Do graphics matter? : V - Skyrim

» Sat May 28, 2011 11:55 am

Like I said earlier, good graphics and good gameplay don't have to be mutually exclusive.

» Sat May 28, 2011 11:31 pm

I said this earlier.

Don't we know it now?

Awwww PC is way betturz than dumb consoles Cuz PC haz bettur graphiks and modz.

Xbux is teh lamest box of lameness. And the penus statiun is ewww.

Seriously. Everytime a thread has said something about PC and consoles people must say that THEIRS is the best and than there will be a ''so called'' war...

It really annoys me!

Can't we all agree all computers/PC's/Consoles are awesome?

Thanks. If people would have read my original post, I specifically stated that my intentions were not to bring up the PC vs. Console debate. Only to provide an outlet for people to voice their opinions on why graphics matter or do not matter to them.

Now keep the console bashing to a minimum, please.

» Sat May 28, 2011 11:25 am

Let's get a few things clear. For one thing, graphical progress has been a gradual change that's always been occuring. It has nothing to do with now, it has to do with the advance of technology and the advance of the video game community. No, but you're right. Graphics aren't important, so we shouldn't have even bothered to progress past Pong's graphics... or better yet, we shouldn't have added graphics to games and started calling them video games in the first place, right? You see where I'm going with this?

On another note, Bethesda has pretty much always pushed the boundaries on graphics and technical aspects, in general. Arena was a pain to get running on computers of its day. I'm not sure about Daggerfall, but Morrowind was cutting-edge, too, and so was Oblivion. It has nothing to do with now because it's just been happening. Graphical advancement is a constant throughout video gaming history.

Another part of this is that graphics typically aren't alone. Oblivion's engine is largely unoptimized. They needed to make a new, more optimized one , in my opinion. Better graphics come as a by-product of more advanced gaming engines which, in turn, allow for more advanced physics, animations, graphics, sounds, AI, day-and-night systems, weather systems (part of graphics), optimization for a smoother running game (Where was occlusion culling twenty years ago?), the potential for better gameplay, and just more stuff, in general.

Now, I would like to ask a question. For what purpose do people oppose the very foundation of what separates video games from other types of games? Why does it seem that picking on graphics and the modern day is considered a "cool" thing to do on the internet? We have a freaking hand-held console able to run PS3 games, now, and how can anyone possibly say they don't care? If Skyrim has a view from the peaks of one of its mountains that will both leave you jaw dangling in awe and make you acrophobic at the same time, would you not be impressed? I've stated this before, but from an objective view, graphics do matter in a video game. My reasoning:

graphics = video

gameplay = game

graphics + gameplay = video game

That is a truth that cannot be denied. If you personally disagree and honestly think story is more important than either of them then, and I don't mean this out of anger, I think what you're looking for is a book. I read plenty of books, myself, but the premise of video games does not rank graphics as meaningless nor does it place story above it's two key elements. Video game stories have always been weak in comparison to stories from other forms of media that are based around the focus on stories... such as books. I'm sorry, but it is the truth. :shrug:

Very, very well said. I've been saying the same things on here several times over.

» Sat May 28, 2011 2:40 pm

If graphics are low - we should all be playing D&D with dice. Now I will happy fir up my Atari and play Yars revenge but if a company made that game today I would not buy it. I would not play a text only game depsite how good the adventure is. I would not pay a modern game with Morrowind graphics regardless of how good the gameplay is. When a AAA company is thaking by AAA cash I expect AAA graphics.

» Sat May 28, 2011 9:12 pm

In my opinion, graphics are supposed to look good for what they are, and balance out along with every other element in the game. It's not about how high the resolution is or how many shaders are implemented, but how well the graphics are utilized to 'feel right.'

I keep going back to Minecraft, so let me use that as an example; the graphics are very simple, yet they are crisp, clear, and easily distinguishable - all tied in with the gameplay, which I find really fun. What other game let's you dig a whole system of tunnels or build multiplexes, let alone make enough TNT to put MASSIVE craters in the world?

Compare that to other games where the textures look low-res, as in 'blurred, spotty and butt-ugly.' Oblivion's LOD textures are somewhat notorious for this fact. Other times, you get graphics where you can't distinguish one thing from another. And then there times when the graphics can make a game take on an unnatural quality, and leaves you feeling strange (comparing Doom 3 to Half-Life 2; while Half-Life 2 still feels natural for a game from 2004, Doom 3 simply looks and feels weird to me.)

