Graphics Don't Make The Game

[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]

Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter

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]

Originally Posted by Alcoremortis

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[SHODANFreeman]

Originally Posted by Zeek

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.