i find that graphics really dont matter at all, there is the intial wow factor that lasts all of 5 mins, but as soon as you start playing your not really looking at the pores in the skin anymore, your just looking at movement. like when i seen screens of crysis i was blown away, but put in motion it just felt like every first person shooter i have ever played,(only at 2 frames per second) the graphics had absolutly no impact on the experience and i walked away slighty underwhelmed. its a mute point to discuss the importance of graphics on a fourm where all the members create grphics for a living or as a hobbie and we all want to think they are so important cause thats what we do, and it gives meaning to our otherwise worthless exsitence.
i cant count how many games i have bought just to look at, to study and see if i could take anything and apply it in my own work, or just to see how they did that. but i didnt buy these games to have fun, i bought them for reference, there is a huge difference. just as great special effects do not make a good movie, there is no amount of graphics that can make a game fun. graphics do not equal immersion, if anything they are but dessert to a meal, an enjoyable treat, but unnecessary to the overall experiance.
[ QUOTE ]
graphics do not equal immersion, if anything they are but dessert to a meal, an enjoyable treat, but unnecessary to the overall experiance.
[/ QUOTE ]
I call bullshit on this! If you want an immersive game, it must have consistent and quality graphics. They don't need to be all the latest shiny fancy technological trickery, but if the texture style and animation quality isn't consistent, it will actually detract from the immersive experience.
So you can't say they don't matter ... sure, they're not paramount to a great game, but it all adds up to make an overall experience. If it's something tiny and silly like Pong or Tetris where the gameplay is all there really is to the game, then yeah I agree the graphics don't really matter ... but in current games, if the art and graphics aren't good, they're detracting from the game, and therefore they matter quite a lot.
I think the biggest problem this discussion is having is that people have multiple definitions of graphics. Some of you think its just the textures and some of you just thinks it means the level of realism and etc.
There are a lot of ways that graphics are an integral part of gameplay. The animations in a fighting game are in fact, graphics, so lets see you play with em. The way mario looks and his world is created is all graphics. Replace mario with a realistic model of justin timberlake and we'll see what you think of that game. Doom3 constantly used shadows to its advantage to create a sense of tension and allow monsters to pop out from.
All in all, some parts of graphics are definitely necessary, other parts are simply extras. Generalizing all gfx to be something inconsequential would be a mistake.
well i wouldnt call bullshit, but i do see that there is a difference in opinions here and possibly different expectation when it comes to gameplay. i can say personally they dont matter at all, they matter 0%, actally less than that. but it seems to you mop they do, and other people as well, graphics equals part of the experiance, but i can honestly say as can several people who i have talked to about the matter, they dont add anything to my personal experience. this seems to be a issue of personal preference more than anything, so on that note lets turn it into a maya vs max war, or mac vs pc. it seems to be in the exact same vein.
edit: arsh you're right it is a personal thing, I withdraw my graphics immersion question
personally I dont think graphics are be all and end all- far from it. But for me if a game is trying to make me feel like I'm part of a bigger picture then the graphics are a fundamental part of the equation
[ QUOTE ]
Immersion is always vital to enjoyment in my opinion. I don't read a book that doesn't immerse me, watch tv show, or a movie. Why would I play a game that doesn't immerse me?
[/ QUOTE ]
So are you only "immersed" by summer blockbusters that have huge SFX budgets, or is it possible for you to be immersed by a lower-budget movie with sub-par SFX, or no SFX at all?
I understand "graphics" in this case to mean the difference between what Nintendo makes and what Epic puts out. After all, the debate was sparked from the technological difference between the Wii and the other next gen consoles. Not horrible graphics vs. great graphics but average, low cost graphics vs. great and expensive graphics.
Nethack managed to get by without graphics.
EDIT: Oh and a good example of immersion with very little "graphics" is the movie Dogville, which has most of its props represented by chalk lines on the floor.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Immersion is always vital to enjoyment in my opinion. I don't read a book that doesn't immerse me, watch tv show, or a movie. Why would I play a game that doesn't immerse me?
[/ QUOTE ]
So are you only "immersed" by summer blockbusters that have huge SFX budgets, or is it possible for you to be immersed by a lower-budget movie with sub-par SFX, or no SFX at all?
[/ QUOTE ]
It entirely depends on the context of the movie. If a low budget movie attempts to make a high end sci-fi and the resulting graphics don't fit into the world, I (as well as everyone I've ever talked to about such a movie, or watched one with) find that the seriousness is compromised and it can become almost commical.
