How Important Are Graphics Really?

[KWarp]

...

I'm done arguing here.

[KakTheInfected]

They do not seem to drive sales over one other directly, but it's still a selling point. Do not take what I say out of context. Really.

Well first, I didn't take what you said out of context. You said games have always been about utilizing the latest in visual technology. That's a hell of a way to say "Well graphics aren't really the biggest selling point per se..."

Regardless...is it a selling point? Absolutely. Is the number of people who buy games based on the graphics (or at least, who take graphics into consideration) large enough to matter these days? Simply put, no.

Look at the PS3. Sales are slow, developers are looking elsewhere and the high price is scaring away potential buyers.

Had Sony followed their previous tactic and released an affordable, somewhat powerful system, the 360 and Wii would have probably already been crushed under the Playstation brand name alone. But they pushed graphics too hard, raised the price and it seems like nobody really cares, even if games like MGS4 and FF13 can't be had anywhere else. So let's not pretend that graphics matter as a selling point, because overall, they really don't. Ask Brain Age or any GTA game.

[Blackwinged Saron]

I will play Zelda:ALttP and Mario3 before Call of Duty3 or DOA4, because they have better play value. I think the old sonic games are better than the 3D ones, cuz they are just more fun. Metroid used to kick ass...I hated Prime 2, it's cuz they are TRYING to make games too realistic. The point of video games I think, is to temporarily ESCAPE reality, why the hell would I want to play a game that *LOL* "keeps it real"? I don't think graphics mean shit. I love the new Zelda more than anything. Do the graphics look great, hell yes. Would it matter to me if it they were on par with that of Ocarina, HELL NO!! I have cried several times while playing because the storyline is so amazing. That's all that matters. A game is nothing without a story. Half-life was phenomenal, it revolutionized the user interface and had a great plot, freaked me out a few times. The graphics had nothing to do with it. Halo doesn't need to look better, it needs to play better. they spent too much time improving graphics for the second one that they totally botched the plot. I love my Wii cuz i can get involved with it. I can sit like a bump on a shit and play Doom 3 or FEAR all day, but that's all i'm doing. I can't hold a mouse or a controller like a gun (i guess i could but i'd look/feel retarded). All you graphical nerds are missing the most important fact. It's not worth playing if you can't experience the thoughts, feelings, and actions of the character you play as. Good graphics, are a mere selling tool to influence the public. Don't buy into media bullshit. The PS3 is nothing but an over-glorified george foreman grill. Fuckin loud-ass, vibrating, overheating piece of shit. And the 360 is no better. I'm a Nintendo fan with good reason, they have never done anything but try to revolutionize the way we PLAY, not make it look pretty. I think that's really all I have to say on the matter. anyone who disagrees is stupid, wrong, and ugly.

[Razumen]

Graphics will always matter, as will sound, gameplay, etc. Even when we attain total realism in graphical capabilities, and some games use that to create new and unique styles, people will still bitch about them 'having crappy graphics'.

It's like arguing about how important good set design is for films, or the importants of lyrics in a song over the melody - just pointless.

[Blackwinged Saron]

Graphics will always matter, as will sound, gameplay, etc. Even when we attain total realism in graphical capabilities, and some games use that to create new and unique styles, people will still bitch about them 'having crappy graphics'.

It's like arguing about how important good set design is for films, or the importants of lyrics in a song over the melody - just pointless.

Take a friggin side or don't post.

[Razumen]

