Graphics in Video Games

[Red Arremer]

Link to original post: [drupal=1240]Graphics in Video Games[/drupal]



Okay... Another kind-of-rant, I guess.

This topic has been part of the Sonic-blog I made a little while ago, as well, but now I want to write my thoughts on it in a more detailed manner.

Luckily, there are little of these people on Smashboards, some even strongly into retro stuff, so I guess you all know what I'll be talking about first hand... The people I like to call "graphic wh****".

So to begin, a little history lesson. I experienced most of it on my own, as well, so... I dunno.
The first videogames were in 2 colors and had huge pixels not being able to depict more than a line or a dot... It took only a few years until the first 3D environments were created in games, mainly on the PC - consoles would follow later. PCs already had some astounding graphics in 3D (back than at least) while the consoles still were in the 16Bit-era. Games like Quake or System Shock were created, while the SNES and the Genesis had their own showdown.

The PC market and its followers always have been so different to console gamers. I can talk about first hand experience, as my father is a pure PC gamer, while I am mainly a console gamer (though I do play PC games, don't get me wrong). We were argueing about games back when I was living with him.

I don't see much of what the PC gamers do in the console communities, though it starts to come into it, too: Graphic talk.

Now, what bugs me most about it is how many of those people claim that if a game has bad graphics, it's automatically bad. Why? Of course good graphics makes the gameplay experience more intense, but I still enjoy pixely games just as much. I think it's more about the overall experience. The best is if a game has good graphics and is a good game in general. Though I saw people reject games like System Shock 2, one of the best games I've ever played, because it's old and has outdated graphics (which were extremely good back at the time).
Yet those people play Need for Speed 643 or Generic Worldwar II Shooter 1354 because it has good graphics. Although it's the same over and over again. There's nothing improved but the graphics. I mean, if they really are enjoying and having fun, more power to them, but... I can't really believe it.

People who reject good games because of weaker graphics seem to not understand the principle of what a game should be: Fun. Not an artwork.

Take as example the PSP. It's in my opinion the prime example for this. Many of those people say that the PSP has superior graphics than the DS. Yes, I won't deny that, but what does the PSP has to offer in terms of games? Every of my friends owning a PSP only has it laying around like a brick and catching dust. The DS may be weaker in terms of hardware, but it has so much more to offer in the game library, some of those even became already huge classics, such as Meteos.

As said: I can understand how good graphics improve the overall gameplay, but games with even horrible graphics are enjoyable. I remember back in the Atari-days, when you had to have huge imagination to distinguish a wall from a hole because it only had like 8 colors. The whole game was made of blocks. Yet they were just as fun. And honestly, I don't enjoy a Need for Speed X or a Medal of Honor Y as much as I enjoy an F-Zero X or Wolfenstein 3D.

A game should be fun, too. Not only beautiful to look at.

...discuss, if you want. o_o

 

[PraKirJaq]

Graphics are always something to consider; its hard to play something when it hurts your eyes D;
I actually find pixely games easier on my eyes but meh.

For me, I like gameplay > Graphics any day.

 

[Hyper_Ridley]

A game should be fun, too. Not only beautiful to look at.

I 101% agree with this statement. Yes, it actually exceeded 100% I agree with it that much.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Agreed for the most part, but when a good game comes out on the PSP it is GOOD. I have yet to see a DS game beat out Crisis Core, Patapon, or the Megaman X remake.

Really, the DS has amazing games. It's just that the best games for the PSP are much better than the best games for the DS.

 

[kr3wman]

I 101% agree with this statement. Yes, it actually exceeded 100% I agree with it that much.

So you are becoming the statement?

Agreed for the most part, but when a good game comes out on the PSP it is GOOD. I have yet to see a DS game beat out Crisis Core, Patapon, or the Megaman X remake.

Really, the DS has amazing games. It's just that the best games for the PSP are much better than the best games for the DS.

wait what.

 

[ndayday]

When I play a Generic WWII shooter, one of the cool things about it is the graphics. Honestly though, that effect only happens the first few times you play it, and then you get used to the graphics, you really aren't blown away by them everytime you play. (Assuming you actually play the game and not stare at the beautiful graphics) However, a game like...hmmm, take one of the early Pokemon games. The graphics are quite laughable, I mean look at this:

Compared to this:

What matters to me is the gameplay itself though. Pokemon or Ice Climber will always beat the next FPS out in my mind, and maybe you disagree. That's fine though, if you didn't, what would be the fun of different kinds of games?

 

[Red Arremer]

Agreed for the most part, but when a good game comes out on the PSP it is GOOD. I have yet to see a DS game beat out Crisis Core, Patapon, or the Megaman X remake.

Really, the DS has amazing games. It's just that the best games for the PSP are much better than the best games for the DS.

I looked at Crisis Core, Patapon and Megaman X Remake and played them on a friends' handheld - nothing which does really throw me off the chair.

The only (for me) interesting game for the PSP is coming out soon, Dissidia Final Fantasy, and that's really like the only reason I would get a PSP for.