At the same time if the makers of the low budget make something within their constraints, making use of different things than straight out graphics to replace these FX (ingenuity, as done by Lucas in the early days, clever planning of the scenes so as not to have to show those "wow" scenes, suggestive play by the characters, merely hinting that something is there when it isn't, etc...) the low budget can be every bit as good.
How that translates to games is that a game does not need those amazing graphics, so long as it does not attempt to be a game with those amazing graphics. I can promise that even the people who said graphics matter 0% to them would not play an FPS with great gameplay but painful graphics. (by painful, think of that old windows maze screen saver, boxes instead of characters, no animation, etc...). People can deny that fact to no end, but in the end, they'd play the game with slightly less emphasis on gameplay but with great graphics.
I can truthfully not understand the need to argue this, when it has been proved time and time again by psychologists that humans do, in fact, like good looking things. It's a basic thing built into our brains that we like things that look good.
On another note, video games have evolved to the point where they are more than just gameplay. There are stories, graphics, the physical use of the controls (Guitar hero, Wii, etc...), the competetive and social factors, etc...
All of those and more add to the overall experience of a game. Not equally, but they all do.
[ QUOTE ]
It entirely depends on the context of the movie. If a low budget movie attempts to make a high end sci-fi and the resulting graphics don't fit into the world, I (as well as everyone I've ever talked to about such a movie, or watched one with) find that the seriousness is compromised and it can become almost commical.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I wasn't limiting it to any particular genre. My point was that visuals aren't necessarily what make something immersive. Movies like Armageddon and Independence Day are considered to have impressive effects, but they don't immerse me nearly as much as lower-budget films like Pulp Fiction, Fear and Loathing, Trainspotting, etc.
I understand what you're saying, but visuals don't make a game anymore fun. They can make a game more palatable, and definitely make a game more marketable, but they don't really contribute much to the "fun" factor.
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I wasn't limiting it to any particular genre.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's like comparing casual to core games then. A drama takes a fraction of the cost to make that a high end sci-fi does.
Also, while I understand what you mean about visuals not making it more fun, there is more to it than at basic first glance. Good visuals mean that the game is being properly communicated to the user. Meaning that the gameplay and game flow better, creating a more fun experience. Remember, visuals are our method of communication with the game far more than anything else. The game is relayed to us in a visual and auditory sense, visual much more than the latter. So if it is to be relayed correctly good graphics are nessesary.
However, this is likely a dead discussion, so I suppose I'll stop now.
Well, I wasn't limiting it to any particular genre. My point was that visuals aren't necessarily what make something immersive. Movies like Armageddon and Independence Day are considered to have impressive effects, but they don't immerse me nearly as much as lower-budget films like Pulp Fiction, Fear and Loathing, Trainspotting, etc.
[/ QUOTE ]
are you talking about budget or visuals? those low budget films you mention have great visuals, just not special effects
Replies
i cant count how many games i have bought just to look at, to study and see if i could take anything and apply it in my own work, or just to see how they did that. but i didnt buy these games to have fun, i bought them for reference, there is a huge difference. just as great special effects do not make a good movie, there is no amount of graphics that can make a game fun. graphics do not equal immersion, if anything they are but dessert to a meal, an enjoyable treat, but unnecessary to the overall experiance.
graphics do not equal immersion, if anything they are but dessert to a meal, an enjoyable treat, but unnecessary to the overall experiance.
[/ QUOTE ]
I call bullshit on this! If you want an immersive game, it must have consistent and quality graphics. They don't need to be all the latest shiny fancy technological trickery, but if the texture style and animation quality isn't consistent, it will actually detract from the immersive experience.
So you can't say they don't matter ... sure, they're not paramount to a great game, but it all adds up to make an overall experience. If it's something tiny and silly like Pong or Tetris where the gameplay is all there really is to the game, then yeah I agree the graphics don't really matter ... but in current games, if the art and graphics aren't good, they're detracting from the game, and therefore they matter quite a lot.
I can name good games with bugs but none with bad graphics.
There are a lot of ways that graphics are an integral part of gameplay. The animations in a fighting game are in fact, graphics, so lets see you play with em. The way mario looks and his world is created is all graphics. Replace mario with a realistic model of justin timberlake and we'll see what you think of that game. Doom3 constantly used shadows to its advantage to create a sense of tension and allow monsters to pop out from.