I will play Zelda:ALttP and Mario3 before Call of Duty3 or DOA4, because they have better play value. I think those galdarned kids better git off mah lawn. the old sonic games are better than the 3D ones, cuz they are just more fun. Metroid used to kick ass...I hated Prime 2, it's cuz they are TRYING to make games too realistic. The point of video games I think, is to temporarily ESCAPE proper sentence structure, why the hell would I want to compose my 'argument' in a logical and efficient fashion? I don't think. I love the new Zelda more than anything. Do the graphics look great, hell yes. Would it matter to me if it they were on par with that of Ocarina, HELL NO!! I have cried several times reading this, oh god the pain! Why must I suffer so? the storyline is so amazing. That's all that matters. A game is nothing without a story. Half-life was phenomenal, it revolutionized the user interface with all it's shooting and whatnannery and had a great plot, freaked me out a few times. The graphics had nothing to do with it, really. Halo doesn't need to look better, it needs to play better. they spent too much time improving graphics for the second one that they totally botched the plot. I love my Wii cuz i can get involved with it. I can sit like a bump on a shit and play Doom 3 or FEAR all day, but that's all i'm doing. I can't hold a mouse or a controller like a gun (i guess i could but i'd look/feel retarded). All you graphical nerds are missing the most important fact. It's not worth playing if you can't experience the thoughts, feelings, and actions of the character you play as, cuz you know, thought transmission is the fad these days. Good graphics, are a mere selling tool to influence the public and produce visually appealling games. Don't buy into media bullshit. The PS3 is nothing but an over-glorified george foreman grill. Fuckin loud-ass, vibrating, overheating piece of shit. And the 360 is no better. I'm a Nintendo fan with no good reason, they have done everything and anything, including trying to revolutionize the way we PLAY, not make it look pretty. Oh wait, I forgot about the N64 and the Gamecube. I think that's really all I have to say on the matter. anyone who disagrees is intelligent, probably right, and oh so sexy.

Take a friggin side or don't post.

I would, but they both reek something awful.

[watkinzez]

Brilliance.

Pity Darkesword is no longer a mod. That END THREAD should have been END THREAD.

[djdexcat]

I'm generally the 'Graphics<Gameplay' type of guy, but this isn't always true (Last Christmas I made the mistake of playing Twilight Princess immediately after Half-Life 2). There are a few factors that I'd like to point out...

Competiveally speaking (8-bit against HD disc games is a one-sided fight)

Utilization (Is the game in particular meant to be realistic-looking [HL2], or artistic [Okami... or something else like that])

Limitations (How good can graphics possibly get before causing problems?)

First, there's competition. Like them or not, graphics are still a major selling point in the gaming industry. You just can't get the important 'visual appeal' audience with a 16-bit (or something) system (unless you add it as a side feature, like the Virtual Console). You need to at least LOOK LIKE you can keep up with modern technology and trends, and not the company-equivalent of that crazy old cat guy down the street.

As said before, there's the utilization of the graphics and special effects. There are, from what I've seen, four types of graphical directions for games. There's the as-realistic-as-we-could-get-it look [Type A] that tends to be a real attention-grabber (particularly for advertising and 'looking over players shoulder at friends house' quality). Even in here, there's several directions that the graphics can take (I remember seeing the model detail in HL2 for the first time). This is is also the type that may cause problems if you didn't spend $6,000 on a fancy gaming computer.

There is also the 'alternative look' [Type B]. These games tend to not go for, and even try to avoid, realistic graphics. While I'm too tired to research such games, the ones I can remember right now are Viewtiful Joe, which attempted a 'graphic novel' or something approach (I hated that game)... and Castlevania, a series that was just made for hand-drawn 2-D graphics. People tend to complain about Type B games, but that's usually because they aren't Type A games.

Type C is the kind of game where you're too distracted by the game itself to really notice the graphics. I know this happened to me when I rented Warioware: Mega Party Games... I was just too weirded out.

And finally, there's the dreaded Type D. This is where it looks like the graphics department of the company spent one afternoon on the game, said 'good enough', and called it a day. The kind where everything is so sloppy looking that you either barely know what's going on, or the lack of detail brings down the whole game. Type D games are generally the third-party game that might have a tiny corner in a review section of a magazine, and nothing more. Luckily, I can't think of such games. I think it's because I have taste.

(Wow, the utilization section lasted longer than I thought!)

The last factor is how far one can go with graphics before it causes problems for the common gamer. If the graphics are so great, then how much action can occur at once? There's the all-too-common issue with processing in MMORPG's, when you have to enter a heavily populated city. And I don't know about the rest of you, but some parts of HL2: Episode 1 made my computer run at less than 1 frame per second (And yes, I DID lower the graphics settings). If commonly used graphics are high in detail, then wouldn't special effects cause some kind of meltdown? It all depends on the player's entertainment budget, and frankly, not all of us have the latest uber-HD-TV with 500-speaker surround sound and [format of choice]-compatable disc reader. My priority is 'decent running speed > graphics'.

