Why people would choose between great stories and great graphics?
 

After arguing with a lot of other Monkey Island fans, this question's being haunting my mind.
As soon as I asked for better graphics, people said that they prefer a game which is funny, humorous, with a great gameplay and a great story.
What I'm asking for is this: WHY do you think great graphics exclude every other aspect we know and love in the MI series?
Why do you always choose between graphics and story, graphics and gameplay, graphics and humour etc.?
What I love most about MI is certainly something that prescinds from graphics, but I don't see the reason why a great MI game shouldn't have great graphics.
One of the answers I mainly received was: "MI would be crap with Crysis graphics, stop asking for realism".
No one among us complaining ever asked for realism, don't you know the beautiful cartoony stile that can be obtained with great graphics?
No one's ever be speaking of realism.
Sure, I'd like the MI sea to look more like a sea, does this mean I'm not a "real" fan?
Some of you weren't even born when I was playing MI1 for the first time, so I don't understand where this kind of who-cares-of-graphics-doesn't-love-adventure-games came out from.
We the hardcore fans want just the best of the best for a MI game, so the complaining about the graphics is perfectly normal.
I think that a game, to be considered "great", must be great under every aspect, including graphics.
A great game is even greater with great graphics.
The paradox is that some of you consider great graphics like a flaw.
I agree when you all say "first other things, then graphics".
Well, OK, other things are there, we're all glad to see MI back.
Now, it's graphics' turn.

Edit: here's a simple example of awesomeness.
http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/att...chmentid=91823

Some of just think the graphics ARE great.

The graphics do look great imo. fed up of reading complaints about the graphics before anyone has played the game. if you feel the need to complain next month, be my guest

I agree whole-heartedly. The only problem that I tend to have is the fact that a lot of developers will put tons and tons of work into awesome graphics and kind of slack off on the gameplay and the story. However, when you finally get a game with all of the elements together, it's amazing. Personally, I wouldn't mind a somewhat more realistic Monkey Island game. I mean as long as we had bright colors and whatnot I think it could look pretty good being realistic (and by realistic I mean along the lines of Zelda: Twilight Princess much like someone else suggested only the colors would need to be brighter). The thing is most people are tired of companies pushing "pretty" games that don't actually offer fun gameplay. My main gripe about this is that a lot of people won't buy a Wii simply because it has inferior graphics to the Xbox 360 and PS3. Honestly, some of the best games I've played from this generation of consoles has been on the Wii. Do I wish the Wii had better graphics? Sure. Do graphics make the final choice in what system and/or game I buy? Not at all.

But I do agree with what you're saying, stating that Monkey Island (or any game for that matter) shouldn't have good graphics is ridiculous.

It's kind of what they've shown to display the game, though.

Nobody would be calling it pointless complaining if Guybrush Threepwood was a woman in the trailer, or if for example it was revealed that LeChuck's new form was a stack of buttery pancakes.

That, and it's not an exclusion or a pick between gameplay or graphics, it's an order (with varying importance). Obviously all MI fans want all aspects of the game to be top notch. However, personally I feel an adventure game fails miserably if the story or gameplay is not top notch. The graphics might be able to take a dent. This is a matter of personal preference & aspect priority. No-one is making fans pick between two important aspects, but merely showing their preference of applied top-notchness. Not really sure where this comes from, but I feel a lot of people are applying this same order of importance.

For older, ahm *cough*, more experienced, people this has to do with the history of video games. God created the world and man created video games (short version) and in the beginning there were almost two types of games:

Those which were coded very well, smooth scrolling, 300 blobs by 60fps, generating galaxies out of a few bytes, pure assembly and so on. Often these games lacked in gaming depth or gameplay. On the other side there were the games which were less advanced on the technical side but which offered a great story, game concept or features enabling this. Only in rare cases or after more time passed both diciplines came together and learned how to love each other. I remember quite some discussion with friends about this subject many years ago and when playing for instance some Cinemaware titles like "It cam from the Desert" were we thought, could you imagine how cool such games could be if it would be done well?!

Obviously it also is a planning and budget problem or simply a psychological issue or personal preferences. In bad cases companies, throw almost all their money at the engines, middleware and graphics and somehow forget to implement a convincing game on top of all this.

Even for indie developers this also can be a problem. Getting something running can, according to the game and you skills, be a really though thing and getting on your nerves so that you might end up with much less than you wanted to implement (which btw. always is the case). Again on the other side you might have the great designer who isn't this skilled in programming but has a pretty good idea. Until he doesn't find the right persons to team up with, it obviously will lack on the other aspects again, same goes with the art. Hey, did i already mention budgets, deadlines and managing all this properly?!

Obviously the industry also recognised this and evolved more and more. The good ones are bringing together talented people for each aspect. Still there are companies which care more about certain aspects than others in a specific game, which mostly depends on the game genre and again don't forget the budgets and deadlines as well as not everyone can afford developing a Shenmue or GTA4.

