"To an extent". I'd be more than happy if we got a less cartoony version of Oblivion's graphics.

For me, it goes something along the lines of "gameplay > story > graphics". Oblivion was still kinda fun, even though the story was utter gash.


And for the "in today's market..." folks who insist on bleeding edge graphics because it's "what the market wants", all I really need to do is repeat that tired old "Minecraft" statement.

While I have a preference of gameplay and story over graphics, I won't deny that I like pretty things. Good graphics can add a lot to the immersion factor, and certainly can improve certain gameplay elements (such as stealth). However I still stand by the thought that as long as the game is passable in the current Market graphically (I.e it's playable) then gameplay and story should get the most attention from developers.

Let's be honest, most people who love these types of games accept a drop in graphics, or buy for PC and improvethem themselves.

I hate mincraft because it looks aweful.

I don't really care about "cutting edge" graphics.

I DO care about art direction.. The game need to be pleasing to the eye and fit in with the world it is trying to sell, but that does not have anything to do about anti-aliasing and shadows.

I'm just going to ask for a show of hands. All those saying graphics aren't very important yet use extra graphical power in a PC as an argument for why PCs are better than consoles say "I".

Yet the game has a massive player base, a healthy modding community, and has made its maker a millionaire. Despite only just hitting Beta.

This is quickly becoming a pet peeve. What do people think game development is, a giant scale where improving one element actively detracts from the others? They're entirely separate, they have no bearing on each other. A bad game with good graphics is bad because it wasn't very well thought out, not because the graphics were good. I'd love to know how this idiocy came into common speech, as if the three were somehow three pillars of game design with direct impact on each other.

Minecraft is not a AAA sandbox RPG with a multi-million dollar budget. It was never expected of the developers to be cutting edge in the first place. It's like comparing Pac Man with the upcoming Deus Ex. It doesn't even remotely have a plausible basis.

The entire goal of the game was to create an accessible, fun, easy to use, customizable game world for anyone to jump in regardless of their hardware on PC. It was never even in its initial proposal to cater to Xbox, PS3 or high end PC gaming markets. Just because it is a game, and lots of people play it, does not mean it deserves to be compared in such a way as this. No one complains about Minecraft's graphics, because that was the intended direction of the art team to begin with. Instead, people accept it for what it is and utilize it. It is not even remotely supposed to extend the arm of visual computing or even come close to the status of an Elder Scrolls game. If this was the demand, I'm pretty sure people would have stuck to playing Angry Birds on their iPhones and forgot all about consoles and PC. No need right?

Clearly the people reading this thread are entirely missing the points that many pro-graphics people are trying to share. Not once do I mention graphics being more important than any other element within game development, nor has anyone else here.

All I have argued this entire time, and ironically needed to stress several times over, is that it is foolish for developers to NOT include readily available technology that advances the visual experience for its players. Why is it so hard to understand that it is possible for a game to have a great story, great game mechanics, AS WELL as boast a beautiful, cutting edge game world?!

And clearly Minecraft's business model is not a direction AAA titles are going to be headed, because otherwise Skyrim would just merely need to use Minecraft's engine to present its game, and somehow everyone here would have just as much fun playing it regardless. I, for one, strongly disagree that this is the case.

And yes, I agree. Somehow magically placing game development into spheres or separate pillars of importance is flawed. Each department needs equal attention in order to ensure a well-rounded package or finished product.

Yes graphic matter to me at least, because I know what its possible and every incarnation of TES has been bleeding edge or near enough, whether it be scenery or physics. Its a part of the franchise they do this for each new game. Its not the be all and end all, but I'd venture to say that TES wouldn't be the hit it is if it wasn't for BS pushing the limits with each game.

Now something which was said in one interview has had me gob-smacked since I heard it, but seems to have faded from public interest - perhaps because its a tiny thing to most folks. Particulate snow fall which settles on objects within the game!!! Snow and rain effects have been a big immersion breaker for me in 'realistic' graphics games, so to hear that they can now model snow in that way is amazing. If Skyrim's core engine can also handle DX11 so that I can have near perfect waves & water effects too, then I'll be in heaven and it'll guarantee I'll play the game for the next five years till TES VI comes out. It's that level of beauty which draws me back, even if I sometimes find the series' gameplay repetitive.

BTW I'm a Hack and other text-based games addict too. It is literally only the TES games which draw my attention away from the old classics.

Yes Graphic does matter. I never understood people who claim they are completely immune to good graphic but to each their own i guess. For me, it isn't essential but i do appreciate a good looking game like Uncharted 2, and i have to admit, there is a limit for how bad a game can look and still be interesting. If Skyrim had Morrowind graphic, i probably wouldn't buy it, sorry i know how shallow that sounds but that's how i feel. I didn't mind it when i played Morrowind but there is a difference, Morrowind was old at that point, i knew it looked good for it's time. If a game is old, i try to accept the graphic but it also depends on the genre. For example, i don't have any problems playing old platform games but with RPGs i feel it's harder to accept bad graphic because i want to immerse myself in it. So while i can play Super Mario Bros 3 without any problems, i can not bring myself to even give Baldurs Gate a chance even though it's 10 years younger than Super Mario 3.

I know exactly what you mean.

