Graphics Don't Make The Game

[Zeek]

I'm getting sick of seeing all these comments on TTG's YouTube account about how their latest Jurassic Park trailer looks like crap, how the game will probably be crap, and so many people will claim it will fail because it doesn't look real enough.

When are people who play games going to realize that it isn't all about graphics. It helps, sure, but I don't play games for the graphics. I play games for the stories and the compelling interaction between me as a player and whatever the scenario is in the game.

I wanted to see how the story of Back to the Future would play out in the TTG game, even though I have yet to play it and have been trying to find a commentary free "Let's play" of the final episode that doesn't feature a Rage Quit due to the Glass House bug.

I want to see where the Jurassic Park story goes and how it is handled knowing that it takes place during the movie.

The only reason I even care about graphics is because I know my computer right now can't handle the memory demand to render the raptors, even if they look like crap according to all those YouTube comments.

[doodo!]

Agreed. I like Simon 3D...

[DAISHI]

I'll be a crankety old man and blame it on console gaming mentality.

[coolsome]

I agree 100% most my fave games have bad graphics by today's standards.

[ted12]

Hey, look at DXHR, the graphics are kinda lame. It still has an 89 on Metacritic and I love it to death.

[Vanished]

For me it's not ALL about the graphics, but if they're done wrong it can be enough to diminish my play value a bit. I prefer stylized characters (ie MI, S&M, W&G) over attempted realism gone creepy. The uncanny valley isn't easy to traverse.

[coolsome]

Metal Gear Solid 1 is one of my fave games and they have no eyes in it :p
http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/vv27/DoctorJoker/solidsnake-johnlloyd.png

[DAISHI]

I actually still prefer the original to the remake, which got a little too John Woo on me.

[coolsome]

I actually still prefer the original to the remake, which got a little too John Woo on me.

I liked the AI better cos its easier to mess with the guards cos they don't automatically go on alert and find you when someone sees you. But yh the cutscenes where ridiculous like when Snake back fliped and kicked a stinger missile fired by the Hind-D.

[DAISHI]

i liked the ai better cos its easier to mess with the guards cos they don't automatically go on alert and find you when someone sees you. But yh the cutscenes where ridiculous like when snake back fliped and kicked a stinger missile fired by the hind-d.


lol

[Irishmile]

I do not really understand it... Some of those same people probably still really love the games they played 10 years ago with worse graphics... Just because its not cutting edge doesn't mean its not worth some time.

[RetroVortex]

Star Fox 64.

[GuruGuru214]

Wait, is that a reference to people still enjoying Star Fox 64 now, or to the fact that Star Fox 64 is a graphically enhanced remake of the SNES Star Fox?

[DAISHI]

Dammit Guru just blew my mind.

[RetroVortex]

Wait, is that a reference to people still enjoying Star Fox 64 now, or to the fact that Star Fox 64 is a graphically enhanced remake of the SNES Star Fox?

Well people must like it enough, for it to be remade for the 3DS! XD

Star Fox 64 is THE example of excellent design and is more than just a graphically enhanced remake of Star Fox.

Sure the basic gameplay and plot is the same, but everything else was improved dramatically.

[Ribs]

No, Graphics do make a game. They, however, do not need to have a high polygon count or high-res textures, but merely a style that suits a game. If TTG released a Jurassic Park game that looked like Kirby's Epic Yarn, it doesn't suit it.

[Alcoremortis]

I'll be a crankety old man and blame it on console gaming mentality.

Which is ironic, since you can get much better resolution on a nice gaming PC than you can on most consoles.

[DAISHI]

Which is ironic, since you can get much better resolution on a nice gaming PC than you can on most consoles.

Oh quite so. I'm running quite a rig myself. But I think the console wars have emphasized graphics to such a degree it's developed a bad emphasis on them.

[Alcoremortis]

Oh quite so. I'm running quite a rig myself. But I think the console wars have emphasized graphics to such a degree it's developed a bad emphasis on them.

And the thing is...after all of those so-called "good graphics", most of the time, I feel that the characters have so little expression that it seems barely worth the effort. Telltale has much more watchable graphics in the sense that their characters actually have facial expressions. I'm thinking mainly of ToMI when I say this, but it applies broadly to most of their games.

[Falanca]

Graphics do make the game. It just does not have to be consisting of realistic nigh-perfect 3d models everytime.


/troll

No, Graphics do make a game. They, however, do not need to have a high polygon count or high-res textures, but merely a style that suits a game. If TTG released a Jurassic Park game that looked like Kirby's Epic Yarn, it doesn't suit it.