You could write pages about this considering much more aspects.

In theory it's easy but in real it takes some experience mixing the right ingredients and bringing it all together. That's why there aren't a dozens of Blizzards, VALVes or TTGs.

The graphics are ok, but only ok, they are not amazong ... but graphics are not the most important thing, if monkey island is funny and the puzzels well done then it will be a great game ...

but look at these screens:
http://www.gbase.ch/PC/shots/Ghost+P...8821/5375.html
ghost pirates graphics are really lots better then the ones from monkey island!

but perhaps the game is less fun to play, so if i have to choose between graphics or gameplay i would choose gameplay, cause i will remeber the game years after having played it because it was funny and told me an amazing story, a good adventure book is like reading a good book ... i not a huge monkey island fan because mi1 or 2 had amazing graphics but because the gameplay was great!

I never said good graphics was a flaw. I'd love to see incredibly detailed and realistic graphics. But I'm more than happy with what we've got. It's not a matter of choosing between them, it's a matter of being happy with what we've got (because there isn't going to be anything more unless we give our support). Complaining about it isn't going to get anywhere in that regard.

That is because most times they are indirect flaws. If a developer concentrates on the graphics the rest of the game will most certainly be sh*t.
It happened before and it will happen again.

If a developer concentrates on graphics AFTER the rest of the stuff is implemented, it won't happen.

If a game has great gameplay, it would take a lot for it to suck. If a game has great graphics it can still suck in many aspects.

Good gameplay is just so fundamental. Just search for AVGN's or irategamer's reviews on youtube. Gameplay always comes first. It makes you not want to toss out the game out the window and is the most crucial part for a game being good. Any gamer knows this.


I'm not sure why some people want to choose between graphics and xxx, but it's probably just a "stroke-mine-and-I'll-stroke-yours" club between fans where graphics represent "shallow" and the other part represent "deep".

Also, you write that some consider great graphics to be a flaw, but this is just not true. Of course everyone wants great graphics. However, a game like MI 4, when it came out- was not great graphics. It was new but shitty graphics- just like Myst 5. So, that's the perspective of some people in situations where they don't feel the need to point out the obvious.

Ok, but if a game has great gameplay, it can only get better and better with great graphics. It's something like: put a good clip frame on a great picture to improve it.
Obviously, the picture first, and the clip frame after.

It's an indirect flaw for 2 reasons:

1) It raises hardware requirements, alienating part of the potential user base

2) Money is limited. For small/medium companies especially. Graphics cost money, as do gameplay and story. If one has to suffer I prefer it to be graphics. Most Big companies seem to disagree, which saddens me plenty.

Don't get me wrong, I love pretty graphics as much as anyone else. The issue is that a second paradox emerges:

Some of you seem to consider great graphics a necessity.

If you speak of "indirect" flaw, then I can see why and partially agree with 1) and 2)
About the second paradox, I don't agree: we just think that a great game, to be such considered, must be great under every point of view.
Taking a lot of care for graphics, obviously after taking care of what's more important, can only let the game charming and enchanting to see.
I don't see why people are contenting themselves.
It is true that, if there's a need to sacrify an aspect, it must be graphics.
But, in a way, I just think a lot of people here are contenting themselves, with the poor excuse to consider graphics shallow.
Graphics alone don't make a great game, but can help improving even more a game that's already wonderful.
I love TTG, I love what they're doing, I'm following them since 2004 and I'll support them 'til death.
But there's nothing wrong (and nothing shallow) on requesting better graphics.
By the way, do you really like the way the sea has been rendered in TMI? Honestly, c'mon.

Hum... yes?

By the way, ever heard of Introversion? A rather successful Indie company that doesn't even have graphic artists and yet some of their games have been considered to have some of the best atmospheres in recent years (Defcon in Particular)

I've took a look, thanks!
Well, anyway I think it's just a matter of personal taste: I don't like the rendering of the sea, you do. It's OK.
What I really want people to understand is that even a hardcore long time fan of MI (like me) can care about graphics and that doesn't mean he's a newbie to computer games and is easily impressed by every crappy game if it's got great graphics.
We who are complaining about graphics are doing this just because we love MI that much that we'd love it to be perfect.
It's not possible, but please stop with this policy of "you care of graphics, you're not a fan".
MI rules, MI's the best, we ask for the most possible perfection, even graphical.
If it ain't possible, no problem, I'll enjoy TMI anyway and every other MI game that will come out.
I'd just love better inspiring graphics, that's all.

Graphic THIS Judas!

_I_

jk

...

Sorry for crossing posts, but this HAS to be said here too.
Now look at THIS:
http://www.zbrushcentral.com/zbc/att...chmentid=91823
Do you still think great graphics would be pointless? This looks painly awesome... (thanks viz)