Yep graphics do matter to me but they are not what makes game great. My first console was NES which I got when I was either 3 or 4 (loved it and its games) and first computer was Amiga 500 few years later (early 90s) so I've seen how graphics have improved over years. And I must say awesome looking games don't have the same impact on me like they did in the early 2000 when graphics started to improve in huge leaps (nowadays every game looks great!).

Graphics do not matter. It's LOOKS that matter. The two are distinct.
"Graphics" are resolution and texture size and poly count... I don't give a damned about those.

LOOKS, on the other hand, are the beauty of the game. The artistic style, the scenic arrangement, the novel views... Looks are what is DONE with graphics. And I don't care about graphics, as long as the game is as beautiful and inspired as Morrowind was.

For me, nothing in gaming (or anywhere else) rivals the splendor of the Cantons of Vivec rising out of the water, or the two moons floating across the star-scape... Nothing is as eerily gorgeous as the giant mushrooms rising out of the ground and an ashstorm blowing across the ghostfence...

Graphical capabilities are not important to me at all. It's how they're used and the art that is created with them that matters.

I never said that they were mutually exclusive. Just that it was my opinion of the relative amount of time and resources that should be put into development. It is my opinion that a game with good gameplay or a good story is better than a game with good graphics. Of course, ideally all three aspects would be exceptional, but graphics do not matter as much to me as the other factors. Explain to me how that is "idiocy"?



Minecraft is a game centred around exploration and creation, and obviously that has been the focus of development, with stylistic graphics used accordingly. TES is an RPG series, and the main focus of development should be on the key factors of an RPG. It is not a graphics showcase. Of course, as I said earlier, great graphics would be nice, but to me they are not the most important aspect of the game. I used Minecraft as an example, because it has been successful by focusing development on the key aspects of the game rather than superficial graphics.

Because you don't separate development time into little chunks where you only work on one thing at once. They happen at about the same time and one doesn't take away from each other, you can't 'rank' them in terms of who gets what time. Gameplay most likely gets less time than anything else because the fun is in complex results from simple mechanics. Ranking them is illogical and nonsensical.

edit: And, IMO, minecraft looks great. Don't mistake everything being cubes for poor graphics, it has incredible draw distance and while each cube isn't very detailed they build up to produce highly detailed landscapes, caves, and structures. Good graphics.

You get it. I'm glad.

well notch has hired a mmo guy to make mine craft look better to attract more people. so he must think graphics are at least somewhat important even for a indie developer.

Games have to be a certain size to fit on the the install DVD/Console disk compressed. Everything in the game takes up space so it all in fact has bearing on each other. Better graphics uses more space leaving less for content. Full speech dialogues take up more space then then text, leaving less space for content, more content takes up more space leaving less for the other things. So its actually idiocy to think they don't have a direct impact on each other. In fact a game is a unified whole when being experienced so how can they not impact each other.

I like indie games so graphics are low down on my list give me an RPG with lots of lore, an internally consistent world and tons of content over the latest graphics

Edit: and don't forget the budget of the game, budgets start as how much they want to spend as a whole then that budget is split into the different areas more focus on one area brings more budget with it, Pete could have had all the monkeys and typewriters he wanted for FO3 if they had given a percentage of the budget that allowed it rather than blowing it on a big screen actor for 5 mins of dialogue

i don't mind if the game comes on two or even three DVDs as long as we can do a full install. Super ridiculous high texture pack, bring it on.

Pretty much said it for me. Bethesda might have a lot of financial clout, but they still have a budget.

Nope. Bigger textures and more detailed models really aren't the big thing anymore. Hand in hand with using better technologies is actually a space *saving*. If you tessellate your LOD, you no longer need multiple layers of LOD, and space is *saved*. Shaders are tiny little things, they do all their work on the GPU without needing large amounts of data in primary storage.

The way bethesda are doing things (IE: The way they've always done things) actually leaves less room for data. The budget issue I'll give you, but again, your graphics programmers aren't going to be doing anything other than graphics, and you have to pay them anyway, regardless of whether they're programming graphics.

Yes. I never used to care, but now days its a lot for me. Still not above gameplay/story.

Of course graphical quality is important. Like someone said earlier, we are used to a certain standard today. If the technology is there, why not use it. If they didn't then it would be as if they went out of their way to make the game look bad compared to today's standards, not that i'm saying Skyrim looks bad, in fact I think Skyrim looks fantastic, and if the rest of the game can look as good as the screenshots, then im sold.

Gameplay, story, lore etc. are all very much important factors in a game, especially an elder scrolls game. I play these games to be immersed in a fantastical world where I get to role-play a different race and master powerful skills I could only dream of having. If they can make the games graphics as good as the story, and gameplay, then that add's so much more to the immersion. It really makes you feel like your on another world. Everything is important equally, and I don't see why any of the departments in the company would skimp on their part in the development. If the writers have to do an amazing job, then so do the artists, animators, programmers, sound designers, level editors, voice actors and so on. Hell, even the play testers have to give an A+ effort..

Story>Gameplay>Graphics in my opinion. Now wait before I'm yelled at. They should always focus on the first two, before the third. Always. If they have six months to do it and no new engine in this hypothetical. They should grab the Oblivion Engine, modify it to allow levitation and open cities, and work on the game-play and story. Why does every game need to have cutting-edge graphics now?