I like everything as detailed as possible, but I would sacrifice small details for the overall picture.
What I mean is that you can create several very detailed buildings that look very nice... or you can create single pieces of buildings, and combine them into thousands of unique structures. If you do the latter, you will most likely have to sacrifice detail level in some manner, so as to reduce ugly seams and clipping problems and keep your tileset flexible.
For example, it's almost impossible to create a town with the Imperial City tileset from Oblivion that is shaped in any other way than the Imperial City's districts. At least, not without getting some strange structures somewhere.
I'm also really a fan of those interior tilesets, as opposed to complete interiors, because the latter get repetitive so fast.

As long as the art design is excellent, then I really don't care so much about the level of detail on the meshes, or if the textures are a bit more low-res than what's possible.

...yeah. That counts for me as graphics, I don't know. As far as shaders, shadows, draw distance, and viewable-when-distant stuff goes, just give me everything the engine has to offer, I'm a svcker for that.

This.
Im actually a little surprised at how many people find graphics important.

Graphics are important because they encompass the 3-dimensional world you're playing in. Morrowind looked fantastic for its time. It doesn't any more. Oblivion looked amazing for its time. Skyrim looks only slightly better, 5 years later. You can't honestly say that if you had the choice, and the hardware to support it, that you would rather play Morrowind as it was when it was released years ago, over if it was re-released now with current or next gen tech. Game development is an evolving process, and the graphics are just as important to immersion as many other factors that make up the game as a final product. That, among many other arguments, are why people enjoy high immersion visuals.

I can honestly say i have no desire to play Morrowind with updated graphics, which i can do with MGE but choose not to.

I guess i shouldnt be surprised people place so much stock in pretty graphics, 90% of games made these days are all graphics and no substance, i guess people have just become accustomed to it. :shrug:
And i disagree with your statement that graphics are important to immersion, i am far more immersed when playing Baldurs Gate then i have ever been playing oblivion.

Sure, and I can respect that you find more immersion in older games. That Morrowind example was hypothetical, and even though MGE still heightens the visual capacity of the game, it is still not anywhere close to what DX10/11 and current gen tech has to offer. I do not play games with nice graphics just because they have nice graphics, nor do I play games with no substance and enjoy them. I'm saying, that if the technology is available to make Skyrim as visually appealing as possible, why not implement it as well, with the incredible lore and story line that TES has to offer? It just makes sense to me. And, obviously, I do not stand alone in this viewpoint.

Baldur's Gate had fantastic graphics for its time. Plus, being isometric 2d (only recently have 3d really catched up with these when it comes to how pleasant the graphics look), they still look don't look too bad for tis age. Maybe they were also shallow..

Sure, if it doesnt hurt development then meh, make it look good.
But if it comes down to graphics or content i will choose content everytime, most definately at the expense of graphics.

And to again answer the original question of "Do graphics matter", No, not one bit.

Absolutely. I have nothing against replaying outdated games, graphically speaking. If the game is enjoyable and has a high replay value, I'm all for it. My argument is not based upon whether or not older games are less appealing due to their tech being outdated. If a game with Morrowind-esque graphics was released today, it would receive negative feedback in its visual appeal due to the sheer laziness of its developers not integrating current-gen tech. It just makes so much more sense to keep up with the current technology than to maintain older, outdated methods. Technology advances at an exponential rate, and it's just somewhat disappointing to not have that same "wow" factor with Skyrim. It looks great, but not as good as it could. Will it have a great story? I'm sure it will, and all of us on here will end up playing it, no doubt in my mind there. But would a lot more people be attracted to it if it introduced or showcased next gen or cutting edge technology? Absolutely. Especially to those of us in the high end PC market. No harm in that.

All im saying is Content > Graphics
The immediate "wow" factor is not what keeps a person interested for hundreds of hours its the content.
Next Gen graphics attracts people who will play it for 2 weeks then move onto the next COD, which is fine, i couldnt care less as long as this "cutting edge technology" does not detract from the amount of content within the game, and if it does, well, then theres the harm in that.

Wonderful thread. I agree with you. Graphics matter, not paramountedly, but the do matter.

I am starting to think alot of people who say that graphics break the immersion. Sorry if this comes out wrong. When I read this, this reminds me of the time I bought a toy for my daughter, and then my son many years later. What did they say? They said, "Daddy, where are the lights? Where is the sounds?" So you telling me you guys have no imagination?

Maybe I am old. I remember playing Pong, that I was playing tennis. No immersion was broken because I didn't have a net, or I coudn't back hand or have a forhand or net or lines to divide the screen. I was playing tennis. I believe for people who use the excuse "there is no immersion or it breaks the immersion" don't have much imagination and have to have everything done for them.

