What is Digg?218 Comments
- Witherbucket, on 10/10/2007, -4/+63What the article says is true, graphics definitely matter. Where I believe the original intent of that phrase refers to photorealism over more stylized games. All the consoles, handheld, in the home, and PCs as well are capable of amazing graphics, where amazing applies to the impact of the style, not if you can count individual hairs or not. A game can still look stunning with Nintendo 64 graphics as long as the application of those graphics achieves what it sets out to be and gamers see a game for what it is. You don't compare Spyro's style to Lair's, or at least you shouldn't. A game like Baten Kaitos is still light years ahead of many "next gen" titles and Waverace 64 still holds its own with the best in my book.
- cauleyk, on 10/10/2007, -7/+53Graphics are not everything to me... thus why certain Wii games are superb and I'd rather play than most all ps3/360 games. But playing games like BioShock in a high def TV is really nice and adds to the experience.
- AmishRefugee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+29of course graphics matter, they just shouldn't define the game entirely
The term "Form Follows Function" comes to mind - tradwolley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+25Actually you can polish a turd, but at the end of the day all you have is a shiny piece of ****.
- Spuy767, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24I have never once said that graphics do not matter. I have always said that no matter how awesome graphics are, they will never be a substitute for gameplay. So many next gen titles are lost on this fact. You cannot polish a turd.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Graphics matter mostly in *how they express gameplay mechanics*, or how they serve as a form of user interface.
Having a super-duper cool railgun effect in a first person shooter is nice, but the basic feature is to
A) Tell you what was fired
B) Show you where it went
Similarly, in a WWII game, the artwork of a tank should:
A) Tell you what kind it is
B) Tell you whose side it is on
Along with the standard constants
A) Where is it
B) What is it (details distiguish types of a similar thing)
C) How is it moving
---
Graphics features which go beyond conveying that kind of information are eye candy. The hairs on the cheek of your opponent? Pure eye candy. Their armor type, team color, whether they have the flag? More important. A "springboard" map element? Good. A "wafting air" effect to represent it's effect when stepped on? Good. Being artistically splattered with rust and combat scars? Eye candy. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21Why do people always take things way too literal? When people say "Graphics don't matter" they don't mean the graphics can be *****, it means they don't have to be the very best to make a game good.
This article is just silly. - sonick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Yeah, TETRIS sucks... The graphics are all BLOCKY on it... Hellooooo, anti-aliasing????~~?!?!??!~?~?~!!!!!!
- MrSidnet, on 10/10/2007, -7/+22I hate two page articles:
--------------------------------------------------------
Graphics don’t matter. It’s all about gameplay.”
We’ve all heard it, and maybe you’ve even uttered these words yourself before. Since the advent of video gaming, graphics have been a hot topic amongst gamers. Even when games were made up of just primitive shapes and super-low polygon counts, the industry has talked about graphics in games and has been amazed by increasingly more impressive visuals year-after-year.
And yet, somehow, there are naysayers who downplay the importance and the role graphics play in games. This write-up is written for those who fit that description. Hopefully, this will help them appreciate something they’ve been missing out on.
With Nintendo’s incredibly popular Wii platform being the talk of the town, the topic is even hotter. While Microsoft and Sony both followed a more traditional path with their next-gen machines – faster processors, more RAM, more powerful GPUs and thus more advanced graphics – Nintendo did something different. It built its newest gaming platform from components that aren’t cutting-edge and aren’t the latest in graphics technology. Indeed, the Wii is more comparable to an Xbox or a GameCube than it is its current competition – at least when it comes to its graphical powers.
The problem with many gamers today is they seem to think you have to pick one extreme: either graphics matter, and thus they are more important than gameplay, or it’s the other way around: graphics don’t matter, only gameplay does. The extremists are, quite frankly, wrong.
Indeed, both sides of the argument are wrong. Neither thing is more important than the other. Only can high-quality graphics and fun gameplay combine together to create a truly ultimate video game.
But still, there are naysayers, who disagree.
Of course graphics matter. How couldn’t they? Essentially, they are the visual link between a game and its player. Just like a controller, without them, you wouldn’t be interacting with video games. How someone can think for a moment that they do not matter, or think that they are not important, is simply mind-boggling – and silly.
