EPT***Adult Language
If you are interested in retro gaming or just gaming in general leave a comment on the video or this thread.
Do Graphics Matter? (Retro Video Game Rant)
| Blogs > Suspense |
|
Suspense
United States500 Posts
***Adult Language If you are interested in retro gaming or just gaming in general leave a comment on the video or this thread. | ||
|
Kickboxer
Slovenia1308 Posts
| ||
|
olof
Sweden254 Posts
You've cocked up some idea that good graphics equals a realistic interpretation of the world, that the art in a game doesn't influence the game experience and that artists working on retro-style games aren't actually artists. As a video game artist, this offends me on so many levels. Realistic graphics is not the same as good graphics. By defining your problem with this phrasing you are part of the problem that you seem to fight. The strive for realism will always exist in all kinds of art and is necessary for technical improvement, but has never been the most essential part of art. No matter if we are talking paintings or we are talking in game art. It is the same tiresome statement that claims paintings are not needed any longer since we have cameras. Next you go on and mention that you think that storytelling is the most important. I really don't know where to start. What I hear is someone with a severe nostalgia bubble claiming the LotR books are great, the cartoon movie is awesome but that life went to hell as soon as the Peter Jackson movies was released. I for one don't play Starcraft because I want to see Kerrigan's butt in the cutscenes. That story is made for guys born a decade after me. I enjoy Starcraft for the competition and treat it as a digital nerdy chess. After this you go on to mention The Binding of Isaac which happens to be a game I enjoy. Saying that the art doesn't matter in this game is such a disrespect to the artist (Edmund McMillen). I doubt that this game or their previous release Super Meat Boy would have the same impact on the Indiescene if they didn't have such a distinct art style. Either you don't understand that this kind of art also takes a lot of work or you simply don't care and would play it even if it was text based, I don't really know. For me games like The Binding of Isaac, Bastion, Jamestown or Braid are the ones that I call the games with "Good Graphics" today. If you claim to be interested in retro games or indie games and want to support the people that still produce these games I really suggest a change of attitude. Show some respect to the artists that spend hours creating art that is different from the latest first person AAA title. // olof | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
On March 20 2013 21:10 olof wrote: good stuff I wholeheartedly agree. Sadly you don't really provide any reasons for what you say (and I won't either, I wouldn't even be qualified to do that). | ||
|
fabiano
Brazil4644 Posts
The only moment where graphics matter is when it actually affects game play. A really good example of graphics getting in the way of the gameplay is this new HotS physics engine. Sure it looks pretty cool and shit, but for serious pro players who are fighting for a big tournament that thing only gets in the way, hence many - if not all - of them turn graphics to the lowest settings during progames. But clearly many SC2 fans really care more about graphics than gameplay because whenever them engage a BW vs SC2 discussion they always come up with "BW has bad graphics" and "BW is older than Madonna" xD Another thought I would like to share is that I've always disliked the art direction they took for SC2. They kind of borrowed the WC3 artstyle and for me, while it works for WC3 and WoW worlds, it certainly feels forced to have Jim Raynor out of proportions, even looking stronger and more robust than MMA fighters.... | ||
|
Random()
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
It's perfectly fine if you don't care about graphics at all because that is your personal preference, but don't try to persuade others that your opinion is somehow right and theirs is not. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32044 Posts
i think stuff like terraria looks beautiful depsite hte fact that it is cartoony and 16 bit. base minecraft looks like shit, but some of the modded textures are awesome on newer games with more realistic graphics, battlefield 3 is absolutely gorgeous and part of why the game is so awesome is the immense effort put into the game art. so to answer your question, yes, they matter to a certain degree. but theyre a lower priority than gameplay for me, and you can easily have a game with old graphics that looks awesome | ||
|
Xiron
Germany1233 Posts
What now? Am I not allowed to dislike a game because the graphics suck? But that's just my opinion! Do you see me making videos about how games focus on having 20000 weapons but faces look like a mashed potato? No! Because it's only MY opinion and noone should care about it. | ||
|
Tictock
United States6051 Posts
Basically (if you are too lazy to watch the vid) they point out much what you do, the effort some people put into making top-end graphics is lost by the fact that those graphics don't actually add to the game or the immersion the player feels. There are plenty of examples of games that have come out in the last few years with low-end graphics that have done very well. It is however true that sometimes bad graphics detriment what would otherwise be a good game, it's more about balance than one ore the other. | ||
|
Janaan
United States381 Posts
| ||
|
Suspense
United States500 Posts