All in all, some parts of graphics are definitely necessary, other parts are simply extras. Generalizing all gfx to be something inconsequential would be a mistake.
Where's the Modo love?
personally I dont think graphics are be all and end all- far from it. But for me if a game is trying to make me feel like I'm part of a bigger picture then the graphics are a fundamental part of the equation
Immersion is always vital to enjoyment in my opinion. I don't read a book that doesn't immerse me, watch tv show, or a movie. Why would I play a game that doesn't immerse me?
[/ QUOTE ]
So are you only "immersed" by summer blockbusters that have huge SFX budgets, or is it possible for you to be immersed by a lower-budget movie with sub-par SFX, or no SFX at all?
Nethack managed to get by without graphics.
EDIT: Oh and a good example of immersion with very little "graphics" is the movie Dogville, which has most of its props represented by chalk lines on the floor.
[ QUOTE ]
Immersion is always vital to enjoyment in my opinion. I don't read a book that doesn't immerse me, watch tv show, or a movie. Why would I play a game that doesn't immerse me?
[/ QUOTE ]
So are you only "immersed" by summer blockbusters that have huge SFX budgets, or is it possible for you to be immersed by a lower-budget movie with sub-par SFX, or no SFX at all?
[/ QUOTE ]
It entirely depends on the context of the movie. If a low budget movie attempts to make a high end sci-fi and the resulting graphics don't fit into the world, I (as well as everyone I've ever talked to about such a movie, or watched one with) find that the seriousness is compromised and it can become almost commical.
At the same time if the makers of the low budget make something within their constraints, making use of different things than straight out graphics to replace these FX (ingenuity, as done by Lucas in the early days, clever planning of the scenes so as not to have to show those "wow" scenes, suggestive play by the characters, merely hinting that something is there when it isn't, etc...) the low budget can be every bit as good.
How that translates to games is that a game does not need those amazing graphics, so long as it does not attempt to be a game with those amazing graphics. I can promise that even the people who said graphics matter 0% to them would not play an FPS with great gameplay but painful graphics. (by painful, think of that old windows maze screen saver, boxes instead of characters, no animation, etc...). People can deny that fact to no end, but in the end, they'd play the game with slightly less emphasis on gameplay but with great graphics.
I can truthfully not understand the need to argue this, when it has been proved time and time again by psychologists that humans do, in fact, like good looking things. It's a basic thing built into our brains that we like things that look good.
On another note, video games have evolved to the point where they are more than just gameplay. There are stories, graphics, the physical use of the controls (Guitar hero, Wii, etc...), the competetive and social factors, etc...
All of those and more add to the overall experience of a game. Not equally, but they all do.
It entirely depends on the context of the movie. If a low budget movie attempts to make a high end sci-fi and the resulting graphics don't fit into the world, I (as well as everyone I've ever talked to about such a movie, or watched one with) find that the seriousness is compromised and it can become almost commical.
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I wasn't limiting it to any particular genre. My point was that visuals aren't necessarily what make something immersive. Movies like Armageddon and Independence Day are considered to have impressive effects, but they don't immerse me nearly as much as lower-budget films like Pulp Fiction, Fear and Loathing, Trainspotting, etc.
I understand what you're saying, but visuals don't make a game anymore fun. They can make a game more palatable, and definitely make a game more marketable, but they don't really contribute much to the "fun" factor.
Well, I wasn't limiting it to any particular genre.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's like comparing casual to core games then. A drama takes a fraction of the cost to make that a high end sci-fi does.
Also, while I understand what you mean about visuals not making it more fun, there is more to it than at basic first glance. Good visuals mean that the game is being properly communicated to the user. Meaning that the gameplay and game flow better, creating a more fun experience. Remember, visuals are our method of communication with the game far more than anything else. The game is relayed to us in a visual and auditory sense, visual much more than the latter. So if it is to be relayed correctly good graphics are nessesary.
However, this is likely a dead discussion, so I suppose I'll stop now.
"Properly communicated" means you can see what you need to see. It doesn't mean 50000 poly characters with normalmaps and 750 line material shaders.
[/ QUOTE ]
are you talking about budget or visuals? those low budget films you mention have great visuals, just not special effects
Yes yes, it's all relevant. blah blah blah