Think back to the first time you played a video game. Chances are you were young, and you weren’t caught up in the message board-driven, politics-esque world of the video game industry – and chances are you were wowed by the level of interaction a “video game” allowed with the pictures you were seeing on screen. What about the first time you saw or played Super Mario 64. Were you not dazzled by the at-the-time amazing 3D visuals? I know I was.
Graphics are the first thing you see in a video game. Within the first few seconds you are playing a game, you are forming your first impressions of it – and its graphics play a huge role in that process. If a game is drop-dead gorgeous, you’re more likely to be sucked into its world. However, if the game is unattractive, you could be turned off by its look. Sure, it’s not all about graphics. If a game is boring, it’s boring, and no matter how impressive it looks, you’ll lose interest in it.
But graphics are a powerful force and are the first element to shape your experience with any game. Why underplay the importance of game visuals? Millions who have played Gears of War will tell you they love the game. What do you think initially hooked them and drew them into that game? Its stunning visuals. Am I suggesting its gameplay had nothing to do with that process? Of course not. However, the simple truth is that Gears of War’s graphical presentation is what instantly made the game stand out amongst other third-person shooters on Xbox 360.
When Nintendo unveiled that The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess would be returning to a darker, more realistic look compared to its predecessor, Nintendo fans rejoiced. They wouldn’t get a chance to play the game themselves and see if it was actually any fun to play for years to come, but the teaser trailer single-handedly managed to excite gamers by itself. And it did it without letting people playing the game. How? Its visuals.
Our hobby is gaming, but there are some who are entertained by paintings. These people are entertained by simply observing, looking at and viewing their art. They don’t use controllers to interact with it – and the paintings can’t be manipulated or physically experienced. However, they enjoy the simple act of looking at a painting; they enjoy the beauty they derive from looking.
People are attracted to beauty. Since the beginning of time, whether it has been attracted to beautiful people, beautiful pictures, beautiful places or other beautiful things, mankind has enjoyed beauty. Why can’t we enjoy beautiful games? Why is there sometimes a negative stigma attached to simply enjoying a game’s look entirely by itself? Why does that make someone superficial or shallow? It shouldn’t.
BioShock's graphics help create its scary atmosphere
Just like a cherry can make an ice cream sundae all the more scrumptious, impressive graphics can make a video game even more enjoyable. Think about Resident Evil Remake on GameCube, or any other horror-esque game, such as the recently released BioShock. Resident Evil Remake is mostly a port of a PlayStation title, but it features re-designed graphics – at-the-time lifelike and stunning ones. Thanks to more lifelike, believable visuals, that game is more atmospheric and thus an even scarier game to play, which is in fact the purpose of a horror game. They’re meant to scare you, right? Consider this. The more immersed and caught-up you are in one, the more likely you are to be scared. More believable – and attractive –graphics are an integral tool in the process required to captivate gamers.
The relationship between graphics and immersion doesn’t just apply to horror games – it applies to any game. The less time you spend realizing you’re playing a video game, the more time you spend concentrating on a game, and thus the more enthralled you are. For a game that pursues a photorealistic look, the closer it looks to what you see every day in the real world, the more likely it is you’ll become absorbed in its virtual world. The Gran Turismo series and other racing sims are proof of this. What makes the genre alluring is that it allows gamers to experience driving and racing cars they would never dream of driving in real life. The more believable it is that players are driving those cars, the more entertained they are likely to be Meanwhile, for games that feature more cartoonish and stylized looks, the same is still true. A mixture of dazzling colors and undeniably luring visuals can easily enchant, and before you know it, you are so absorbed that time is flying. When time flies, you’re having fun.
When it gets down to it, graphics matter a lot more than many are willing to admit or accept. However, they are not the only thing that matters. A masterful video game is a success because of its overall package. Intuitive controls, fun gameplay, attractive graphics – they’re all equally important and vital in the juggling act that is entertaining. It’s a shame that so many refuse to simply sit back and be in awe of how beautiful some of the virtual worlds that the brilliant minds of this industry have created are. - BrandonMills, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14I've said all along, the reason I *love* Nethack is because it has uber l33t graphics.
- K3ITHK, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14CS 1.6 FTW!!!