And every PSP-owning person I've talked to with was not able to name me one game which amazed them, and I only got "None" or "I don't know" as answer.

I don't doubt there are good games on the PSP, it just all looks very like Sony is saying "WE HAZ BETTER GRAFIX AND MULTIMEDIA LOLOLOL, U SUX NINTENDO", and that's basically it. The DS has far more selection than the PSP.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Well, a lot of the games on the PSP have impressed me. Though, the best out of what I've played are the three games I mentioned. Honestly, I would rather have those over any other DS game except for maybe TWEWY. Maybe. Crisis Core is superior to it, in my opinion.

If you do pick it up for Dissidia (which you should. I've heard the game is amazing), be sure to pick up the other games.

 

[Red Arremer]

Well, a lot of the games on the PSP have impressed me. Though, the best out of what I've played are the three games I mentioned. Honestly, I would rather have those over any other DS game except for maybe TWEWY. Maybe. Crisis Core is superior to it, in my opinion.

That's your opinion. I'm not really a fan of RPGs, but one RPG I've completely played through, lately, and that Magical Starsign for the DS. I've tried out Crisis Core - now, I wasn't a fan of FFVII to begin with, so maybe I was a little biased, but I didn't really like it that much, while I LOVED Magical Starsign, an amazing little RPG with such a different story and style.

I prefer games like Mario Kart or Megaman ZX over RPGs.

If you do pick it up for Dissidia (which you should. I've heard the game is amazing), be sure to pick up the other games.

Oh, I have played Dissidia. It IS amazing. And I would get other games for the PSP, no question (Sonic Rivals, Megaman Powered Up, Guilty Gear). Anyway, it's not about PSP vs. DS, it's about people *****ing about good/bad graphics, so let's stop that talk. =P

 

[Scott!]

I'm a bit divided on this issue, though I do prefer gameplay over graphics any day. I've been on Nintendo systems since my 64 and Game Boy. Back in school, I would get abuse for having a GC over PS2 or Xbox, since it had the worst graphics. But it had the games I wanted. I do have a PS2 now, but I only got it for Katamari and DDR, so yeah, even that was for gameplay over graphics.

The reason I am a bit hesitant is that, when I look at the games on my friend's 360, they look beautiful. And then I look at my Wii games, and I just wish they looked that good. It's far from being a reason to go for a different console; I need my Zelda, Mario, Smash, etc. But I still want both. It's unfortunate that, when it comes to my tastes, the games I enjoy are on systems with inferior graphics.

Also, I love my DS. I haven't taken TWEWY or Pokemon: Emerald out of it for months, and not for lack of playing either, though TWEWY has slowed down this semester.

 

[SSJ5Goku8932]

I'm a bit divided on this issue, though I do prefer gameplay over graphics any day. I've been on Nintendo systems since my 64 and Game Boy. Back in school, I would get abuse for having a GC over PS2 or Xbox, since it had the worst graphics. But it had the games I wanted. I do have a PS2 now, but I only got it for Katamari and DDR, so yeah, even that was for gameplay over graphics.

The reason I am a bit hesitant is that, when I look at the games on my friend's 360, they look beautiful. And then I look at my Wii games, and I just wish they looked that good. It's far from being a reason to go for a different console; I need my Zelda, Mario, Smash, etc. But I still want both. It's unfortunate that, when it comes to my tastes, the games I enjoy are on systems with inferior graphics.

Also, I love my DS. I haven't taken TWEWY or Pokemon: Emerald out of it for months, and not for lack of playing either, though TWEWY has slowed down this semester.

The PS2 had better graphics then the Gamecube, this iz Madness.

 

[Jam Stunna]

The Xbox had the most powerful graphics of last generation, although hardware tricks brought the Gamecube pretty darn close to it. The PS2 had the weakest graphical abilities, but the difference between the three systems was so negligible as to be irrelevant.

 

[finalark]

I agree with you on your statement about people instantly assuming that a game is bad because it has bad graphics. I also hate how people say that "the graphics make up for bad game play." It's kind of like women*, the ones are down right beautiful tend to be the worst when it comes down to what matters.

*not a sexist statement.

 

[Barge]

Nothing beats out the classics.
****, I'll play Mario Bros. and Sonic anyday

 

[Firus]

Agreed for the most part, but when a good game comes out on the PSP it is GOOD. I have yet to see a DS game beat out Crisis Core, Patapon, or the Megaman X remake.

Really, the DS has amazing games. It's just that the best games for the PSP are much better than the best games for the DS.

Two words: Phoenix Wright.

I know you're not a fan of PW gameplay, but those games are amazing. I still highly prefer GB/GBC/GBA to DS, but PW revived my hope in the DS.