On March 21 2013 00:41 Tictock wrote: I agree with your vid to some extent, graphics by themselves do not make or break a game it's about the whole package. I have seen this topic come up a few times and found a great little video from Penny Arcade that describes my feelings on this perfectly. You can find it here, I HIGHLY recommend checking it out as I feel they articulate the point extremely well. Basically (if you are too lazy to watch the vid) they point out much what you do, the effort some people put into making top-end graphics is lost by the fact that those graphics don't actually add to the game or the immersion the player feels. There are plenty of examples of games that have come out in the last few years with low-end graphics that have done very well. It is however true that sometimes bad graphics detriment what would otherwise be a good game, it's more about balance than one ore the other. Pretty Much.. Good Video. And to the people upset about how I expressed my opinion.. Really? It's my opinion which is no different than you coming here complaining about mine. To the video game artist.. I think you missed my point. Graphics don't Matter.. Binding of Issac looks great but I doubt they focused 90% of their time on how that game looks. That is the point.. It looks good but it is not the focus of a great game. | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
| ||
|
Bajadulce
United States322 Posts
I really liked the graphics that were developed towards the end of sprite based era (late 90's early 2000's). Things were quite polished for this type of environment. RPG's from the infinity engine (BGate, Torment, Fallout etc), C&C Red Alert2, Diablo 2, JaggedAlliance2, Age of Wonders, AOE.. etc were really great looking graphics to me and "realistic enough". BroodWar was a bit older than these titles, but still really displayed nicely. (An updated "sprite based" BWar w/ higher resolutions etc would have been a dream!). ... And then the "3D" craze hit. Things are definitely getting better today, but the early 3D transition such as Warcraft3, C&C3, Civ4 were disappointing to me in terms of the clarity compared to their former sprite based renditions. I don't own SC2 and have never played it, but from what I've watched in videos, the game doesn't have that "pop" in terms of the graphic presentation of BWar. Everything looks very washed out and of varying shades of gray. Yes, a lot of the effects are very appealing and pure eye candy, but overall it seems very distracting in general and I can tell would have a hard time deciphering what was what if were to play. On the other hand, the improvements in the FPS presentation is really well received and the more realistic the better! I am always blown away by some of the videos of modern games. But here again, I read many a disappointed gamer who cites poor game play/design. So much $$/energy put into graphics, but at the cost of the writing/design team. I guess the bottom line is that games today require a shitload of $ to make. And if you're going to invest that kind of $ you better be damn sure your target buyers are impressed by what the "see". | ||
|
Suspense
United States500 Posts
On March 21 2013 04:19 CecilSunkure wrote: The video you posted was a lot of anecdotal diatribe. You clearly really like a lot of games that were released years ago, but it doesn't feel like you've done study or research into why that is. Maybe you should? It feels to me like you're in the category of a dedicated video gamer, but you're one of the frustrated ones. If you want to be apart of some sort of active movement that helps change that I feel solid study in game design would not only help you articulate your points effectively, but perhaps lead to the creation of something else positive. I'm not actually that frustrated.. The youtube video is done in a way to cause conversation which it has done. If I simply said. "I like games regardless of graphics I don't think they are that important." there is no room to really discuss anything. Also this topic dies because no one feels like they should put their two cents in. Also I don't understand why you think I need to study game design to have an opinion on what games I enjoy. I'm not even stating that may views are correct. In fact I believe I stated I am in the minority of gamers. It is obvious that graphics run this venue. The best sellers are shooters and sports games which get churned out every year with improved graphics. On occasion you get a gem but like I said those gems seem to come from the PC games and indy developers nowadays because they focus on the gameplay and/or storyline because they can't afford the BF3, COD productions. And in turn those games seem to be much more enjoyable to me. | ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
On March 21 2013 05:39 Suspense wrote: I'm not actually that frustrated.. The youtube video is done in a way to cause conversation which it has done. If I simply said. "I like games regardless of graphics I don't think they are that important." there is no room to really discuss anything. Also this topic dies because no one feels like they should put their two cents in. Also I don't understand why you think I need to study game design to have an opinion on what games I enjoy. I'm not even stating that may views are correct. In fact I believe I stated I am in the minority of gamers. It is obvious that graphics run this venue. The best sellers are shooters and sports games which get churned out every year with improved graphics. On occasion you get a gem but like I said those gems seem to come from the PC games and indy developers nowadays because they focus on the gameplay and/or storyline because they can't afford the BF3, COD productions. And in turn those games seem to be much more enjoyable to me. Oh no I meant you could study game design in order to positively change video games. It might also help you articulate your points to others. You might have a very valid opinion, though can possibly be unable to explain it to others. | ||
|
Futabot
United States37 Posts
