Enough with graphics

[:mn:]

This is my opinion and I'm throwing my two cents in take it as a grain of salt
You're not watching Avatar, You're not looking at art in a museum and Games are not about the graphics only.

Do you remember the times of...


Yes graphics are nice, yes graphics play a role in how you perceive a game and get involved but we have hit a point where games look perfectly fine. You don't buy a game for it's graphics you buy it for it's gameplay. This is why games like Portal 2 for example look so amazing - they aren't aiming their sights at Killzone 3 or Crysis 2, they're aiming their sights at innovating and creating ground breaking gameplay experiences which is why we play games right? I'm not saying games such as Killzone 3 and Crysis 2 aren't innovating gameplay, they are in their own ways but! barely anyone talks about the gameplay innovations verses the graphics with these games. I love the nanosuit and the power it gives you to scale the landscape and I love the massive battles you find in Killzone and the variety of objectives.

Sure graphics are nice and will continue to improve but surely we have hit a point where it doesn't matter any more? Some of the most amazing games of the last year aren't using one million AA Pixel Elite graphics x 2.


Minecraft


Amnesia: The dark descent


Angry Birds

And way way more.

Graphics help immerse us in the game and it's awesome to see them getting so realistic but I'm fed up of seeing 6 or 7 threads pop up all about Crysis 2 VS Killzone 2 and etc. I'm not saying "STOP RIGHT THERE CRIMINAL SCUM" I'm saying just cut back on the amount of comparisons and start actually playing/discussing the games for what they are: games.

[DarkVincent07]

nice rant. i really enjoyed it. I agree to an extent, I mean, pretty much all of my favourite games have a very distinct art style, which I think is important and what sets games apart.

[:mn:]

I agree that Art and Graphics do contribute to a game but I feel gameplay should always remain the reason we play games it just seems people have forgotten this. If pressed to pick my favourite art style in a game it is Mirror's Edge.

[DarkVincent07]

I agree that Art and Graphics do contribute to a game but I feel gameplay should always remain the reason we play games it just seems people have forgotten this. If pressed to pick my favourite art style in a game it is Mirror's Edge.

Yeah Mirrors Edge is very memorable.

I agree it doesnt matter how pretty a game is, if it plays like crap its gonna be crap.
I remember Crysis (the first one) was criticised by a few websites/people for being beautiful, but having pretty average gameplay and being a pretty average experience

[Dasimpse]

this is what ps2 fans used to say to xbox owners, then xbox 360 owners used to say to ps3 owners. Basically the onsole with more concieved power has it as a bulletpoint and fanboys use it against the opposition, but ultimately playability is king!

so yes some good points

[Fon]

I think games like, Valkyria Chronicles and Nier are superior compared to those that are graphically superior to them(Final Fantasy XIII and Star Ocean 4 for example) because of how amazing their story and gameplay are. Like others have said, a game might have pretty graphics but if it's crap then it's crap.

[keefy]

I guess its why CS 1.6 is still Valve's most populargame more so than CS:S which is 5 years its junior the same game pretty much but has better graphics hell its even more popular than MW2+Blops games put together.

[radgamer420]

Good rant. Gameplay and fun factor is the most important to me. I like nice graphics like anybody else but as long as the graphics in a game are within todays standards then thats good enough for me as far as that aspect of a game goes. But the bottom line is what good is a pretty game if it isnt enjoyable or fun to play? The novelty of pretty graphics wears off after awhile but gameplay is what really carries a title.

[Kyaw]

What i like even more than flashy graphics is tech that compliments the art style beautifully. Batman Arkham Asylum was based on Unreal Engine and while it's not the best looking engine, it complimented the art style very well and i distinctively remembered it.
For me story is first then graphics. Yes, i'm a graphics whore. I love games that are aesthetically pleasing, from textures to user interface. But then i've never not played a game because it looks like crap. I loved Minecraft because of its flashy pixel art style.

Art style is more important than the actual tech in my opinion.

[Varsh]

While you do make a point I'll have to disagree. Yes graphics are concentrated on heavily and there is a lack of creative features within games but that's just it, they have no correlation with each other, let me explain.

In each development house you have programmers, artists, designers, world builders, scripters, etc., etc., and at no stage does a programmer/scripter touch the artistic side of things. If you have the hardware to output assets at a high poly count and texture size then so be it, however there is no correlation between that and the gameplay side of things - there you should start blaming the Game Designer.

It's the Game Designer's job to draw out mechanics, assets, and other things to be used in the game, then it's passed down to the relevant departments where the document is turned into real assets, and then it's all put into the engine.

Why is it you think that casual games and Indie Devs are becoming more and more popular? It's one thing: "Freedom of Creativity". Games like Amnesia look better than most commercial games however the game is so creative and original due to the fact that they can do what they like without an "financial repercussions".

