What is the obssession with graphics?

This has been bugging me for a while now. What is the hype with many gamers [some new ones] who only care that a console is or game is good by the graphic quality? It seems they missing the point that the video game console is about the gameplay and not being a multi-media entertainment system (if you want that buy a PC). And many of the high graphic games seem to be over before tehy start, prime example was BLACK, yes it looked good and had a nice start up. Bubt if I wanted a cinema like experience I'd go the cinema, I'd expect a game to be different to a fil then I remember a member of the EA board at the Game On Exhibition I went to in London said they use Hollywood writers for the games. Explains why they are linear and the plots are quite simple.

Here are a list of old games that I've played over the years:

Hani in the Sky, Chuckie Egg, Frenzy (old BBC Computer game), Paper Boy. Would gamers not play them because the graphics are at such a poor standard (mainly coloured blocks) in comparisson to today's that they won't even contemplate going near them.

My thoughts:

It was very different nowadays where you can get games with ease with shops and the idiots who pirate them on the Internet to the days 15-20 years ago. As the games are more readily available people who never had to wait and have everything delievered to them on demand don't know or forget (if old gamers) what it was like before. Just playing a game be it on the Master System, BBC computer was a rarity that myself and others took delight in because at times we wouldn't be able to get a new game for a long time because money is more available now and had to enjoy what we had.

Personally, I justwant my games to look good. If a console is capable of really great looking graphics, then why not?

I was at the Game On exhibition in London too.. i made a video, check it out, and lemme know if you're in it

but anyway, i'd equate people obssession with beautiful graphics, to peoples obsession with anything beautiful.. you know in your mind that beauty isn't everything... but yet its what attracts you... same with a beautiful woman you saw at the bus stop, she may be a complete idiot but you're still attracted to her.

sometimes we have to get to know something before we feel attracted to it, but lets face it, we don't have the time nor inclination to get to know everything, so whathappens is that we do something we know we shouldn't and thats judge a book by its cover

i'm guilty of do that as well, even though i try not to

I was in the film, I was playing as MewTwo in Smash Bros segment, getting destroyed because I never used that character before. Should have gone Link.Vorknykx

you were playing against my little brother... he won in the end... the guys loves that game, so don't feel too bad... maybe once brawl comes out, you and him could meet online, and you can get your revenge then:P

I hope I get some measure of revenge.

Here's a question for the graphical loving people. What would you really prefer. Spending £40-50 on a game that lasts only 10 hours but is photo realistic or would you want a game that allows you to play for 40 hours and has graphics that are similar to...Ocarina of Time or Sonic 1/2 on the Mega Drive (only games I could think of).

I hope I get some measure of revenge.

Here's a question for the graphical loving people. What would you really prefer. Spending £40-50 on a game that lasts only 10 hours but is photo realistic or would you want a game that allows you to play for 40 hours and has graphics that are similar to...Ocarina of Time or Sonic 1/2 on the Mega Drive (only games I could think of).

Vorknykx

I hope I get some measure of revenge.

Here's a question for the graphical loving people. What would you really prefer. Spending £40-50 on a game that lasts only 10 hours but is photo realistic or would you want a game that allows you to play for 40 hours and has graphics that are similar to...Ocarina of Time or Sonic 1/2 on the Mega Drive (only games I could think of).

Vorknykx

Spending $40 on a game that excels in all areas. I wouldn't buy a bad game regardless of how good or bad it's graphics were but 10 hour games can be very good if they have re-playability. Sorry but I will never see poor graphical quality as a positive attribute and with so many games in the market there isn't much reason to settle for anything less than excellent in all areas. The only exception would be in genres where there isn't a large enough market for me to be picky.

Better graphics adds more realism, not just in terms of looks but also in gameplay depth. I mean, more or less.

Besides, if it weren't for the graphical improvements, some new categories of games just wouldn't had popped up. For example, how would stealth games like MGS or Splinter Cell look on a 8-bit console! Gameplay variations will be very limited if u just stick to one technology. New graphics make games more immersive.