Keep in mind that most of this is just my opinion. And with every opinion, there is opposition, and that if you don't agree with me, it's not the end of the world. And if it was, that would be a really stupid way to cause the apocalypse.

[Macro111]

*lurker post*

Allright, I havnt read the whole thread, probably will later... but not at this time. Anywho to answer the Question

"How important are graphics really?"

(note, this isnt about gameplay vs graphics from the thread title. )

Graphics are the visual representation of something. Like a painting is a representation of a word or an idea. Take away graphics and all you are left with is text and sound.

Having stated that, im going to try to answerthe point of Graphics taking up more resources on creating a game than other feilds. If you think about it what a game sets out to do is occupy us with a challange of some sort. Thinking "so what?", well so what If we only had 8 actuall colours to work with, while including physics, sound, pawns, text... ect, you could make an immersive game... but what If all games looked like this? It would be massive "eye rape".

Now the argument that every one uses is "what about gameplay, it allways seems to get ignored in favour of graphics!" Well, as I said "If you think about it what a game sets out to do is occupy us with a challange of some sort.", and if you dont belive me, look at history and culture. What do people do when they have free time? Like when kids back in the 1950's played with sticks and cans and stuff. Its entertainment, like theater and pit fighting; it passes time and serves a function (a challange). Realising this we can take games and create them in to vehicles for other parts of entertainment... and possibly life. Like RPG's are to story, as Fighters are to fighting, as FPS are to simulation (tentativly). What Im trying to get at is that gameplay is what the player must do to complete the game, as well as what he receives as a reward or punishment. The rest are part of the entertainment aspect, as that is the reason why "Video" is attached to "Game". To end this, im going to say that its mearly the objective and direction of the game and its creators.

Now Im tired, and I dont like to defend my opinions very much. so this is the end of my post .

Also, to add; This is my perspective and how ive interpretated my own observations.

[edit] I also thought I might point out (as opinion through my own observation) that the reason why graphics are continuing to progress the way they are... towards realisim, could be of any number of reasons, like we are trying very hard to make people belive in our stories and products(by we I mean the who's behind <X> game.) or something else... point is, graphics are just another part of video games, and all I see people here really want are more "artistic" ways of approaching this entertainment medeum to give it some more new life. anywho its 1am. time for bed

[I-n-j-i-n]

Well first, I didn't take what you said out of context. You said games have always been about utilizing the latest in visual technology. That's a hell of a way to say "Well graphics aren't really the biggest selling point per se..."

Uh, yes you did. I said "utilize" the visual technology and whatever the game system can provide. I did not IMPLY that it was entirely about the visuals. I never said the game developers were obsessed about it. Or that we are supposed to even demand it. It's just that with newer games, we expect the newer stuff to look better than previously. This kind of a thought doesn't really apply to the older games since they have used their previous technology to their effect. I never did imply that older games are inferior due to the graphics alone. I never said the gameplay was not a part of it.

Regardless...is it a selling point? Absolutely. Is the number of people who buy games based on the graphics (or at least, who take graphics into consideration) large enough to matter these days? Simply put, no.

You can't deny that the combination of the gameplay, the graphics and the overall style of the game makes a game. Different games are memorable for different things. That's it. It'd be nice if you stop implying and assuming after every post I make.

Look at the PS3. Sales are slow, developers are looking elsewhere and the high price is scaring away potential buyers.

Had Sony followed their previous tactic and released an affordable, somewhat powerful system, the 360 and Wii would have probably already been crushed under the Playstation brand name alone. But they pushed graphics too hard, raised the price and it seems like nobody really cares, even if games like MGS4 and FF13 can't be had anywhere else. So let's not pretend that graphics matter as a selling point, because overall, they really don't. Ask Brain Age or any GTA game.