...I should read the other posts before posting. You beat me to it dammit.

Anyway... On a different (and possibly unrelated) perspective, I think it takes also a vast amount of effort to make an appealing 2D game with gorgeous backgrounds and fluent animation, so... Effort wins nonetheless.

[ShaggE]

Funny thing is, when we achieve photorealism in games, we'll stop caring in record time as we adjust to it. It's like playing a game in a theater... it's AMAZING at first, but once you adjust (usually within minutes), you'll forget that the screen is mammoth and the sound is booming. The experience will be nigh indistinguishable from playing on a halfway decent TV.

[MusicallyInspired]

Graphics help. No one game element "makes" a game. It all works together. If the ingredients when combined all mesh well then they're good. Stories don't make a game either. The only thing that really possible can have a chance at "making" a game all by itself is gameplay. Mostly because that's how games started. No stories and incredibly crude graphics.

[Ribs]

Graphics help. No one game element "makes" a game. It all works together. If the ingredients when combined all mesh well then they're good. Stories don't make a game either. The only thing that really possible can have a chance at "making" a game all by itself is gameplay. Mostly because that's how games started. No stories and incredibly crude graphics.

I know of games that looked good, but played terribly and had no plot, of games that looked terrible and played awful, but had a good story, and of games that played great but had bad story and graphic design. All of these games are nearly exactly average from my point of view - deserving a 5.

Saying story makes a game is idiotic - gameplay is the most important feature. It is a game, after all. Then comes the story, and after that the graphics. But a good game has each of those in ways that suit the game.

[DAISHI]

I'm willing to play a game with average gameplay if I like the story.

[Ribs]

I'm willing to play a game with average gameplay if I like the story.

Yes, but if the game is Call of Duty but the plot is The Lord of the Rings you don't want to play the game. It's usually an okay game as long as it's okay in all three areas, or strong in a particular area.

There are some gays I play because they look nice (Pretty Much my only motivation for the first Puzzle Agent, although I later loved the gameplay and story)

[swedish_jedi]

Just to make one thing clear here: are we taking about graphics on a technical level, or are we taking about graphic aesthetics? Like what makes the better game: a powerful the graphics engine (think Battlefield 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FktL2pu2wE)), or interesting graphical aesthetic (think Okami (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG3FtX9cqo8)).

For me, aesthetics wins over power. I'd rather see a interesting art style than hyper-realistic graphics. But one can't work without the other, without good aesthetics you can't have good graphics. And I think it is the aesthetics that often makes the game (together with other parts of course).

[Ribs]

Graphics don't make a game, aesthetics do. But graphics make aesthetics if you want to be technical.

[Falanca]

I'm willing to play a game with average gameplay if I like the story.

I don't think it'll be as memorable unless it offers something of a gimmick when it comes to gameplay. I'm not saying it would be BAD or anything but those games with a kick of a different kind of gameplay are the ones always having a special place.

[WarpSpeed]

Storyline and gameplay are way more important than graphics. Graphics are most important if you've got a super duper PC and want to make your friends jealous, before they can buy something cheaper and faster in three months.

[MusicallyInspired]

Graphics are important. Don't rule them out completely. They're important to advance what's possible so we can try new thinks in new interesting ways. A certain art style, be it ultra-realistic, stylistic-realistic, or cel-shaded can be incredibly important to the charm of a game and sometimes the power is required to achieve that.

[Zeek]

No, Graphics do make a game. They, however, do not need to have a high polygon count or high-res textures, but merely a style that suits a game. If TTG released a Jurassic Park game that looked like Kirby's Epic Yarn, it doesn't suit it.
Yeah, but there's this huge mass of people out there that look at the raptors in TTG's JP game and are calling them crap. They are calling the human characters crap as well because they aren't photo-realistic. And I bet there's some troll out there who is looking at the scene where the triceratops flips the jeep and is unsatisfied that there's no shrapnel flying around in some fancy particle animation engine that TTG may or may not have on hand.

AND THEN COMPLETELY DISMISS THE GAME BASED ON THAT ALONE!

Funny thing is, when we achieve photorealism in games, we'll stop caring in record time as we adjust to it. It's like playing a game in a theater... it's AMAZING at first, but once you adjust (usually within minutes), you'll forget that the screen is mammoth and the sound is booming. The experience will be nigh indistinguishable from playing on a halfway decent TV. This echos the main criticism with LA Noire I kept reading in the months after its release. "It's AMAZING technology, but after a while, it just starts looking weird." In fact, the only compliment that relates to that criticism is that one reviewer said LA Noire has made some of the more photo realistic characters in other titles look stiff and boring in facial expressiveness. (Well, yeah, because they aren't actors being filmed and recorded....)