Unfortunately, graphics are actually important in the vicious world of selling. When it comes to pushing first impressions, a game's visuals are the most easily translatable attribute you can push without giving a person a game. The average person doesn't sit down and try a demo out for anything, so the best effort a design studio that actually wants to make a buck can manage is to dump heavily into an art budget. The thing is that, like good writing, good visuals are the metaphoric carrot for game progression. We've managed to grow a dislike towards it given that writing has been sacrificed for the art budget, but it still stands that continuing to onto further visual stimuli pushes people through games, because more often than not, good gameplay is not enough. | ||
|
Lexpar
1813 Posts
You need to split the term "graphics" between technical achievement and aesthetics in order to really think about this topic. If you ask a question like "can a game be good if it focuses on technical achievements (in order to approach realistic or novel visuals) at the expense of interesting/innovative game-play?" - then the answer is almost certainly no. Innovative graphics can have a big effect because of their novelty, but ultimately we know that solid game-play is needed to make a great game, and a focus on game-play (innovation) is what will make a "great" game. The problem with phrasing your question as "do graphics matter?" is that- yes, aesthetics (one half of the term "graphics" when applied to video games) matter a hell of a lot. You can take two NES games with near technical parity like the two below. + Show Spoiler + Contra: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gk2Q1mq.jpg) Uncanny X-Men ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OFU417P.jpg) And its pretty clear which game is more aesthetically pleasing. Graphics, in that sense, matter a lot. A great aesthetic is timeless, while you could argue that, from a technical standpoint, every NES game is obsolete now. I'm not arguing that though, and obviously you feel strongly about it. A really great time for this was during the first outpouring of 3D games on N64 and PS1. Although the technical side wasn't there, we still revere a lot of those games for their aesthetic elements (LoZ OoT, MGS1, SM64)- while any game that struggled with similar limits to polygon count / texture detail but did NOT develop a reasonable aesthetic (based on color palate, proportions and style) is nearly unplayable today. A game can only really fail to be a technical achievement without being penalized, as every game will, with time, no longer be technically impressive. A poor aesthetic will damn a game from the very beginning. So the phrasing is important. I recommend if you want to be serious about youtube, you take the time to put some production into your videos. Searching for a game you can't remember, an unscripted rant, looking at texts... It doesn't make a great impression. Theres a million people on youtube. | ||
|
WikidSik
Canada382 Posts
On March 20 2013 22:44 Random() wrote: It's all extremely subjective so I don't really see the reason for trying so forcefully to prove your point. Some people don't give a shit about how the game looks, but some people enjoy great art more than anything else (and graphics in games are definitely a form of art). Some people are able to even today appreciate the technically inferior graphics of 1990's games, but for some people it is "how can you even see anything in this mess of pixels". It's perfectly fine if you don't care about graphics at all because that is your personal preference, but don't try to persuade others that your opinion is somehow right and theirs is not. I have alot of point that I thought of while typing this, so sorry if its long winded. This post triggered something. I believe older gamers like the retro stuff cuz thats what was new and cool at the time, and now that they are older and more mature, they have the social lee way of being more critical about things. When this generation of 10 year olds grow up, they will probably sht on the next gene of hip new games. for me personally, graphics has a significant impact on the games I like. First and formost, I LOVE how blizzard chose to make sc2 more warcraft 3 + halo esq, but I hate how Windwaker was cell shaded (if it had another style, lol maybe even warcraft style graphics, I would love it). For me its just more a matter of style. Some (I guess a lot) of people like the realistic style of graphics, so AAA companies make games with realistic graphics (which im not a huge fan of). But I also dont like it when i see edges and fuzzy ness in places, because to me thats just sloppy. Its kind of like how blizzard put next to no effort into the bw units in the sc2 map editor. Then again I enjoy BW just as much as sc2 (and i was playing bw before I found out about the scene). For me personally then its more about style of graphics, then the crispness for graphics. I dot care how crisp cell shaded games are, I still wont play them cuz it takes away from the game for me, but I am perfectly fine playing BW, even thought it has bad graphics. Another point is that, not evry game made is going to be super awesome. There has to be a mass of "meh" games for there to be exceptional games like sc2, bw, zelda etc... Its the same thing with movies, music, and even the programming leagues (there is Stephano, MVP etc.. and there is everyone else). Another thing is that, with retro games, the fact that people still have fond memories of these games provides a nostalgia factor that can make even the shittiest thing better. For example, there was this justin bieber song (Baby) that was played everywhere FOREVER! I got sick of it. Then 2 years later I hear the same song, and it sounded a lot better. This was because people still had an interested in it after so long, and plus all the memories of people making jokes about it, made me feel good, and thus influenced my opinion of the new playing of the song. Well those are just some of my thoughts. | ||
|
Marti
552 Posts
| ||
|
kanjimanji
Bulgaria24 Posts
graphics are the crust, your imagination is the topping | ||
| ||