Am I supposed to argue that? Since when did I ever say the PS3 was some savior of videogaming? I don't think I'll ever afford the PS3 too. I agree that they probably pushed the extraneous stuff too much. I'd imagine that they could've done better if they just stopped it with the hard drive, the wireless ethernet, wireless controller (not really essential for a Dual Shock..), the Bluray (probably added like $500 to the overall pricing) and etc. There's a lot that went wrong with the PS3. I think it'd be too overtly shallow to say that "visuals ruined PS3". No it didn't. The 360 is a great balance to it all and look how it's panning out. Incredibly well in just about everywhere but Japan for various reasons. Like I said before, it's more than likely that the successor to the Wii will also predictably increase its graphical capabalities too. I'm eager for that as well, as much as the developers taking advantage of the PS3, 360, the Wii and whatever the systems are capable of. Note how I say that they should take advantage of what they have. Not to put out some "realistic graphics" or that they should "only care about the graphics" or that "only graphics sell games" or that "only graphics matter" or etc etc. Do I need to be more sarcastic?

[KakTheInfected]

Games always has been about the top notch in visual technology.

There is no sense in arguing with someone who won't even admit what they said.

[Devyn]

They simply don't matter as much as they used to - well, at least in terms of the present overhead with the cost of processing power for graphical improvement.

I think it really depends if you're a graphic whore or not. Hell, but that issue is still a little more complex.

Good art design really fixes things up when the power is low. I'm still blown away by the graphics on Sonic the Hedgehog, Donkey Kong Country, many of the Megaman games - but even moreso with the moods they create.

Those games had excellent music that matched the beautiful graphics. There was an atmosphere there. I think atmosphere matters more than anything.

I was playing Megaman 7 two days ago and I was in cloud man's stage. It blew me away. You start out in a future fortress in the sky, and you feel excited before you can even control Megaman. When you get near the end of the stage, you're higher up in the sky and the clouds are moving quickly through the sunset with epic music in the background. It grabs you, and then you have that excellent gameplay to hold down the bottom line like a drummer holds down the beat for a band.

And look at Donkey Kong Country's water stages, relaxing music, swimming at the bottom of a beautiful coral reef, dodging sharks and fish. It really still takes me to that world, after many years and improvements in technology. And yes, some newer games accomplish the same.

So yes, graphics do matter, but it's different for every person. For me, it's how the game takes me into its world and motivates me.

No game can make me feel more epic than a scenario like standing at the top of a building in a twilight future city while preparing to take out an evil doctor and an army of evil robots.

So, the whole vision matters. Gameplay, graphics, music, everything, the frikkin' STORY - it's how they're combined, like different ingredients to make the right food. If you combine them right, you get one badass meal that makes you come back for more.

Examples of these include games like Contra 3, Resident Evil 4, the better of the Megaman games, the Super Mario Brothers series, Super Ghouls and Ghosts, Castlevania 4, Mortal Kombat 2, Super Metroid - they had it all, and you could tell there was passion from every angle, not just for the graphics.

[I-n-j-i-n]

There is no sense in arguing with someone who won't even admit what they said.

Thanks for ignoring all the points I've made.

Just about everything I said basically is in line with what a lot of other people made. Why don't you pick on someone else?

PS- Just because I say the graphics are "A" selling point (look, I wrote an "A". hur hur), it doesn't mean my entire argument hinges on it. It's called grammar.

[Soveriegn_Legend]

This is a matter of opinion, it's pointless to debate whether or not graphics are important for the reason that everyone thinks differently.

By getting various opinions on this topic I think it's rather obvious that some people like games with really good graphics and others don't care what the game looks like as long as it's fun. You do however make a good point when you say that it doesn't get any better then photo realistic since your eyes can only pick up resolution to a certain extent.

It would be really pointless to keep trying to improove graphics when you can't tell the diffence anyways so who knows... maybe gameplay will catch back up with graphics when they can't get any better, then everyone will get thier way and we'll all be happy.

P.S. How many people here still play alot of old school games? I know I do and it damn sure isn't because they have good grapics.

[I-n-j-i-n]

Oh yeah, I agree that with HD televisions outputting high definition gaming, that is just about the apex of static visuals on a game.