Anyway, dont you ever get tired of playing games with the same old graphics over and over?!

In a not very far away future I for one hope to see health bars in games (shooters) disappear and be replaced by real handicaps like getting your legs shot off so you can't walk or fingers blown off so you can't shoot withthat specific hand etc... But for that we need the graphic enginesto improve even more ;)

Again, I am not a sucker for things to look extraordinary beautiful, but I do love the realismgood graphics adds tothe gameplay part.

I prefer the old games. I prefer The orginal Sonics (Master System and Mega Drive) to the new ones. I prefer Caesar II to Caesar IV. THe original Command And Conquer to Tiberian Wars. (The correct name). Mortal Kombat 2 and Ultimalte MK 3 to the new ones. I prefer Ocarina of Time to Twilight Princess. I still play the original Dungeon Keeper and TIE Fighter Star Wars. They felt more believeable. They spent more time on the gameplay and story than the graphical requirements, mostly because resources back then on PCs were restricted and games had to develop differently.

Here's a big comparisson: Star Wars Empire at War, a revamped version of Star Wars Supremacy, but in Supremacy you could do far more in it. The space graphics were bland but you could have full fleets, like twenty Executor-class Star Destroyers on the screen at once. You could do diplomacy missions, more heroes that you could train up to be better in leadership or inciting rebellion. And there were 200 hundred planets. I still play that to Empire At War. Black or Gears of War, I prefer Monolith's Blood. They were far more interesting because they had something different where most games are falling into a pattern where they need better graphics but do not really add anything. They may have graphical realism but they don't feel real, example racing games.

So I don't get bored with the same graphics. Also it's not the graphic engines that you say need to improve, it's the processors, many can't even keep up with the newest ones.

This has been bugging me for a while now. What is the hype with many gamers [some new ones] who only care that a console is or game is good by the graphic quality? It seems they missing the point that the video game console is about the gameplay and not being a multi-media entertainment system (if you want that buy a PC). And many of the high graphic games seem to be over before tehy start, prime example was BLACK, yes it looked good and had a nice start up. Bubt if I wanted a cinema like experience I'd go the cinema, I'd expect a game to be different to a fil then I remember a member of the EA board at the Game On Exhibition I went to in London said they use Hollywood writers for the games. Explains why they are linear and the plots are quite simple.

Here are a list of old games that I've played over the years:

Hani in the Sky, Chuckie Egg, Frenzy (old BBC Computer game), Paper Boy. Would gamers not play them because the graphics are at such a poor standard (mainly coloured blocks) in comparisson to today's that they won't even contemplate going near them.

My thoughts:

It was very different nowadays where you can get games with ease with shops and the idiots who pirate them on the Internet to the days 15-20 years ago. As the games are more readily available people who never had to wait and have everything delievered to them on demand don't know or forget (if old gamers) what it was like before. Just playing a game be it on the Master System, BBC computer was a rarity that myself and others took delight in because at times we wouldn't be able to get a new game for a long time because money is more available now and had to enjoy what we had.

Vorknykx

You imply you have been gaming for some time, but your complaint implies little understanding of videogames. Black is an fps, such games have tended to fall on the short side since the inception of the genre, so playing a modern (more or less) fps and then blaming its length on its modernity as opposed to its genre makes little sense.

Also, your claim gamers turn up their noses at old games isn't borne out by reality. If that were true, all three console companies wouldn't have downloadable games service dominated by either older games or games which look like older games. Also, there wouldn't be any demand for B/C, and B/C is clearly a high priority for gamers (the sentiments of gamers forced MS, who had been talking down the notion, to make the X360 more or less B/C with the Xbox, and it was a very big deal when Sony announced that the European PS3 wouldn't be as B/C as its American and Japanese counterparts).

