adore beautiful women and have this superficial need to be with the best looking woman, there will certainly be things to cheer in the next generation. I'm sure I'll eventually date these younger women myself and be at least modestly excited at their looks, but I've just grown so accustomed to the nice looking women of the current generation that there's no 'wow' factor anymore.
- shazow
I played Ultima Online for about 7 years. So I was used to playing a game without killer graphics for a long time. My thoughts were the same thing as the poster, gameplay is all that matters.
Well, I recently began playing World of Warcraft because I am sick of how bad UO has gotten. After playing WoW I realize just how much I was missing! There have been times in game where I was climbing a mountain and when I got to the summit and looked out into a valley I literally vocalized, "Wooooow...". It was almost a gut reaction and afterward I thought to myself, "... that was silly...". But it really does make a difference in how much I enjoy the game. I actually enjoy the beautiful views you can find in that game. After playing WoW I am a fervent believer in the "games are art" school of thought. Some of the screen shots from that world are just astonshingly beautiful.
Just the other day I was playing and my (not technology inclined) mother happen to look at my screen and remarked, "Wow, that is really pretty, what is that website?" I explained that actually it was a virtual game world and that I was looking off a boat I was riding watching the sunset.
I believe that you can't have a successful game without well thought out game play, but the artwork is what can make it a masterpiece.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
The reason Picasso came up with some of the most brilliant art of our time is that his age saw the introduction of the camera. Artists no longer needed to struggle to replicate actual scenes, as the camera did this faster and better. Art needed to evolve to find a new niche. Picasso showed that art need not be about the image itself, but portraying the subject in a more abstract (and some would argue more complete) manner.
Games are going to have to focus on content as we approach photo-realistic real-time rendering. People are not going to buy one game over another because the grass has clearer shiner blades. It's about time too. Bring on the Ico's, Katamari's and Viewtiful Joe's of the future. Let's get back to exploring gaming as interactive entertainment and forget looking at purty images that move.
-- I have fans? Wow.
More screenshots. It's only text.
... is that it's not just about how good the graphics are, but about expectations.
For instance, if I had seen PS1-like graphics in the 8-bit era, I'd have drooled. But these days, PS2 / Gamecube / Xbox graphics just don't impress me. The games I like, I like them independently of the graphics, and it's the same with those I don't like.
Some parts from current games *may* impress me, but it's more of a art / landscape thing, not just polygons or effects. For instance, there was a church in Resident Evil 4 which caught my attention, because it was beautiful - not because the game had great graphics, but because it was a beautiful church - if it was a real life one, it would still be a work of art.
The Tlog - a technology blog
Ever play chess with a really elaborate set? Intricately engraved figures with so much fine detail you could scream? Kinda difficult picking out the pieces, isn't it? I really prefer a nice, simple, classical set, where you can identify the piece at a glance.
I think videogames are approaching the same limit. You aren't going to be paying attention to detail when you're actually playing the game, it's at best ignored and at worst a distraction. The best thing for developers to do would be to work at reducing distractions.
When Atari was released, people were amazed by the graphics (I'm sure this point will astound several of our younger readers). Even then, there were people complaining that the graphics really only stood in the way of allowing you to do whatever you wanted to do in the game the way you could in text-based games - as long as you could figure out the syntax!
The real point here is that, since games have had graphics, there have been people that felt the state-of-the-art graphics only got in the way of what they liked about the games they liked previously.
I'm only conjecturing, but I think part of it is that people have a tendency to assume that graphics have pretty much gotten as good as they're going to be for a long time. Even in the atari days people couldn't imagine how the graphics were going to get much better. To say that the games on the upcoming consoles don't look any better than they do on the current consoles is true, but these are just release titles. After developers have had a couple years to unravel all the tricks, we should be seeing amazing things.
To me, graphics don't make the game. But they can certainly go a long way to enhance a game with a solid foundation of gameplay.
I agree. My girlfriend doesn't have the latest graphics, but her gameplay is quite good.
I can't speak for Lego Star Wars, but the graphics in Katamari Damacy were amazing. The sense of scale and size were phenomonal. The models weren't composed of millions of polygons because the individual elements weren't the focus. You were looking at the world as a whole, and KD's engine presented the game world flawlessly. The experience definitely wouldn't have been the same if there were a loading screen every time you needed to zoom out a little.
Good graphics and innovative graphics aren't always about who has the most polygons or the best lighting. Sometimes, they're just about creating the game world properly.
e2 | LJ
Yes! Please oh please some one finally make a playable game! I mean NES has been out since, what, 1982? All this time developers have been focusing solely on graphics, and lately on physics. Maybe in the year 2006 we will finally have a game that is fun.
Oh god these twenty years have been horrible...