» Sat May 28, 2011 7:51 am

Graphics ar important but come after gameplay. If the gameplay is shallow and boring I don't care about photo-realism at all.

» Sat May 28, 2011 9:01 am

They do to an extent, but gameplay and story are a billion times more important.

I have played a hell of a lot more minecraft than I have crysis.

» Sat May 28, 2011 8:04 pm

Yes and no. I love great graphics, love to see the envelope pushed (though that seems to be stagnating these days due to the extended life of the consoles

) but I'd rather not have game play sacrificed for graphics. I'm an artist, and want my games to be gorgeous, but ultimately game play comes first. Which is why to this day I still play some old SNES games like Zelda: A Link to the Past. heh

» Sat May 28, 2011 5:09 pm

I don't think there is anything wrong with improving graphics. After all, I think the majority of gamers (myself included) prefer beautiful scenery over scenery that is uninteresting or unimaginitive. I think the problem is when too much emphasis is on graphics/visuals, and it begins to detract from other components in the game (such as story, mechanics, variety of options, etc.). Games are a lot more sophisticated these days, and we are almost to the point of photo-realism in terms of graphics. But, it seems to come at a cost, as higher poly-counts and whatnot consume more resources (time, computing power, disc space, et al). I think that many feel (myself included) that graphics have reached an acceptable level of realism, and it is now time to redirect focus (and resources) toward the other aspects of the game.

» Sat May 28, 2011 3:44 pm

the graphics need to be good and also done right. (that includes art style)
if not, i dont think i would be able to get as immersed

think about it, what would immerse you more

-hiding from a dragon flying overhead, and the only way you know its there is by the sound of its wing flaps because everything is encased in a thick cloud of fog. the lighting and shadows are done perfectly and there is a genuine sense of survival about it

OR

-hiding from a poorly animated dragon behind a low rez boulder waiting for it too disappear

in either scenario, the lead up and event is both the same, but the effect and emotions produced are quite varied.

» Sat May 28, 2011 4:29 pm

I voted other, as it does matter somewhat, but its the artstyle that counts. Take Borderlands for example, it has really cartoony graphics while being surrounded by a ton of realistically graphiced shooters, and it works because that's how Borderlands rolls. If the art style matches the game, then you are good, quality of textures comes after gameplay and story.

» Sat May 28, 2011 10:46 am

I was recently looking over the numerous threads on here filled with people belittling the idea of great graphics, in favour of a better story or game play. Sure, I understand this.. but the entire Gameplay>Story>Graphics argument is flawed and does not encompass the entire video game experience as a whole. (I will elaborate on my view point below..) I was just a moment ago trying to reply to a thread about this very issue, but it was locked due to the amount of console bashing that was happening before I could voice my opinion. This thread is NOT intended to bash consoles or bring up the PC vs. Console debate in the least, it is merely here to act as a survey of sorts -- just to be clear.

I will use, for reference's sake only, a quote I found in an older thread on a similar issue, and if you look through some of the other threads relating to graphics, you'll likely find very similar arguments with all sorts of derails back and forth from topic to topic, unfortunately. This thread, however, I wish only to be about personal opinions on whether or not graphics are important to YOU while playing any given game. Those of you in favour, this may be due to the increased immersion it provides, etc., and should not include opinions on why you think consoles are crap, and why PC's pwn, or vice versa. If you disagree with a pro-graphic approach, I want to hear why. Let's keep this as civil as possible, and in light of that, the quote I am going to use will be left anonymous. (My apologies to its original author, do not take this as a direct attack if you recognize your statement here. I am only using it as an example amongst many others I have seen, in order to demonstrate the varieties of viewpoints and my arguments against some of them). Hope I've made myself clear so far, so without further adieux, here is where I stand:

These are A L L important aspects of a video game. I would rather play a game with great graphics and a great story as WELL, over a game with poor graphics and just a great story. What is wrong with ensuring technology and "eye candy" is up to date with the cutting edge, while still maintaining a strong story line and game play mechanic? It would take JUST as long to implement a previous version of Direct X, etc. over a newer version into a game engine to ensure its visual depth is as robust as its intended story. Game play and story alone does not define a video game, you also have to traverse a 3-dimensional world in order to experience the story. If it isn't as believable as it could be graphically, unless done on purpose and it was the intention of the art team to begin with (WoW, for instance), the immersion factor will suffer accordingly. All elements of game development work together and complement one another. If graphics don't matter, why not just stick with the old NES and we can all play Zelda? It had a fantastic story, great game play for its time, so why should we have to improve technology to make video games better, right? Wrong. We owe almost all developments over the years leading to the modern technology we see today in our video games to the fact that developers pushed the envelope and engineers decided to manufacture more powerful components. That's like saying the Lord of the Rings movies should have been shot in a basemant somewhere, who cares about how the world is presented? Why did they need to hire a CGI team in the first place when they could have just painted a dog black and gave it a lizard mask, slapped some wings on it and called it a dragon.. the contradictions in all these arguments you guys bring up are astounding. All advancements in tech ensure the immersion factor can advance along with it. Write a damn good story, absolutely.. who doesn't want a great story to experience in a 3d world? At the same time, why not make the world as visually stunning as possible for those who have the option.. how will that ever NOT benefit the experience as a whole? What.. in the world.. is wrong with that?