As for your unhappiness that gamers (who as a class are older than we were 20 years ago and thus have more disposable income) can afford to buy more games nowadays, well, you pick weird things to get upset about.

It's not being upset it's just a strange observation to me that some prefer better graphics to game play.Vorknykx

You failed to make a case for your argument. You cited Black, which wasn't a particularly successful game.

It's not being upset it's just a strange observation to me that some prefer better graphics to game play.Vorknykx

A few reasons for the obsession with graphics....

- Graphics are the easiest thing to sell superficially to get the hype rolling for a game, which brings be to my second point.

- Graphics are the easiest ammo to give to system fanboys in order to hype their platform while bashing others, never mind if the thing has gameplay or is being made by a developer who has made a proven game....you don't need those things....all hype needs is pretty screenshots....or in some cases not even, as Sony and MS have shown before...a cutscene trailer claimed to be "in-engine" (real or fake...doesn't matter) will suffice.

- Graphics are the easiest way for the PR divisions of Microsoft and Sony to promote their systems over the competition while using cheap catch phrases (some false and B.S.) like "Next-Gen", "HD era", "Lucid Dream", "HDMI", "4D", or "1080p"....as if those are the factors that determine if a game is good in their attempt to convince consumers that without those factors you couldn't have an enjoyable gaming experience.

Here's another one - Graphics are important. There's no reason for a game to NOT have good graphics (what good graphics are can differ from game to game though). There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that says that if a game has good graphics it somehow excludes great gameplay. Great gameplay and great graphics beats great gameplay and mediocre graphics.Jonas_81

Here's another one - Graphics are important. There's no reason for a game to NOT have good graphics (what good graphics are can differ from game to game though). There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that says that if a game has good graphics it somehow excludes great gameplay. Great gameplay and great graphics beats great gameplay and mediocre graphics.Jonas_81

Actually...there are a couple of reason's how great gameplay can be sacrificed for graphics......it takes time, money, and resources to develop a game, a game that's heavy in graphics takes up a huge amount of those resources and budget....and we've seen cases in the past of games that were in development for literally up to 5 years where they delivered great graphics, but sacrificed the gameplay.

[QUOTE="Jonas_81"]Here's another one - Graphics are important. There's no reason for a game to NOT have good graphics (what good graphics are can differ from game to game though). There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that says that if a game has good graphics it somehow excludes great gameplay. Great gameplay and great graphics beats great gameplay and mediocre graphics.Robnyc22

Actually...there are a couple of reason's how great gameplay can be sacrificed for graphics......it takes time, money, and resources to develop a game, a game that's heavy in graphics takes up a huge amount of those resources and budget....and we've seen cases in the past of games that were in development for literally up to 5 years where they delivered great graphics, but sacrificed the gameplay.

[QUOTE="Robnyc22"]

[QUOTE="Jonas_81"]Here's another one - Graphics are important. There's no reason for a game to NOT have good graphics (what good graphics are can differ from game to game though). There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that says that if a game has good graphics it somehow excludes great gameplay. Great gameplay and great graphics beats great gameplay and mediocre graphics.Teufelhuhn

Actually...there are a couple of reason's how great gameplay can be sacrificed for graphics......it takes time, money, and resources to develop a game, a game that's heavy in graphics takes up a huge amount of those resources and budget....and we've seen cases in the past of games that were in development for literally up to 5 years where they delivered great graphics, but sacrificed the gameplay.

(EDIT) Spaces disappearing.

[QUOTE="Jonas_81"]Here's another one - Graphics are important. There's no reason for a game to NOT have good graphics (what good graphics are can differ from game to game though). There is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING that says that if a game has good graphics it somehow excludes great gameplay. Great gameplay and great graphics beats great gameplay and mediocre graphics.Robnyc22

Actually...there are a couple of reason's how great gameplay can be sacrificed for graphics......it takes time, money, and resources to develop a game, a game that's heavy in graphics takes up a huge amount of those resources and budget....and we've seen cases in the past of games that were in development for literally up to 5 years where they delivered great graphics, but sacrificed the gameplay.