Just to make one thing clear here: are we taking about graphics on a technical level, or are we taking about graphic aesthetics?

...

For me, aesthetics wins over power. I'd rather see a interesting art style than hyper-realistic graphics. But one can't work without the other, without good aesthetics you can't have good graphics. And I think it is the aesthetics that often makes the game (together with other parts of course).
Aesthetics. Thanks for reminding me about that Extra Creditz episode on the same subject where the first thing they did was differentiate the two.

EDIT: And to all those that say "Graphics are important," what about pen & paper RPGs? Or even those text-based adventure games?

[DAISHI]

Graphics are important. Don't rule them out completely. They're important to advance what's possible so we can try new thinks in new interesting ways. A certain art style, be it ultra-realistic, stylistic-realistic, or cel-shaded can be incredibly important to the charm of a game and sometimes the power is required to achieve that.

Definitely. It's just there's a whole class of people who dismiss a game if it doesn't have uber graphics. Which is silly. Somebody said Duke Nukem Forever looked ugly... maybe compared to a lot of things I guess? I remember playing the original though so I know this new one isn't 'ugly'.



About my other point, of course I want good gameplay as well. Case in point, Batman: Arkham Asylum. Has a good plot (don't expect Hemmingway here, it's a comic book game) and the gameplay is fantastic. To contrast that, look at MGS4. Now, I really like MGS4, but I'd rather play Batman. I think the stealth is better in Batman, the combat is amazing, all the gameplay elements are better. I like MGS' story but I think the gameplay falters in a few ways. Also, convoluted storytelling has sort of worn on me after dealing with it for a decade.

[Chyron8472]

And yet your avatar is still Gray Fox.

[DAISHI]

I love Gray Fox! Again, I like MGS! It's not like I don't!

[MusicallyInspired]

Definitely. It's just there's a whole class of people who dismiss a game if it doesn't have uber graphics. Which is silly. Somebody said Duke Nukem Forever looked ugly... maybe compared to a lot of things I guess? I remember playing the original though so I know this new one isn't 'ugly'.

Whichever way they way to approach it, that's an argument over grahpics aesthetics and not graphics power, whether they want to admit it or not. These people just don't like non-realistic graphics because they think they're inferior.

In the case of Telltale, they're exaggerated animation style isn't inferior, but I am getting tired of it. I'm glad JP is finally moving beyond that.

[DAISHI]

See I'm not sure how much that's their intention or whether they've had the ability to. I wonder sometimes about how much success they've really had, their ability to upgrade their engine, etc.

[MusicallyInspired]

Whatever the case, it's getting tiring.

[Leplaya]

I was going to make a topic regarding on this, but as usual I'm beaten to the punch with it. The whole complaints regarding on the graphics is one of the reasons why I have stopped playing today's video games. Its just meaningless to the gamers just to bitch about the graphics over the other stuff(Story, characters, gameplay, and even the freaking soundtrack for god-sakes). And whats worst is that there are people that bitch about the PS1's and N64's graphics as well for the 3D. They forgot that 3D was beginning to be used for video games. Some of the great games that are known have been known for "blocky" graphics.

I keep telling this to every single fanboy of Call of duty, if you want real graphics. Go to war, you'd find REAL graphics there. Video games are supposed to take us away from reality, not to be reminded of it.

[RetroVortex]

Minecraft.

[Zeek]

See I'm not sure how much that's their intention or whether they've had the ability to. I wonder sometimes about how much success they've really had, their ability to upgrade their engine, etc.Look at Sam & Max Season 2 and then look at Monkey Island. When LucasArts came in to help them revive Monkey Island, they got a HUGE overhaul in their graphical engine and dynamic lighting. Almost overnight, from the looks of things. Their animation even improved with their facial expressions and how many things they can have animate in the background. That upgrade has been used in S&M:TDP and BTTF.

I'm curious as to if they got an outside investor for JP because of how big that game's overhaul is. Universal probably threw enough money in TTG's direction to do this second overhaul of their tools.

[MusicallyInspired]

Since when did LucasArts "come in to help" revive Monkey Island? All they did was offer a license to do whatever with it. The logo in the introduction is just there because they're the copyright owners.

Unless I'm wrong and they did have some hand in it. I'm guessing now. Nothing more than quality assurance.