But the visuals still obviously can get better and better. One day, we may actually see those "Jurassic Park visuals" that PS2's marketing was dreaming about. Or maybe someday, they can stop lying to the gamers about what is essentially CG cutscene footage and passing it off as the actual game footage (too many launch titles in the PS2 era with just about all the consoles getting into it. I remember a few lawsuits that happened because of it. One even citing Call of Duty for the consoles for being advertised falsely with CG visuals and not actual in-game stuff. That is why recent Call of Duty 3 commercials have the "in game graphics" disclaimer).

Besides the high definition output, which is actually better than my natural eyesight, there is the whole dimension with graphical power having to do with the ease of which developers can manipulate physics, the AI (heavily dependent on system power) and so forth. A lot of gameplay-centric things on top of the payoffs graphically that may not be too obvious. Such as possibly the Grand Theft Auto games looking better, having smoother frame rates (which totally kills the game sometimes when too many things happen in the screen), having better animations overall and the draw distance (another killer to GTA as a franchise. Buildings popping out of nowhere while driving/flying).

Lots of vagaries with graphics and gameplay in games. I do not think one can necessarily separate one from the other. Though I personally am gameplay oriented and don't mind it as long as the gameplay is supplemented well by the graphics. If a game plays great but looks so bad that the design of the gameplay suffers, that can be an indication of laziness on part of the developers. Same for gorgeous games that may not have a great gameplay or with wild and insane cameras that doesn't capture the action well. Just so Kak can realize it without me making it any more obvious, gameplay is obviously a big factor. But I suppose we are talking about the visuals in this thread since that was the original point is all about. It doesn't mean I'm fucking obsessed with visuals.

[dsx100]

Many of you posting seemed to have misinterperted what I was trying to ask. That is mostly my fault as I should have worded the question right. My real question is "How important are photo realistic Graphics really?" Of course graphics are important they are part of the game. Thats why they are called video games but is it important they be realistic? I ask this becuase that is what 2 of the current generation consoles and PCs seem to be focusing on. Usually when I talk about this issue good graphics are meant by how photorealistic they are rather than how artistic they are to the people I talk to it about. So agian sorry for not wording my question correctly. I hope this can clear some things up.

[I-n-j-i-n]

I think that kind of wording makes things more vague. Not more specific. Because a lot of western style games tends to be more 'realistic' in terms of visuals. Like Oblivion, Bioware RPGs and a lot of American RPGs, the art style and the style of the graphics are more realistically inclined (but not necessarily realistic at all since fantasy != reality or even realistic). Same for shooters and action games and sports games where realistic graphics can get by just fine. You really don't see them make quirky game with realistic graphics or comedic games with the same. You see a lot of the Japanese games and just about everything is anime-centric or have 'realistic' characters who look more like anime figures than an actual human being. Like with the example of Dead or Alive games, like some people have mentioned before, it's really not a realistic presentation. Because the characters look in between anime characters and Barbie dolls. Then there's something like Prince of Persia which is in the same realm. The characters have pretty believably realistic look and physics, but the Prince himself looks like an anime character and the action is not even close to realistic.

I also it's too subjective of a question. "How important are photo realistic Graphics really?" can turn into "How important are abstract Graphics really?" or "How important are celshaded Graphics really?" and etcetera. It depends on what the individual game's direction takes it. Considering the variety of games and their individual take and spin on realistic and unrealistic graphic presentations, I don't think it's some epidemic of one types of games getting more representation over the other.

[parasoul]

Eh, it used to be that consoles were quite more powerful than PCs at the time of release, and had the resources dedicated solely for gaming. Of course, now PC technology has caught up and surpassed it, although that chase in itself has been killing the PC gaming industry.

Indeed. I can't afford to keep my computer up to date with the newest games. I had to turn down Oblivion to all the lowest graphical settings and had view distance at zero and it still ran fairly choppy. The only types of game I prefer playing on consoles are fighting games (Smash, MK). I'd rather play every other genre on PC. Unfortunately, in addition to keeping your PC up-to-date, you can't rent games for PC which means you have to buy every single one. It's just too expensive.

Now I'm somewhat jealous of people who are addicted to MMORPGs. It might be somewhat pathetic to just play one game forever but it's a lot cheaper overall.