Did those developers come out and say "oh, we just focused on graphics and didn't care about gameplay?" Because without some hard evidence to back up what you're saying, its just conjecture.
Teufelhuhn

Newsflash: If a game has great graphics and sucks it will suck with mediocre graphics too.Jonas_81

Newsflash.....great graphics take time, money, and resources....and it's easy to sacrifice and strip gameplay elements when focusing on graphics has strained resources.

Your comment works both ways too, in fact more so. Last time I checked games like WoW or Starcraft aren't pushing graphics boundaries, funny they are among the top games out there.

How's Doom III as an example.....actions speak louder then words.Robnyc22

Last time I checked games like WoW or Starcraft aren't pushing graphics boundaries, funny they are among the top games out there.

Design should not be confused with graphics for this very reason.hot114

Design should not be confused with graphics for this very reason. I can name plenty a PS1 game with better design than any next gen game to date

hot114

Then by all means, please name them.

My rules:

3-D: Anything DC and beyond is perfectly fine with me

2-D: Anything beyond the Genesis is fine, with a few before that being acceptable to me as well.

Jonas, yes this topic isn't new and everything has been said before. Yes I could have looked for the older ones if not been deleted. I have to write a dissertation for my Degree this year and I'm still deciding what topic to go with. Casual vs Hardcore Gamer is one, Graphics vs Gameplay is another or Psychology of Gaming, Gamers and Industry(hence this topic and another one I did about what is acceptable and what isn't when all should be fair- but has been erased now). I need reference material and start my own discussions help before I choose the final one, and this is becominig a good topic that can branch out further. Also game play, Jonas, is what you do in the game not part of the graphical core this is given away by the words GAME and PLAY.

Both WoW and Starcraft looked phenomenal at the time they came out compared to other games in their genres. Jonas_81

World of Warcraft is definitely not the poster child for graphics, even when it released it's graphics were hardly impressive.....as for Starcraft, its still considered among the top strategy games, even by today's standards....despite the dated graphics.

World of Warcraft is definitely not the poster child for graphics, even when it released it's graphics were hardly impressive.

Robnyc22

It was definitely highly regarded for its graphics when it first came out back in 2004.

How would the gameplay of Doom III improve with worse graphics? Fact is, the graphics are an integral part of Doom III's gameplay, since id uses the graphics to create the atmosphere. The main error you make is thinking gameplay and graphics are separate entities, when in fact they're one and the same intertwined, and it's practically impossible to know where one truly ends and the other truly begins.Jonas_81

Graphics and Gameplay ARE seperate entities.

Fact is great graphics for Doom III didn't make it a great game....however, if you have an game that had a great story , solid gameplay, and simply average graphics for the time, it still a great game.

I can think of plenty of games where I would have gladly sacrificed the level of graphics for better gameplay.....but I can't think of one single game that had excellent gameplay that I would have traded for simply better graphics.

Funny, cause World of Warcraft was the recipient of the IGDA's Developer's Choice Award for "Excellence in Visual Arts" back when it came out, and that's an award that is voted on by the developer community itself.

It was definitely highly regarded for its graphics when it first came out back in 2004.

Skylock00

A game can recieve that award based on artistic achievement....it's not always based on technical graphics achievement, in fact, most of the years the most artistic game has one over the most technically impressive.

Shadow of the Colossus won Best Visual Arts at the 2005 IGDA awards, which it deserved, but it obviously wasn't the best technical showcase for graphics that year.

There is a big difference between Technical Graphics Achievement and Artistic Achievement, hence the reason most sites seperate the awards, IGDA doesn't.

Now I will agree that artistic design and creativity is important to a game's atmosphere....but I pretty sure this thread is discussing the obsession with graphics on a purely technical aspect.

I have a theory that a high quality, solely text based adventure game could sell like hotcakes in today's gaming market if marketed properly.

