How Important Are Graphics Really?

[Soveriegn_Legend]

I don't think your getting my point. I never said that anyone was going to actually go do any of the things you can do in video games or that video games are supposed to emulate real life. I simply said that photo realistic graphics are unecessary, which is my opinion.

I don't see that it matters since photo realistic graphics at this point don't even exist. Also, I meet more graphics whores in real life then I do online and considering that I don't give them a reaction it would defeat the purpose for them to continue bashing the games but they do.

PS- I have fired a sniper rifle... just last month actually. So I guess that saying no one will ever do any of that stuff was in itself "lacking Intelligence".

[I-n-j-i-n]

Yeah, I was baiting a bit there. My personal posting style. Half trolling, half serious.

But I don't know. I don't know what to think when I even do meet the rare graphics whore around. I simply assume that they're the garden variety newbie/casual gamer.

[benprunty]

Here's what I think:

The push towards realism isn't necessary for games to evolve but it will happen anyway because a lot of people make money off of it.

One of my favorite games of all time, NetHack, has only ASCII graphics. It is also one of the most complicated games I've ever played.

But there's something to be said for well-done graphics. Here are some games that benefitted greatly from having well-done graphics/art direction:

Turok 2

Shadow of the Colossus

Zelda: Wind Waker

Star Wars:KOTOR/Jade Empire

Seiken Densetsu 3

Half-Life

DOOM series

Castlevania 3 and 4

Metal Slug series

Monkey Island 3

At the same time, Tetris, NetHack, Zelda 2, KABOOM, Super Mario Bros., Wario Ware, and Intelligent Qube all are really fun to play without awesome graphics.

So I guess its all in what your going for. Remember that the push for realism is mostly a marketing one. The true classics will emerge above and beyond that.

[I-n-j-i-n]

Sorry to play devil's advocate again, but Super Mario Bros and some other games were renowned for their graphics. Compared to the shit in Atari (even if they had some truly great games on it), everybody were impressed by the graphics in SMB in the day. Even with Tetris, yes, the gameplay was the focal point, but the whole Russian music and the colorful blocks just did it with gamers.

Likewise with today, the relevance of realistic water effects, realistic lighting, realistic characters, realistic physics and etcetera play into the whole game play scheme pretty vaguely like that. But it doesn't mean they are irrelevant to it all.

[Culturekoi]

It isn't realism in graphics that will be the next step- I believe it will be the artistic style that will eventually overwhelm the "Wow, I can see every pore on the guy" kind of realism. Take Okami for example. That game was great, and the graphics especially drew players in. It wasn't "Wow, what a polygon count," it was "Wow, that's beautiful."

Videogames are a fantasy. Some games do really need and make good use of the realistic graphics. It's like the live-action of video games. But what about non-realistic games that have graphics that are both impressive and unrealistic? They're the cartoons of video games. I, for one, liked that whole cel-shading movement that occurred not too long ago. Wind Waker, Jet Set Radio, Sly Cooper... Those were creative and interesting (well, not so much Sly Cooper, in my opinion...) because they didn't limit themselves to being real-looking. They were cartoony, and that was neat.

So, yes, graphics are important, but it isn't exclusively about realism. It's about drawing you in, making graphics that fit the feeling of the game. Designers should try to be more creative and work on creating art, not counting polygons.

Of course, even a beautiful game still has to have gameplay... Pretty graphics, a game does NOT make.

Food for thought- A game with oil-painting-like graphics. How neat would that be?

[Cerrax]

The realistic graphics that consoles ultimately shoot for are what open up the doors to these artistic graphics that everyone is talking about. Could you do Okami on Playstation 1? No. Can you cel-shade on N64? No. Would Shadow of the Colossus inspire the same emotions on a SNES? No.

Even animated movies have benefited from increasing technology. Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust looks 1000 times better than the original VHD. Why? Because effects that were used to create "realistic effects" in live action films, have been altered to fit animation styles. The same will (and to a point, has) come around for video game graphics.

As long as consoles push the nevelope for realistic graphics, it will ensure and open new opportunities for alternate graphics styles. After all, realistic graphics are the most difficult to render. So if we nail those, doing the more artistic representation type of graphics will be a breeze.

Every artist first learns to draw realistically, before they draw in any cartoon or abstract style. The same is ttrue for consoles. Let them learn realism first, and then let developers imaginations run wild.

[friendlyHunter]

The realistic graphics that consoles ultimately shoot for are what open up the doors to these artistic graphics that everyone is talking about. Could you do Okami on Playstation 1? No. Can you cel-shade on N64? No. Would Shadow of the Colossus inspire the same emotions on a SNES? No.

Even animated movies have benefited from increasing technology. Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust looks 1000 times better than the original VHD. Why? Because effects that were used to create "realistic effects" in live action films, have been altered to fit animation styles. The same will (and to a point, has) come around for video game graphics.

As long as consoles push the nevelope for realistic graphics, it will ensure and open new opportunities for alternate graphics styles. After all, realistic graphics are the most difficult to render. So if we nail those, doing the more artistic representation type of graphics will be a breeze.

Every artist first learns to draw realistically, before they draw in any cartoon or abstract style. The same is ttrue for consoles. Let them learn realism first, and then let developers imaginations run wild.

I didn't read most of the thread, but I totally agree with you.

My concept of "good graphics" might be a little different than most - I consider 16 bit games like Cave Story, FF6, Super Metroid, and Earthworm Jim 1&2 to have very good graphics. They use the sprite medium to the highest potential, and each has a unique and coherent style. These graphics will be good forever, especially Cave Story's. On the other hand, early attemps at more realistic stuff (the original Quake, Doom, N64 games, etc.) have aged horribly. Will today's "realistic graphics" age the same way? Yes, just not quite as much. Just look at visual effects in movies: many 10-20 year old movies' effects are pretty bad by today's standards. Now movies are at the point where, with enough time, money, and effort, it can look extremely good and extremely realistic, but of course not all movies have the resources (or need) to go this route. Same thing with games - the future will hold games with more realistic graphics than we've ever seen, but definately not all will make that choice. Just look at the variety of graphical achievement on the GameCube - Metroid Prime managed to eclipse most other gamecube graphics of its time, and MP2 eclipsed that (in terms of visual quality, but not nessesarily style or atmosphere). Tying into the previous discussion, visuals have the potential to look much better with more graphical capabilities - the developers and artists are not as limited by polycounts, texture quality, etc.. But at the same time, greater potential leads to higher expectations. Yeah, that's about all I have to say...