- TubbyCat, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13PONG PLS
- nreynolds, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Graphics are not supposed to be everything to anyone. btw, what games do you play for Wii? I'm seriously asking, I just used mine today for the first time in months (rented super paper mario) and I'm not sure I'm going to be using it in the near future. What games keep you entertained by this system? I want to be entertained by it too, that's why I bought it :(
- abcedarian, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13It's a matter of preference, but there is some strong evidence that supports the idea that gameplay is more important that graphical power. GTA games have in the past had mediocre graphics at best. The player's character is a blocky mess, and yet that series is one of the best selling series out there. Also, if graphics are all that matters, then are older games invalidated? Is Super Mario Bros. 3 a horrible game because it's graphics are now dated?
Now art style...maybe that's a different question - Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Graphics can make a good game better, but will do nothing for a game that already sucks
- TheDanderson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Very true, like Super Mario Bros for the NES. One of the greatest games of all times, but it wouldn't be the same if you were some buff guy with a sword going around in medieval castles; the giant mushrooms and cartoonish style are near irreplaceable .
- SystmBetatester, on 10/10/2007, -10/+18why they dont.
Gamegear vs Gameboy - Winner: Gameboy
Nes vs Genesis - Winner: Nes
NDS vs PSP - Winner: NDS
Ps3 vs the rest: winner: the rest - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11I was watching a demo of Virtua Fighter on the PS3. It was the same goddamn game except...
I noticed how beautifully rendered the mountainous backgrounds were. However, it made absolutely no difference to the gameplay.
What really mattered was the fact that if I'm gonna pay five hundred and ninety nine U.S. dollars for a gaming system, yeah... I better see a goat taking a ***** in the far corner of those beautifully rendered mountainous ***** backgrounds. - sinurgy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Why is this even an argument? I think people are setting their expectations to low. It's not about graphics OR gameplay, it's about graphics AND gameplay.
Graphics+Gameplay>Gameplay>Graphics - lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7 the ps2 was the least powerful system of that era. the point stands.
- LowROI, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Good graphics in a game is like a good rack on a woman. Its not essential, but it sure does make a better experience.
- DeathBorn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Graphics aren't the only piece of the puzzle, they should coexist with gameplay. However, what would you rather play:
1. A game with bad graphics and good gameplay
2. A game with amazing graphics and horrible gameplay
I think games like Super Mario Bros. or Super Metroid show that you don't need to look like Bioshock to be the best. Heck, you don't see Gary Kasparov arguing that his chess pieces don't look good enough. - merreborn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I've spent more time playing N64 games on my Wii than anything else. Especially the original Paper Mario. Hell, I still bust out my dad's old Atari 800 now and then. I played Joust to level 200-something, and have gone through all of dandy dungeon a few dozen times.
So personally, I obviously don't give a ***** about graphics. - Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6"It adds a lot, you will feel a lot more emotional response from something that looks human than a plastic barbie."
I quasi-disagree. You're talking about a specific "plastic barbie" level. It's an issue of the "uncanny valley". There is an area where the characters are in not realistic enough for us not to notice, but too realistic for people to abstract their appearance away. Think back to a video game (if any?) where you were really grabbed by the plot and the characters' interaction. Was it photorealistic? Probably not.
If you were right, then how can Pixar and Dreamworks together make so much money from 3D animated movies where absolutely nobody looks realistic? They still found an emotional response, even with cars with mouths and fenders for mustaches, for crying out loud.
Again, I think your real complaint is when designers shoot for photorealism *and get it wrong*. E.g. the Final Fantasy movie. - ramunas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You still play a game with good idea but with bad graphics, but you don't vice versa.
So I'd say that Graphics doesn't matter.
/me goes to enjoy his Fallout 2 and Need For Speed: Porsche - alcimedes, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The reason people have been saying that gameplay matters more than graphics is that far too often recently graphics have been substituted *for* gameplay. The game might play like crap but if the previews/screen shots look great then the game sells. Granted two weeks later sales have dried up and people have moved on, but there were two solid weeks of sales in there to shoot for.
- Cyberen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Three big examples for this argument:
Psychonauts: It manages to look beautiful, unique and detailed without looking realistic. The game is definitely art. The graphics make the mood and environments which gives you a reason to care enough to play.
The Neverhood: It used tons of clay to create sets, characters and animations, and like Psychonauts, was not a big seller, but left a deep impression on all who played it. Another work of art.