After all what other video games today do you actually have to type? Oh my god something new! (anything that hasn't been done infifteen years can be "reinvented") And look, you actually have to think! Holy moly! I didn't know video games could make you think! You could sell tens of millions of uninformed / nostalgic parents on this idea if you claimed you could teach them to type and reason while enjoying a killer plot.

Can you imagine a game that took 50K to develop having a multi million dollar marketing budget. :)

A game can recieve that award based on artistic achievement....it's not always based on technical graphics achievement, in fact, most of the years the most artistic game has one over the most technically impressive.

Shadow of the Colossus won Best Visual Arts at the 2005 IGDA awards, which it deserved, but it obviously wasn't the best technical showcase for graphics that year.

There is a big difference between Technical Graphics Achievement and Artistic Achievement, hence the reason most sites seperate the awards, IGDA doesn't.

Now I will agree that artistic design and creativity is important to a game's atmosphere....but I pretty sure this thread is discussing the obsession with graphics on a purely technical aspect.

Robnyc22

Fact is great graphics for Doom III didn't make it a great game....however, if you have an game that had a great story , solid gameplay, and simply average graphics for the time, it still a great game.Robnyc22

I can think of plenty of games where I would have gladly sacrificed the level of graphics for better gameplay.....but I can't think of one single game that had excellent gameplay that I would have traded for simply better graphics.

[QUOTE="Jonas_81"]Both WoW and Starcraft looked phenomenal at the time they came out compared to other games in their genres. Robnyc22

World of Warcraft is definitely not the poster child for graphics, even when it released it's graphics were hardly impressive.....as for Starcraft, its still considered among the top strategy games, even by today's standards....despite the dated graphics.

Fact is great graphics for Doom III didn't make it a great game....however, if you have an game that had a great story , solid gameplay, and simply average graphics for the time, it still a great game.

I can think of plenty of games where I would have gladly sacrificed the level of graphics for better gameplay.....but I can't think of one single game that had excellent gameplay that I would have traded for simply better graphics.

Robnyc22

Doom III scored an average of 87% on both the PC and the XB so the critical consensus is that it is a great game. And yes, the graphics were a major contributing factor to the success of this title.

Jonas is right, graphics and game play are very much related and in most cases graphic quality facilitates better game play. Thisreality has become even more pronounced as advanced physics and other graphical flourishes and effects have led to superior software. Without great physics and graphics,games like Half Life 2and Mercenaries would be considerably lesser games.

The real problem isn't the so-called graphics whores or the myth that quality graphics come at the cost of game play but rather the fact that you and many others misunderstand the deeper and more nuanced application of graphical engines and assume it's all shine and gloss. The truth is that graphical quality continues to make game play better because without increased processing power and other visual advancements, certain game play paradigms simply wouldn't be possible.

We're a very visually oriented species as it is. Combined with the fact that video games are an extremely visually oriented media I can easily see why we like pretty graphics. This is all while ignoring the fact that we have a tendency to like pretty, shiny things too.

As a personal note, I can be a graphics whore. I am always thoroughly impressed when something looks fantastic. I am also a good judge of aquality gamefor the most part too. I won't buy something solely because of its looks, but it can sway me more than most other elements. If something looks good enough to not be distracting then I am fine, pretty games just get a bonus.

I can't name a single game I would've sacrificed the level of graphics for better gameplay. You know why? Because I shouldn't have to. This might be news to you, but it's not the same guy that does everything on a game. Fact is, there's several people who do different things, and there's no logic that dictates that one should do a bad job in order for the other one to do a good job. Games shouldn't sacrifice the level of graphics in order to provide great gameplay, it CAN and SHOULD do both.Jonas_81

That it can and should are two different things. And, yes, the guys in the graphics department affect the guys in the gameplay department. Game engines have limits on what they can do. Sometimes,because computing power is needed to run the game, things like polygon count and texture quality have to take a hit. Vice versa, if you have a developer that's striving for great graphics, they may run simpler AI routines to free up cpu cycles and memory for graphics. In esence making the gameplay weaker by dumbing down the game or limiting number of objects and options.