[Kureejii Lea]

I find that having something creatively and whimsically designed is more important than how utterly realistic it can be. You can only render a brick wall so many ways. To me, something like running around the canopy of a giant tree that has old stone pavillions built among its branches (Legend of Mana) will easily be a more enthralling gaming experience than walking through a photorealistic city park.

Unfortunately a lot of people lately seem to think that a game's value is directly tied to how realistic it looks. I once read a review on Wind Waker that gave it a terrible score in the graphics department; the reviewer made no mention of things like the stylistic smoke swirls but instead stated that the graphics were of poor quality because they weren't realistic, and that the entire point of making more powerful counsels was to have photorealistic graphics. Apparently stuff like shape, design and colour usage don't factor in at all.

Hell, even in that Twilight Princess is comparitively more realistic in style than Wind Waker, you still had the funky oversaturated ambience of the twilight areas, the ice carvings of the Snowpeak boss, the colourful surfaces in the zora areas, the freakish designs of Fyer and Fabli, or even seeing the swoop of the halo instead of a flat horizon in Halo... those are the kind of things that make for an interesting visual experience.

I like games not only for the gameplay but for the artistic presentation. Being able to see every zit on a human's face is not going to make your game interesting.

[Soveriegn_Legend]

Crysis for the pc has the best graphics of any video game to date. As you can imagine, the specs required to run the game are massive and in being so, require a massively overhauled pc (probably somewhere around $5,000+) to run it properly.

Just as an example of the graphics:

http://www.bit-tech.net/content_images/crysis_new_screenshots/crysis10_large.jpg

http://www.bit-tech.net/news_images/crysis_playtest/article_img.jpg

http://de.cornblogs.com/crysis/photos/Kefalonia/ZolaBeachII.jpg

Now ask yourself... Are these graphics worth buying a massively overhauled PC for?

They're great yes, but they're not necessary. It's the Story factored in with the controlls and AI intellegence along with the many various other features that make a game worth while.

[Razumen]

Crysis for the pc has the best graphics of any video game to date. As you can imagine, the specs required to run the game are massive and in being so, require a massively overhauled pc (probably somewhere around $5,000+) to run it properly.

Just as an example of the graphics:

http://www.bit-tech.net/content_images/crysis_new_screenshots/crysis10_large.jpg

http://www.bit-tech.net/news_images/crysis_playtest/article_img.jpg

http://de.cornblogs.com/crysis/photos/Kefalonia/ZolaBeachII.jpg

Now ask yourself... Are these graphics worth buying a massively overhauled PC for?

They're great yes, but they're not necessary. It's the Story factored in with the controlls and AI intellegence along with the many various other features that make a game worth while.

Those are some bad screens of Crysis, here:

http://firingsquad.com/media/galleries/crysis/04.jpg

http://firingsquad.com/media/galleries/crysis/14.jpg

http://firingsquad.com/media/galleries/crysis/19.jpg

I don't know about you, but I consider experiencing awesome visuals in a game just as worthwhile as plot and gameplay. Just because a game has a interesting story doesn't let it off the hook in the graphics department.

And $5000+?! Way to exagerate. Sure, buying a whole new computer is more expensive than upgrading a few parts, but as long as you're not a complete gullible fool, it'll never cost near that much to build a decent gaming system. You only get near that amount when you start buying all top of the line stuff, which is just not a wise investment at all.

As for Oblivion, my 3GhzP4 + Radeon9800 managed to run it fast enough to be enjoyable, even with HDR enabled. Most games are made to run acceptably well with a wide range of systems, so as long as you make some well informed purchases when you build/upgrade, you won't have to replace key components as often as people would like to say.

As for me, I'd love to see graphics continue to the point where we're playing the next (well not the[/n] next) Half-Life game with ultra-photorealistic graphics in a near, if not totally, virtual reality type implementation.

[JoeFu]

I don't feel like reading graphic arguments, but I think art direction matter a lot more than graphics. I don't care if a game looks as realisitic as my backyard... but if a game looked like my backyard it would be the most boring game ever.

[Soveriegn_Legend]

Those links don't work, they just tell you to visit the site.

What I was saying is... I get annoyed with graphics whores really easily because alot of them tell me that my favorite games suck just because they arn't up to date in graphics.

