Aja on 6/10/2009 at 02:34
The whole "gameplay is more intellectual" argument holds little water against some of the more visually compelling games. A strong art-style is surely as, if not more, difficult to design, and I would argue for it being at least of equal importance. Without visuals, sound, the aesthetic elements, atmosphere is near-impossible.
Maddermadcat on 6/10/2009 at 06:40
You're completely right there. The real problem, in my opinion, is that a lot of gamers seem to obsess over technical details and overlook the actual style behind the visuals. Games with unique appearance are often dismissed as "stupid cartoony crap" in favour of whatever game is perceived as being the most realistic.
That's graphics whoring, I think; shiny crap taking precedence over substance. However, like it or not, games are meant to be played, not just looked at, so gameplay is definitely the most important aspect.
Still, graphics definitely can be (and are) used as a gimmick to cover up shoddy interactivity. That doesn't mean they're completely irrelevant in games, though.
EvaUnit02 on 6/10/2009 at 07:32
Quote Posted by Maddermadcat
Still, graphics definitely can be (and
are) used as a gimmick to cover up shoddy interactivity. That doesn't mean they're completely irrelevant in games, though.
The last Prince of Persia, anyone? Beautiful, stylistic graphics, but highly repetitive, extremely shallow gameplay.
Quote Posted by swaaye
IMO FSAA should be in all games. Make concessions elsewhere for it if necessary. I think FSAA adds a ton of cleanness to games. Extra polish if you will. Did you guys know that N64 games frequently had edge AA? Ya, go look at those polys in Goldeneye or Mario 64 again (for ex). Now we just get more plastic normal mapping and more bloom and more etc.
You do realise that N64 was highly criticised by many for having rubbish texture filtering? It was a blurry mess, playing games on it was staring through Vaseline smeared googles. When I first played the Gamecube port of Ocarina of Time it was truly a revelation, IMO.
Eldron on 6/10/2009 at 13:17
good or bad graphics, if the game sucks it sucks.
ingame art is artists working asses to destruction to make something look good under technical limitations and optimizations.
and no, it's not making stuff as realistic as possible, art has gone further than that, games are trying to find styles beyond hyperrealism.
but at the point where you start blaming graphics for bad gameplay, thats when you're blaming the wrong department.
scarykitties on 6/10/2009 at 15:11
Quote Posted by Taffer36
What the fuck?
Artists and programmers WORK HARD to create impressive technology that can in-turn create a more believable and more immersive game world.
I just think it's a bit under-handed to write off graphics as being a "gimmick". It's not, it's a cornerstone of gaming and it always will be. And how is it any less difficult to hire a writer to create the story for you?
I didn't say that art isn't hard work. I was going for a degree in art, so I'm well aware of how much time it takes.
What I'm saying is that a game company can hire an expensive writer and costly game design crew to make a clever story and new gameplay that may or may not pan out from a marketing perspective, or they can take what they know WILL sell--pretty graphics. Art may be difficult, but there is a surplus of graphics artists. From a business perspective, it's a better gamble to hire one of the many artists for a cheap price, have them take the next step in hardware-pushing, and then sell their game on the quality of "having the latest graphics!" It's guaranteed to sell, because people want to see what the newest, prettiest thing looks like (case in point: Crysis).
Consider games that changed things and pushed boundaries gameplay-wise. Thief, let's say. Two companies have gone under, because the brilliantly innovative Thief series couldn't keep them afloat. Now, consider Halo. Bungi is laughing all the way to the bank with their bring-nothing-new-to-the-table technique (for those who would refute that, we had space marines and vehicles before Halo).
So, my point is that companies take the "play it safe--make it pretty" marketing technique, rather than risk spending all their money on a gameplay innovation that scares away players who are comfortable with their standard shoot-'em-ups. Innovation means shaking the foundations of the familiar, and many people aren't comfortable with that. Hence my calling graphics a "gimmick"-- whole games are made and sold on it alone, though it really offers nothing new.
Personally, I really like the low-poly graphics of the early Resident Evil and Silent Hill games (as well as, say, Deus Ex 1 and Thief 1&2). I know that no one makes games looking like that anymore, but I like it as a visual style, personally. I like to see how artists render complex scenes into their most essential and basic elements, rather than shooting for complete photorealism down to every unnecessary detail.
Oh, and I would highly disagree that improved graphics = greater immersion and more believability, in and of itself. Atmosphere and immersion aren't tied to photorealism by a long shot. They're tied to good design. The difference is between what needs to be there and what doesn't need to be there.
ZylonBane on 6/10/2009 at 15:32
Quote Posted by Eldron
and no, it's not making stuff as realistic as possible, art has gone further than that, games are trying to find styles beyond hyperrealism.
Considering that videogame graphics have yet to achieve perfect realism, this is somewhat misrepresenting the issue. Ever since PONG, game graphics have been fashioned as stylized representations of reality. As technology progresses, this will simply become an issue of choice rather than necessity.