This is more or less a false dilemma. There's no reason why a game can't have beautiful visuals AND great gameplay. Please notice that I use the terms "beautiful" and "visuals", not "photorelistic" and "graphics". Beauty and realism are two separate things. Yes, gameplay should come first, but if I can have a game that has both gameplay and looks, I'll prefer it to a game that plays well but looks likea dog.

Well, for starters, often the first thing shown when a new game is announced, are screenshots, which show graphics. But really, I think its more about overall processing power. Not just graphics, but physics, A.I. and all the elements that contribute to a deeper/more realistic gaming experience. That's why I think the term 'graphics whore' is idiotic - it should really be 'CPU whore'. And realism really does add to the experience. I'm all for the Wii's form of innovation, but excuse me if I find HAZE footage just as cool as a remote to be waved around.camdbz251

I agree with you about the "big picture" aspect. Secondly, as long as a game/developer make it take into accord the power of the respective console it is built for I expect them to be on par with that system. If a developer goes and makes a low end PS2 looking game on the PS3 that is when I start to getannoyed about graphics. It does not have to look the best out of all the games made for the certain console, but it better not look like a PS1 game when they are making it for the 360/PS3.

That goes for the Wii as well. Since I know the Wii can't produce 360/PS3 looking titles I accept that and embrace it knowingly for the system. As long as I dont see lower degrading titles when the Wii can produce its own good looking titles I am fine. It is when developers take shortcuts, etc. to get titles out - like that horrible looking cel shaded racing game (Ubisoft?).

This is more or less a false dilemma. There's no reason why a game can't have beautiful visuals AND great gameplay. Please notice that I use the terms "beautiful" and "visuals", not "photorelistic" and "graphics". Beauty and realism are two separate things. Yes, gameplay should come first, but if I can have a game that has both gameplay and looks, I'll prefer it to a game that plays well but looks likea dog.

nopalversion

I can name two: money and time.

I can name two: money and time.

dchan01

Exactly.....apparantly some people in this thread don't get the fact that high-end graphics features take time and money. Not all developers have unlimited resources to simply solve every problem with a bottom-less stack of cash.....in fact few don't.

Second, we aren't talking about visuals from an artistic standpoint....I'm pretty sure the TC was referring to the obsession with graphics from a technical standpoint, as in the obsession with games on the newest high-end engines..

And when the industry, and gamers (like the ones in this thread) get obsessed with high-end graphics and the PR coming out of the mouths of some execs to the point they actually demand it from practically every game, some developers feel the pressure, especially from publishers, to sacrifice gameplay or narratives if it means focusing more on graphics and licensing high-end game engines simply to get noticed......since again, graphics are the first and probably the main thing most gamers (and companies) use to hype and bring publicity to a game.

Warren Spector, as well as many other developers, commented on this a few times, in fact there was a whole panel about it at GDC.....so to those thinking this isn't an issue with develoeprs, guess what, it is:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/771/771398p1.html

"His outlook was not so rosy, as he noted an amplified development focus on making pretty graphics to run on increasingly powerful hardware takes away emphasis on story, to the point where creating moving character motivations and plot developments are completely overlooked."

When you have an industry that looks at the recent trend of games with high-end graphics engines but shallow stories being the top sellers, many will follow that trend in order to stay afloat.

Of course, pushing the graphics envelope is good for certain games and genres, especially when the gameplay design called for strong visuals and detailed game worlds....but it shouldn't be expected for all games and from all developers. I find it funny how they go shouting how much graphics and gameplay are the same thing, yet it funny how the weakest console last-gen was the most successful, and it looks like that same kind of occurance may happen this-gen if things continue the way they are.

Last....what happens to those indpendent developers whose strength are in storytelling, but not graphics when you have an aude