Also I won't continue to argue on this topic because im contradicting myself from when I said that this issue is pointless to debate since everyone is entitled to thier own opinions and those opinions don't affect anyone else.

In my opinion, good graphics are a plus but photo realistic graphics are unnecessary because I can look out my window and see them. Good graphics should have an art style rather then looking like what I see when I walk out the door to go to work everyday.

[AarowSwift]

BOO to all of you. I won the thread dammit so stop posting

Seriously though, on the retconned question of Photo-realism, I've already stated I don't like it. I mean; you have tools that allow you to make any sort of visual you want...so why the heck would you want to recreate reality? Or worse: gritty reality. I find that a waste of potential, however: America likes realism - http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3155815

Follow that link to an excellent article talking about the cultural differences between Japanese and American games. I was nebulously aware of a lot of the points made there without really knowing the background reasons, so it was an enlightening read to see some things spelled out.

Now, addressing art styles in videogames, I feel that developers should pick styles that match the style of the game play. Again, in games aiming to simulate reality (WWII shooters, flight simulators, sports simulators, etc.) choosing a more realistic or even going for photo-realism are valid goals.

Personally though, I'd like to see more imaginative art designs for games set in fictional environments. Look at all of the art styles used in American comic books and Japanese manga, or Television animation, or book illustrations, etc. There are so many possibilities one could explore.

[I-n-j-i-n]

In my opinion, good graphics are a plus but photo realistic graphics are unnecessary because I can look out my window and see them. Good graphics should have an art style rather then looking like what I see when I walk out the door to go to work everyday.

That is a stupid argument since you are not going to kill a human being, no less a fly by shooting a bazooka at it or ever fire a sniper rifle in your life. You are never going to be a singer, belong in a band, ever fly an airplane, ever drive a big boat with torpedo tubes on them, or ever prowl jungles being fearful of alien creatures, or fight ghosts, or go to the Super Bowl, or pitch in the World Series, or ever interact happily with a supermodel equivalent of the opposite sex, etc etc.

It's really, really, really lacking intellectually if you are to associate "realistic graphics" with "real life" and how they are "trying to emulate real life". No they are not. Even Shenmue, with the rendition of everyday, boring life, is still ultimately about running around, being a detective and beating up punks and gangsters. Are you going to ever do that in your life? Most definitely not. Never in 99.999% of a general populace's lifetime. It's fulfillment fantasy. Even the most 'realistic' games that sell them as such.

Again, this isn't some wholesale bashing of fantastic/abstract games or cartoony ones. Because I don't see a reason to separate the two or pick a side in the issue.

Actually, similar arguments can be made for something like Wii Sports. Why, you could technically go to the bowling rink and have way more fun doing the real thing, right? You can always swing an actual baseball bat instead, surely? It's still a game and just an easy fulfillment entertainment. Of course, if you really want to make it big "for real" or risk your life by joining the military, you can do that too. But that's more like a LIFE CHOICE and not fleeting whims of entertainment.

Graphic whores? Who even sees those types of people in real life? I mean, really? Aside from the lazy trolls who get easy reactions by either bashing a game for the fun of it? The vast majority of it being in the Internet?

PS- Great article in your post AarowSwift. What I find funny with this argument is how people are inclined to go to the entire "only Japan makes great games, only Japanese style is the best, only the abstract Japanese style of art works in videogames" and yadda yadda.

Also, that article brings to my point about even the most realistically looking games being escapist fantasy at its core. Just because Japanese games have a straight, set vision on games and put all sorts of purely fantastical elements doesn't make them necessarily more of a gaming experience than some American simulation game that goes for a different type of gameplay and reasons for enjoyment. It'd be pretty shallow for anyone to really assume that realism is the only thing gamers go for. Even when they say so that realism is a key point, the thing is the immersiveness of the gaming experience and the escapist fanatasy of doing what you'd normally never get the chance to. Again, you are never going to own a Ferrari and race against professionals or anything like that. Hence that's why realism is actually needed in that case for the sake of immersion. This is not equivalent to Super Mario needing to have realistic graphics when it's entirely fantastical and about jumping on Goombas. Those kinds of analogies don't work because they are not relevant.