Oh I agree, that graphics are important, but the exucse it breaks immersion, I don't buy that excuse. As for putting a lizard mask on a dog and calling it a dragon, well there is a difference between cheesy and a difference between just being awfull. Lots of movies have awsome effects, but is a bad movie because of bad story and acting. Lots of movies are great because of good acting and story, but still have bad effects. As your example, Lord of the Rings, it was simple, Peter Jackson, didn't want cheesy when he made the movie. He respected J R R Tolkiens work. While he changed alot story wise, he didn't want to make it cheesy visually. He never expected to make billions of dollars when he was making the effects. Instead of just doing Ok graphics, he wanted to push himself as a director, as a special effects worker. He never hired anyone outside for graphics. He did it because he wanted to see how far he could go. This is why his LotR movies are great. He wanted to do everything, not just the graphics, where alot of movies fail when the movie is based on graphics and everything else suffers.

We humans are fickle. We all like to look at nice and pretty things visually. This doesn't mean it has to be jaw dropping awsome graphics, but it's nice to have. As long as the story is good, and the acting/game play (movie/game) is good, effects/graphics don't need to be awsome but they usually need to be good. The reason some games have jaw dropping graphics, is because the person making the movie or video game likes to do things, push the envelope of wha tcan be done, Or they need to stand out from a market that is over saturated with movies/video games.

So we have movies like Avatar or Star Wars just because James Cameron and George Lucas just like to do things that haven't been done before and just push the envelope just because they can. They don't do it for money but because they want to push themselves. Problem is, once we see this, we as humans don't want to see less, so everyone else tries to catch up. Since they are trying to catch up, they put more emphisis on effects/graphics. It's hard for us to go back to what we had before. That is why most of us, can't go back to old NES games because we are use to what we have now.

Yes I like nice eye candy. I will play a mediocer or bad graphics, if the game play and story intruge me. I wil not play a game that has drop dead awsome graphics and the game play and story svcks. So while graphics are nice to have, they are not why I play the game. after 2 to 12 hours, you don't even notice the graphics much since it's the game play that enthrawls you when you play. Yes you might step back once in a while to notice the sun set/rise or the moon or waterfall or what not. But if the gameplay or story is not there, you will not be playing enough to enjoy said sunset/rise or moon.

So it's a balance of everthing. Nice graphics, great story and good game play.

Totally agree with you. I never said content was less important than graphics, or that it should get more attention and hinder the development of the story, I just feel that visuals should be held with a very high regard as well within development. Instead of Content > Graphics, I would go so far as to say content and graphics are just as important as each other. Nowadays even more so. Push the envelope visually, and still continue to refine game play and write fantastic stories as Beth has been doing all this time.

However, the immediate "wow" factor is what caters to at least 25-50% of new arrivals (consumers) within a franchise. The lore and game play they discover afterward. Realistic visuals and atmospheric sound design, etc. appeal to the senses, while story appeals to the imagination and immerses you even more so as a character within the 3-dimensional world. After all, it is virtual, and as technology pushes the envelope even further, I would expect huge budget AAA titles like the 5th installment in the Elder Scrolls series to at least cater to a cutting edge demand.

I don't think anyone is saying that graphics>gameplay, but to say that graphics only attract casual gamers is totally untrue. I have been a hardcoe gamer my entire life, and to me, a games graphics are very important. In a game like the ES, where exploration is very important, it is even more important. As much as I love the gameplay, if the world was hideous to look at and incredibly boring, I wouldn't have much motivation to explore it. I think that is why the ES games are so great; they have amazing graphics, story, AND gameplay. If you take any one of those out, you still have a great game, but not as great as you would expect from an ES game.

Anyway, I'm not as blown away by the visuals I have seen so far as I was hoping, but they are definitely very nice looking. I think after seeing the jump from Morrowind to Oblivion, I had my hopes too high. Then again, that was a generational jump, while this is not. Overall though, the graphics are more than adequate for me, and I have no complaints. I cannot wait to see the new animation though, that will be the kicker for me!

Yes, I know what you mean.

But I dont think Ive explained well enough what I mean.

When I played those graphically very simple games the things that gripped me were the effort made into making it 'a good game' It didnt matter that the symbol for an amulet was §, the backstory and real sense of danger (most those games would kill you for a misstep) made it a good game.
Not too long ago I replayed some very old games, NES 8 bit, DOS, etc. And what I noticed was that the lack of good graphics forced game makers to make that extra effort. Games back then were funny, fiendishly difficult , simple but gripping.
Titles like Day of the Tentacle or Monkey Island, Leisure suit Larry or Zelda I, and yes, Daggerfall, all have that 'zest'.
Its hard to put into words.