Ostriig on 6/10/2009 at 16:58
Quote Posted by scarykitties
Art may be difficult, but there is a surplus of graphics artists. From a business perspective, it's a better gamble to hire one of the many artists for a cheap price, have them take the next step in hardware-pushing, and then sell their game on the quality of "having the latest graphics!"
I don't know how expensive the artists are, you can tell me about that, but let me dispel any confusion you may have about graphics programmers - they're not cheap, and they don't grow on trees. Not good ones anyway. And while I'm not in any way discounting the effort and dedication it takes to produce quality assets, especially in the confines of engine limitations, it's the programmers who bring about the progress of videogame graphics.
Quote:
Oh, and I would highly disagree that improved graphics = greater immersion and more believability, in and of itself. Atmosphere and immersion aren't tied to photorealism by a long shot. They're tied to good design. The difference is between what needs to be there and what doesn't need to be there.
Immersion is, as you say, not
tied to graphics, something I trust most of us on TTLG know, but it does stand to greatly benefit from high quality visuals. Suspension of disbelief is greatly facilitated by fine graphics, even though they aren't enough to maintain it on their own past the initial contact.
Ultimately, it's not "wrong" to market a game with its graphics as the main selling point. It's just unfortunate that, today, it's the main and most consistent one for so many of them. When I went to the cinema to see The Day After Tomorrow it was precisely on account of the fancy CGI and nothing more. But I sure as hell wouldn't want the majority of movies to be like that.
Taffer36 on 6/10/2009 at 17:20
Quote Posted by scarykitties
I didn't say that art isn't hard work. I was going for a degree in art, so I'm well aware of how much time it takes.
What I'm saying is that a game company can hire an expensive writer and costly game design crew to make a clever story and new gameplay that may or may not pan out from a marketing perspective, or they can take what they know WILL sell--pretty graphics. Art may be difficult, but there is a surplus of graphics artists. From a business perspective, it's a better gamble to hire one of the many artists for a cheap price, have them take the next step in hardware-pushing, and then sell their game on the quality of "having the latest graphics!" It's guaranteed to sell, because people want to see what the newest, prettiest thing looks like (case in point: Crysis).
Consider games that changed things and pushed boundaries gameplay-wise. Thief, let's say. Two companies have gone under, because the brilliantly innovative Thief series couldn't keep them afloat. Now, consider Halo. Bungi is laughing all the way to the bank with their bring-nothing-new-to-the-table technique (for those who would refute that, we had space marines and vehicles before Halo).
So, my point is that companies take the "play it safe--make it pretty" marketing technique, rather than risk spending all their money on a gameplay innovation that scares away players who are comfortable with their standard shoot-'em-ups. Innovation means shaking the foundations of the familiar, and many people aren't comfortable with that. Hence my calling graphics a "gimmick"-- whole games are made and sold on it alone, though it really offers nothing new.
Personally, I really like the low-poly graphics of the early Resident Evil and Silent Hill games (as well as, say, Deus Ex 1 and Thief 1&2). I know that no one makes games looking like that anymore, but I like it as a visual style, personally. I like to see how artists render complex scenes into their most essential and basic elements, rather than shooting for complete photorealism down to every unnecessary detail.
Oh, and I would highly disagree that improved graphics = greater immersion and more believability, in and of itself. Atmosphere and immersion aren't tied to photorealism by a long shot. They're tied to good design. The difference is between what needs to be there and what doesn't need to be there.
You didn't outright say that art isn't hard work, I know, but you seemed to create this
imaginary rift between plot and graphics. Somehow, hiring someone to create art IS EASY, but hiring someone to create the plot IS DIFFICULT. I'm not arguing which one would be more popular or which one the developer would be more likely to do. That still doesn't affect the EASE of doing it, or how meaningful one or the other is.
You can make the argument that other elements of design are necessary to create believability, sure. But I'm not looking at it as a trade. If the other elements stay the same, will an increase in the graphics capabilities help the believability and immersion of a game? Yes, yes they will. The gameplay doesn't mysteriously have to become shit to achieve this. Case in point? CRYSIS.
I'm not quite sure what the Halo example is meant to mean. Halo has always been considered to have graphics that are slightly behind the times. Nothing ancient of course, but critics have never cried over how the graphics were pushing the envelope as they have with the Gears of War or Call of Duty series.
scarykitties on 6/10/2009 at 21:20
I probably did understate the effort that goes into creating top-of-the-line graphics. I stand corrected in that respect.
Regardless, I still stand by my claim that developers find satisfaction in the only new thing they offer being prettier graphics, rather than dare redefine a genre and risk alienating their audiences, hence the number of games that focus on graphics rather than offering some innovative new gameplay.
Maddermadcat on 7/10/2009 at 00:06
Quote Posted by Eldron
but at the point where you start blaming graphics for bad gameplay, thats when you're blaming the wrong department.
Very true, but I'm sure funding is a factor that might justify the blame on visuals in some cases. Admittedly, I don't quite know what I'm talking about, as my business knowledge is severely lacking.