[Hassat Hunter]

Graphics are overrated. While it's nice to have something to look at these days, it doesn't have to be cut-edge. I pretty much run 3 years behind the games produced (budget bin ftw!), and seriously, I don't care.
Sadly, even the quality in the budget bin falters as less and less good games get made.

Too bad good graphics still sells to these crazy masses, or surely developers would have gone " **** this, I am not going to spend so much more to have pretty graphics" a long time ago, to the benefit of gaming in general (less sales needed meaning more risks possible, more time to develop for the REAL things to improve the game etc. etc.

It gets kind of tiresome to see "This RPG doesn't have Crytek grapixz!" or "this game doesn't have LA:Noire faces" (a new popular) one, completely not getting the point that these games do not have it because then they would cost more than they bring in...
*sigh*

Nostalgic on 23. How much worse can it get?

[der_ketzer]

Nostalgic on 23. How much worse can it get?

I was nostalgic at 14.

[Alcoremortis]

Over the summer, I bought a game, Trine,simply because it was really pretty and I wanted my new computer to have something that would look pretty on it. Turned out to also be an excellent game that incorporated platforming, physics puzzles, and RPG elements all in the same package. Though, frankly, even if it hadn't been, even if it had had horrible gameplay issues and plotholes up the wazoo, I probably would have kept playing it to soak in the lush environments...so I guess graphics did make that game?

But seriously, that has got to be the most aesthetically pleasing game I have ever played.

[Vainamoinen]

But seriously, that has got to be the most aesthetically pleasing game I have ever played.

Trine! I could have bought it for some cents online, but instead bought two retail versions at 5,00 € each. But it was the gameplay that drew me towards Trine and not the graphics. Still, the game achieved much with a relatively simple graphics engine. A 2D game that fakes 3D; a lot of repetitive environmental elements; a reevaluation of gaming principles from 15 years ago with the possibilities of today.

Some people in this thread have already tried to define what they actually mean by "graphics". That's an important step, I think. Quite possibly, many gamers define what they find aesthetically pleasing by counting polygons. And if that's their opinion, they are entitled to it, and I try to not look down on them. Beauty is entirely subjective, thank God. After all, I find pleasure in lovingly crisp and detailed texture.

If we define "graphics" as the visual part of games, we could put almost anything into the definition. For my part, f. e. classical picture composition comes into play as well as the ability to get the characters' emotions across via facial expression. That storytelling issure is an area of concern to me, and of course that's "graphics" on a scale from "bad" to "good".

Pictures are important to us. They are the most immediate element in a game, and necessarily the most important in telling a visual story. A good game might go without state-of-the-art graphics, but let's be serious: It is a major part of the art of video games. And I want video game designers to be artists, foremost!

[vehemt]

It depends on the genre of the game. Graphical adventure game, I'd like the graphics to look good or have great artistic styling. Competitive online fps, I turn my settings to low so I blast people.

[VeronicanPlay]

I still love to play the old Crash Bandicoot and Spyro for PS1, I totally adore those games and the graphics are not good at all. But I love them because of story, game play and the music.
They are real gems. :)

[SHODANFreeman]

I wouldn't mind Jurassic Park's graphics if it were actually going to be a game, and not just a poorly animated overpriced machinima that makes you press buttons to avoid death periodically.

[Zeek]

I wouldn't mind Jurassic Park's graphics if it were actually going to be a game, and not just a poorly animated overpriced machinima that makes you press buttons to avoid death periodically.
But that's only half of the gameplay. The other half is the adventure puzzling part.

[SHODANFreeman]

But that's only half of the gameplay. The other half is the adventure puzzling part.

Calling QTEs that immediately restart if you fail "gameplay" is pretty hilarious to start with, but I also have no faith that the game will even contain a single puzzle beyond "click the thing to make something happen" after seeing all the gameplay videos and my experience with BttF.

[MusicallyInspired]

Jurassic Park right now seems like nothing more than a glorified DVD Player game.

[Friar]

Since when did LucasArts "come in to help" revive Monkey Island? All they did was offer a license to do whatever with it. The logo in the introduction is just there because they're the copyright owners.

Unless I'm wrong and they did have some hand in it. I'm guessing now. Nothing more than quality assurance.

Well, I'm sure I read somewhere that they had some influence of character designs or something. I think I remember seeing it in the footnote of one of the concept art pieces on the DVD (something along the lines of the silhouette being wrong.)

[MusicallyInspired]

Yeah, so just quality assurance. They didn't really help do anything they just signed off on what they thought was appropriate.