I feel that too often nowadays nice graphics is confused with content. Like all the comments on this forum on how a spell should look, not as 'lame' as last times.
While I couldnt give a hoot about how a spell looks, I care for what it does.

I have yet to see a single 'modern' game that has that spark, that soul, that fire. Fable never had it. Mass effect felt cardboard to me. Sorry, oblivion didnt have it either.
Last game that I played that I felt really 'tried' was Morrowind.

And I think its sad that gamemakers in general tend to focus on the flashy popular side of things, and ignore that large group of lifelong gamers that likes their games to have a bite, not just a nice package.

So thats my opinion on things like graphics really. Its the icing on the cake, the paint on the egg, its not the substance.

:celebration:

I would ideally like a game with both great gameplay, a great story, and beautiful graphics. However, while I can enjoy a game with a great story and gameplay but poor graphics, I cannot enjoy a game with a poor story/gameplay but lots of eyecandy. Crysis, for instance, does absolutely nothing for me. Aside from the occasional moment at looking at the scenery, I find the game very boring. However, I'm still playing Morrowind and Baldur's Gate II (admittedly, I use many graphics enhancing mods for Morrowind, but I would still play it even without those).

Likewise, I can't enjoy a game with a good story if the gameplay is lousy. This is one of my problems with many JRPGs which play more like interactive movies, with more time spent in cutscenes than actual game play.

So, yes, I think gameplay>story>graphics. It's a game, and if I don't like the gameplay, the rest is for naught. If I want a good story, I'll read a book. If I want beautiful images, I will look at art. Games are for playing.

GRAPHICS DON'T MAKE THE GAME!!!!!!!
I don't care if the game's graphics are at Arena-level, or even worse, I just care about the gameplay.
As long as the game mechanics and gameplay are good, graphics don't matter. I've played my fair share of terrible-looking games who's gameplay was excellent, such as Arena, Fallout 1 and Baldur's Gate. Unless the graphics are so terrible that you can't see what's going on in-game, then graphics don't matter to me.

Great post! However, I think you guys are missing the big picture here. We were painting on cave walls way before we were writing good stories. Visuals are a very important part of communication. For thousands of years, the best way to tell a good story was through word of mouth or the written word. Painters and (much later) photographers were limited to a static image until people could finally see it in motion. Today, technology is advancing fast enough to allow storytellers, like movie directors and game designers. to tell their tales in a far more immersive way than ever before. In the birth of cinema and special effects, they were limited by the actual cost of practical effects and the laws of physics. With the arrival of the digital era, the obstacles to create believable fictional universes are being challenged every day. That's why George Lucas and James Cameron are obsessed with their new toys. 3d cinema is still in its infancy, but can you picture its true potential? It will not make everything else obsolete (we will always have books and paintings), but it will certainly change how new generations will define of cinema in the future. With that said, not every story deserves to be told.

It's said nothing can surpass the human imagination and that our brain is the best computer out there. But there will come the time when machines will break that barrier. Virtual reality is the next big step and it's not far away. You may say that graphics don't matter too much because Pong was just fine the way it was. But Pong was a major breakthrough in technology. It was inconceivable pior to integrated circuits. And it was only sucessful because people were willing to keep affording new technology. Progress never halts, so don't feel sorry for your daughter if she is going to live the days of 3d cinema and mind controlled videogames. She'll probaby remember these early toys with the same degree of nostalgia you mentioned.

You may argue pretty things limit people's imagination, but I actually think it gives them an extra layer of reality to play with. Fantasy has always been escapism for most of us, and immersion will always be a big factor. A game, a movie or even book will always be a product of someone's imagination. But the way you allow yourself to interact with them, that will always be a product of yours. We may not be QUITE there yet, and this uncanny valley is what bothers many people when CGI is overused or when games look good but not GREAT. But like every leap in technology, it's a work in progress. And as games get more and more realistic, but not life like, there will be those missing the good old days when "the mind did the rest".

No offense, but this makes a good point. I also thought the story for Morrowind was played out better with the complexities of politics, etc., however I recall many people whining about various aspects of that story as well. It's just another "kill the bad guy" story filled with endless fetch and kill quests all the way to the end, and you're the hero. I also liked Oblivion's story, and the fact that I wasn't the hero at the end of the day was fine with me. It's obvious that they wanted more political complexity in Oblivion from game features that are inactive as well as comments made by Todd H and/or Pete H, but they just couldn't pull it off. I'm ok with that because I understand that they have limits in what they are able to do in a limited amount of time.

I enjoy good graphics and I'd like a good story to go along with it. I'm confident that they'll do their level best to provide both.