That's the problem with Large commercial companies and it's not just that, because Indies have been eating into the finances of Publishers by taking away business, Publishers don't have the finances to bet on a new IP or original idea, so instead they ask developers to streamline their games to appeal more to the masses and put them onto as many formats as possible.

But it was happening before the Indie spurt of the last two years, the problem here is consoles - no I'm not kidding. What's happened in the last 10 years? The PS2 has made console gaming so big that this generation there's more than double the amount of consoles in homes than the last 2 generations more likely combined, that's a big number! So you'll see PC developers, that once were PC only, now add the consoles to their development list.

With the same development time you'll get less development time per console thus features are having to either be streamlined or left out. The PC market still has the largest market by miles but the console market has grown so exponentially that developers can no longer ignore it.

Because of this you're going to be getting feature and gameplay deprived games.

...based on Unreal Engine and while it's not the best looking engine...

Just so you know the look of game assets != game engine, it's all down to the developer, the game engine only aids in the use and functionality of assets.

[:mn:]

I'm talking about us the gamers as in I'm talking about how we discuss games and play them - to me it seems people are ignoring games actual assets and only talking about the graphics of the games. An example of this is Killzone 3 VS Crysis 2, I feel that people are forgetting about the game play involved in these games and only rating them purely based upon their graphics.

As said before though it's all my opinion.

[Kyaw]

Just so you know the look of game assets != game engine, it's all down to the developer, the game engine only aids in the use and functionality of assets.

Yes... yes.. i know.

[bigCman123]

I know Portal has awesome gameplay (love Portal and Half Life), but seriously Portal 2 has beautiful graphics! Everything is so crisp, and the animations are near flawless, not to mention the amazing physics. For me as long as a game looks good and is polished to near perfection I will be pleased in terms of graphics.

[Varsh]

I'm talking about us the gamers as in I'm talking about how we discuss games and play them - to me it seems people are ignoring games actual assets and only talking about the graphics of the games. An example of this is Killzone 3 VS Crysis 2, I feel that people are forgetting about the game play involved in these games and only rating them purely based upon their graphics.

As said before though it's all my opinion.

Ah I see where you're coming from now, misunderstood. xD

In that case I do agree in that there's a lot of reviewers that look past the gameplay and just seem to go "oh look Crysis looks amaaaaaaazing" and they rate the game on that. Thankfully IGN have recently rejigged some reviewer staff and they're starting to review a lot of Indie games with very high scores despite some horrendous graphics.

[keefy]

I'm talking about us the gamers as in I'm talking about how we discuss games and play them - to me it seems people are ignoring games actual assets and only talking about the graphics of the games. An example of this is Killzone 3 VS Crysis 2, I feel that people are forgetting about the game play involved in these games and only rating them purely based upon their graphics.

As said before though it's all my opinion.

GT5 is good example many players refuse to drive the "standard" cars due to no cockpit view.

[Kyaw]

GT5 is good example many players refuse to drive the "standard" cars due to no cockpit view.

Some of the most interesting and good cars are standard and i drive in bumper cam anyways, so it's all good!

[-Kwesnoth-]

Nice rant.

I do agree though. Games nowadays, and I'm not saying gameplay is bad. But they are putting soo much into the graphics that you have to keep updating to play. Like the call of duty games. My PC is kinda old so in order to run the game at good speeds, I have to lower basically every display setting. And really I don't nor will I ever play most games for the graphics. Especially not COD.

Now, games like Uncharted should look pretty good considering the type of game it is. But besides that lower the levels just a little bit.

[keefy]

Some of the most interesting and good cars are standard and i drive in bumper cam anyways, so it's all good!

It is the best way to play GT5 gves a better view of the track.
Lotus Carlton, Mercedes 190 Evo with a cosworth engine, Renault 5 Turbo the list gos on and on truly are some great cars in the standard lineup.

[Kyaw]

Yup, also Lancia Delta and Stratos rally cars. Ford Falcon V8 too off the top of my head.

[Bio]

I commend you on the rant. Regardless of what anybody says about "art style" or whathaveyou, the core idea still holds true today.

[Staticneuron]

I purchase and play games based off of the overall package. While people compare graphics, I doubt that they would do so if the game was "horrible". Appreciating certain elements of a game doesn't make that particular part more important than others. I don't care about the graphics, sound or gameplay "alone", I care about how it plays all around. And if one is lacking, it certainly detracts from the rest. I am not a nostolgic gamer, so I prefer new experiences and art styles. If it is going to be dated, do it well and make sure it fits.

[smiggy]

watching Avatar,

Avatar looked old when it released, not sure why you're mentioning it.

[:mn:]

Avatar looked old when it released, not sure why you're mentioning it.

To each their own but you know what I was getting at hopefully.

[Bitbydeath]

Do you remember the times of...

No, i have not been to prison.

[Kauldron]

No, i have not been to prison.

Awesome!

+Rep good sir.