:poke:

The thing is, EVERY ES GAME has eyecandy and amazing gameplay and depth

bliviongate:

» Sat May 28, 2011 10:44 am

Graphics matter but Gameplay matters a lot more. Ever play Minecraft?

» Sat May 28, 2011 10:10 am

Graphics matter but Gameplay matters a lot more. Ever play Minecraft?

Minecraft is not a AAA title with a multi million dollar budget. It is not expected of Minecraft to push the envelope in terms of visual immersion. Minecraft has nothing to do with ES. Play Minecraft over ES then, or tell Bethesda to utilize Minecraft's engine if visual immersion has nothing to do with overall game enjoyment. Gameplay, graphics, story, sound design, atmosphere, etc. ALL make a great game, great. Remove any development element within a game and it will suffer accordingly, due to the fact that the standards are always increasing with technology and advancements in modern gaming capabilities.

But of course, if people have been actually reading this thread, several of us who are in favour of graphics have already went over this. Several times.

» Sat May 28, 2011 11:55 pm

Minecraft is not a AAA title with a multi million dollar budget. It is not expected of Minecraft to push the envelope in terms of visual immersion. Minecraft has nothing to do with ES. Play Minecraft over ES then, or tell Bethesda to utilize Minecraft's engine if visual immersion has nothing to do with overall game enjoyment. Gameplay, graphics, story, sound design, atmosphere, etc. ALL make a great game, great. Remove any development element within a game and it will suffer accordingly, due to the fact that the standards are always increasing with technology and advancements in modern gaming capabilities.

But of course, if people have been actually reading this thread, several of us who are in favour of graphics have already went over this. Several times.

And minecraft is only in Alpha

» Sat May 28, 2011 12:13 pm

Graphics matter, but almost everything else is more important...Gameplay and RPG mechanics, story, quests and characters, "immersion factor", combat, art style and soundtrack.

» Sat May 28, 2011 9:12 pm

As long as it does not interfere with gameplay.

Why wouldn't you want good graphics to interfere with gameplay?

Good graphics open more doors for gameplay.

» Sat May 28, 2011 12:31 pm

well, now that bethesda have the engine nice i should hope that the engine coders arent sitting on their asses and are actualy optimizing the engine they created/adding DX11

» Sat May 28, 2011 1:05 pm

And minecraft is only in Alpha

It's been in beta for a month.

:celebration:

» Sat May 28, 2011 8:17 am

Personally - and whose opinion would I serve but mine - graphics don't matter. Neither do animations, cooking, or multi-slot, armor sets. I want a story, and I want fantasy. The rest follows.

» Sat May 28, 2011 9:31 am

I like a game to wow me with a great look. I don't think there has to be the absolute top of the line features, though. If the game itself is frustrating, unplayable, or insulting in it's content, a pretty game is still a steaming pile of poo.

I am a little disappointed that Skyrim won't have some of the cooler graphical effects, but I ain't gonna bad mouth the devs for it, or threaten to hold back my $50.00 or $100.00 because of it. I would need to spend another $130.00 to take advantage of those features any way. ( not that I won't be buying a new video card before then. ) If I couldn't spare the money for a new video card I wouldn't feel disappointed that I couldn't run the game at all. (been there in the past)

» Sat May 28, 2011 7:08 pm

Skyrim is more about tons of nutrition in every bite rather than sugar-coated empty calories.

» Sat May 28, 2011 7:26 am

Yes, graphics always matter, and style is what's important.

Skyrim is more about tons of nutrition in every bite rather than sugar-coated empty calories.

:liplick:

» Sat May 28, 2011 7:51 am

Dude, nowadays why wouldnt graphics matter?

» Sat May 28, 2011 11:36 am

without them it wouldn't be a video game to some extent. you need graphics but for sure they do not make the game they only enhance it.