I checked off graphics for the poll although I'd be fine with less than cutting edge graphics like Kalarn because I love the kind of games that Bethesda has been making. Single player, first person perspective, Medieval fantasy role playing, open game world. It's my kind of sand box.

Peace, +Petrose

For your statement that Graphics and Content are as important as each other i completely disagree, words cannot describe how much i disagree.
Developers need to stop trying to out do eachother on visuals and start coming up with some actually interesting concepts for their games because as the years go on the visual quality inceases but the complexity decreases, and i find that a little depressing. If this current trend continues games will continue to go downhill IMO.

Honestly for anyone who thinks great graphics are needed to make a great game that will generate alot of sales, look at Minecraft.

Just played the Crisis 2 demo on Xbox Live.... I was bored within a half hour. Graphics aren't everything. But we do know they'll be better than Oblivion's graphics..

I completely agree with the need for a video game's content to engage the player more so than graphics at times, but with today's technological standards and possibilities in terms of visuals, including one and then omitting or just streamlining the other is just pure laziness, unless a restricted budget will not allow for technological advancement. The reason someone playing pong in its hay day thought they were playing tennis was because it was one of the first visual experiences of its kind. Someone playing a pen and paper RPG years ago might have loved the fact that the immersion factor was due to his/her imagination. Someone playing a modern video game in this day and age however, unless shrewdly and ridiculously stubborn or old fashioned, will not put down a game like Oblivion in favor of playing a game like pong or nethack. The gaming industry, along with the film industry, has been an evolving and exponentially advancing process. On the contrary, a director simply would not obtain the rights to the LOTR franchise in this modern age and do a mediocre job at presenting it. Of course Jackson knew he was going to make his face on the films, it's LOTR for crying out loud lol, and he has that "if you're going to do it, do it right" mentality that I am in favour of.

The point I have been trying to make is this: if the technology advances, and is readily available for those who have the budget, it is simply not acceptable to omit the possibilities of further enhancing the product. Visuals are NOT what makes a video game, or a movie, I don't know how many times I've said this.. but if the franchise or the product already has an incredible story line, why even bother maintaining outdated methods of presentation if the opportunity for even broader immersion is out there? Visual standards are constantly on the rise, so are the ways stories are told, the ways sound is designed, etc. There are countless examples of the demand to keep up with the pace in this modern society - If older films can be remastered to include surround sound and high definition, how could this not be a smart thing to do unless the film was recorded using terrible equipment in the first place? Why would the desire for high definition have surfaced in the first place, if all consumers were just merely content with what they had? If this were the case, our species would still be hunting and gathering and not feeling the need to advance and make life easier on ourselves. That is not the point of technology, and I'm sure in 10 or 20 years when video games and films end up looking 100x more impressive than they do now, this argument will be seen under a much more accepted light. Just as people many years ago playing pong thought they were playing tennis, a kid playing Wii sports today thinks he/she is playing tennis. It's intimately interwoven and inevitable, so to undermine the advancements in technology that we've watched develop over the years and just label all the new flash and visual awe we've been able to create as useless, is just silly. Not every game or film has a good story. Not everyone is good at writing good stories. Many directors go for all flash, no substance.. several others go for a strong balance of both. People will either use and/or abuse the available tech of the time, but to ignore new technology completely and simply maintain a dwindling (albeit, once cutting edge) practice, is also rather irrational. There is nothing wrong with ensuring cutting edge visuals as well as writing a great story. Unfortunately not a lot of companies can do both, where Beth has proven very capable of over the years.

Many people on here seem to have the "if it's not broken, don't fix it" mentality. Where I would say, "just because it works, it doesn't mean you shouldn't drastically improve it."

We all know Skyrim will more than likely boast an incredible story and refined game mechanics.. why is it unthinkable to want its technology to continue advancing? It will only add to the immersion even more so.

crysis 2 demo looks terrible anyways.

Fantastic post. :foodndrink:

First off I want to thank helion for making this even though he must have known the flaming that occur and for attempting to keep the discussion intelligent. As for my opinion graphics are definitely important to me. I love having breathtaking experiences, my absolute favorite moments are when I just get wowed by random little touches the developers add. Among my favorites is when I first got oblivion, coming down from bruma and seeing the entire imperial valley stretched out in front of me with the capital proudly placed in the center or just wandering the forests at night looking at the stars. But at the same time I regularly go back and play some older games just because I love the depth of the gameplay and story. As for me the main difference between gameplay, story, and graphics is that the only thing that is a requirement for me is gameplay if a can waste hours playing a game even if it has space invader graphics and the story line equivalent of pong it's a good game. What good graphics and an excellent story line does for me is immerse me into the world. In a rpg it needs to immerse the player which in my opinion needs a mix of graphics and story. Just my 2 cents : )