Gears of War: Guys with about 200 pounds of metal junk strapped to their steroid-pumped bodies run around a cluttered world where the only colors are gray and red. I'm biased, I know, but at least the graphics in Doom or Heretic let you know what was going on instead of a constant blur of gray. Graphics should assist the gameplay in pointing out important things and where to go. But Gears of war sold very very well.
Conclusion: most people have no taste. - matrox212, on 10/10/2007, -8/+13Like the iPhone.
- Tomamama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Graphics matter to me only if they interfere with my gaming experience.
- psxman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The Nethack and DND devteams?
- yargthepirate, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Because blood in video games makes you KILL PEOPLE ARGGHHHHHHH *foams at the mouth*
- solis365, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7servers go down, especially on digg. its nice to be able to read the article while im interested in it, instead of looking at a "page temporarily unavailable."
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Except that these days, artwork is taking up more and more of games' production times and budgets. The more detail that a system allows, the more time and money it takes to take advantage of that ability.
- allenthar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5While it seems dated now, Q3A had really freakin' good graphics for the time, so even your crappy attempt at an insult doesn't really work there.
- krd1979, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5And as of today:
360 vs PS3 vs Wii - Winner: Wii - fizstan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Maybe the article should have been titled, "Why Bandwidth Matters".
- TroubleInMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4So should I buy Madden for my Xbox360 or my Wii?
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"All these fancy things are there for portrayal. If in a movie someone gets shot four times and doesn't have a mark afterwards it would be scoffed at."
I think the immersion that games *currently achieve* without exactly body-damage etc. shows that this is not important... unless it was a cutscene and a major plot point, and you need to, say, help protect the poor guy through the jungle with one arm over your shoulder.
If the blood tells you something distinct about the damage level of the other player, then it falls into the "gameplay mechanics" part. But facial fuzz has neither storytelling impact nor adds to gameplay mechanics. - UGM2099, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Good question. I want to know what everyone is playing too. I'm playing Mario Strikers but its not as cool as I thought it would be.
SSX Blur was pretty cool. And Zelda was fun too..
But mostly I play Waverace 64, MarioKart 64, Starfox 64... - agilesloth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Then explain how WoW snuck through with sub-par graphics. And your note on Quake 3 fails to take into account how good the graphics were for when the game originally came out. I remember PCGamer using the game to benchmark new hardware back in the day.
- iAmGeek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This is so true. Even of my most favorite Wii, Ps2, or Gamecube titles, I still don't go back and replay ANY of them as much as I do Super Mario Bros.
- jedikv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4they do it to gain an extra 3 fps.
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm not saying eye-candy isn't nice to have. I'm simply drawing a distinction between "eye-candy" and the more-important "core" graphics, and I'm saying eye candy is of minor importance.
- CrimsonBlur, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Of course graphics matter! If graphics in games didn't matter, we'd all still be playing text-based games or have Atari graphics. If a game came out now with awesome, open-ended RPG gameplay but looked like ET on Atari, no one would ever bother to play it except the most hardcore RPG fans. Playing Oblivion and looking out over the vast terrain at a beautiful sunset, or having the scary, claustrophobic feeling you get from Bioshock, absolutely matter a great deal. However, you don't need the most cutting-edge graphics technology to have a great game, or even a great looking game.
The only reason anyone ever says "graphics don't matter" is because it's much harder to come up with an original story or new compelling gameplay than it is to create a game with great graphics. Sure, 3D graphics may be technically challenging and you need talented artists, but their skills mean nothing if they're not motivated by a great vision. - jedikv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4equating videogames to sex? dude you need to get laid.
- monkeyrun, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6That's why SNES, Playstation and Playstation 2 had the largest market share in previous 3 generations.
Call me when you stop using your opinion as facts.
Thanks. - morcheeba, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3repeat spammer --> user blocked.
- kiddcode, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3X-COM: UFO Defense was an excellent example of a game with stylized graphics and innovative gameplay. I still replay that game on my computer today. I know I'm making myself seem old, but I remember when a good percentage of games on that market had completely different gameplay. It seems like 90% of that games released this year are shooters (and a good percentage of those are sequels), and almost all of the rest are rehashes of some other game. What happened to creating something original?
It's like this summer's movie season - everything was a freaking sequel. - CatalystGhost, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Text-based adventure?
- Shaflugi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Sure, the price point helps, but you don't think people were/are excited about the motion-sensitive controls? Go be a retard somewhere else.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 215 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is