When I play a Generic WWII shooter, one of the cool things about it is the graphics. Honestly though, that effect only happens the first few times you play it, and then you get used to the graphics, you really aren't blown away by them everytime you play. (Assuming you actually play the game and not stare at the beautiful graphics) However, a game like...hmmm, take one of the early Pokemon games. The graphics are quite laughable, I mean look at this:

What matters to me is the gameplay itself though. Pokemon or Ice Climber will always beat the next FPS out in my mind, and maybe you disagree. That's fine though, if you didn't, what would be the fun of different kinds of games?

Dude, come on.

>

=P

Nothing beats out the classics.
****, I'll play Mario Bros. and Sonic anyday

Yes. Yes.

Graphics are always a nice feature, but in the end it's always gameplay. For example, I highly prefer Metroid Zero Mission to the original Metroid, not because of upgraded graphics but because the original has an unfair difficulty (only 30 health when I respawn no matter what?!), controls are a little awkward, shooting is difficult (lack of certain angles), etc. On the other hand, I highly prefer the original Animal Crossing to City Folk because overall I think the gameplay of the original is highly superior -- or maybe City Folk just isn't different enough. There's a reason I played Animal Crossing consistently for an entire summer and far beyond that and I got bored of City Folk for the most part after a month or so.

Also, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; 3D is technically more advanced, but I prefer 2D games both for their style and because I love sprites. Super Metroid will always beat out the Metroid Prime trilogy for me because I love its sprites.
I'd also take any Game Gear Sonic game over something like Sonic & the Secret Rings or Shadow the Hedgehog any day. Not only are the Game Gear games much more fun than they're given credit for, but the new games just suck, even if they have fancy graphics.

Graphics can really make the difference -- for example, if Mirror's Edge had N64 graphics it would NOT be the same game. But it is rare that they're that important, and it's rare that games which require a certain level of graphics to be acceptable are good, although I would say it's true for Mirror's Edge. Perfect graphics can make leaping through the air, or flying through The City in the Sky with a Clawshot, or dashing through the Phendrana Drifts that much more exhilarating and amazing. But if those all looked exactly like real life, it would merely enhance, not make or break the experience.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I agree. To me graphics were always the most overrated part of a computer game. Some games were merely hyped for their graphics, which is quite absurd. I'm not saying that graphics shouldn't matter at all but I don't think they ever made the difference between a good game and a bad game.
"Good" graphics constitute something different to me than it does to others. Most people would say that "good" graphics have to be as realistic as possible. In fact that's the most common "definition" for good graphics. Most people forget though that these graphics are bound to be outdated sooner or later, when games with even more realistic animations are made. Then one of the biggest bonus of said game becomes obsolete as the graphics aren't that realistic anymore.

To me the key word for good graphics is "originality". No matter how close to reality a game's graphic might be - it's still bound to be topped by something else. Originality on the other hand won't lose it's uqality with the release of other games with unique graphics because it's usually impossible to copy that originailty without obviously plagarizing.
I remember back in the day, when Final Fantasy X was released it was hailed for it's graphics. Back then it was revolutionary - nobody had seen graphics like that before but now that FFXII is out for a while already people don't seem to think like that anymore. Now there's something in the series with more realistic graphics and it almost seems as if the efforts of FFX to be as realistic as possible were in vain. On the other hand FFIX (which to me is still the greatest game ever made) was never made to be realistic and even today I'd say that it has the more original and thus remarkable praphics. Back then I didn't realize it but FFIX has actually better graphics than FFX to me. FFX as good a game as it might be - looks outdated and old fashioned because it wasn't original but realistic...now that games with even more realistic graphics were released this seems kind of a "thing of the past". FFIX on the othe hand has never lost any of it's unique qualities as there' simply no other game to match it.

If people aked me whether I prefer the graphics of Resident Evil 4 or Tales of Symphonia I wouldn't doubt a second to say that "Tales of..." has the better graphics. I think Paper Mario has better graphics. I've seen games like RE4 countless times and it's just nothing that impresses me anymore. ToS on the other hand just never ceases to amaze me...even after 5 years of playing the game I'm still astonished by how unique the game look. Most people would say that RE4 has better graphics though ... I remember back in the day when Tekken Tag Tournament was the **** and everybody kept talking about how realistic it looks...look at it now!

People, who think graphics are that important should play the games of the Final Fantasy or Fire Emblem series. The best Final Fantasy games (4, 6 and 9 imo) were never hailed for it's graphics. The best Fire Emblem games were FE4: Genealogy of the Holy War and FE5: Thracia 776. The graphics weren't impressive (sometimes they were even horrendous) but they are still the greatest games in the series.

 

[Browny]

lol i remember when the xbox came out, all the fanboys would constantly spew '90,000,000 polygons per second' or something vs the gamecubes 6,000,000 and I'd be forced to say how 90,000,000 was only ever achievable in pre-rendered cutscenes while the GC's value was for real-time gameplay.' They never understood what i meant...

 

[Jimnymebob]

People complain about games not having good graphics, then they fanboy obsess over games such as Mario 64, Final Fantasy VII and GTA San Andreas, games which have dreadful graphics. In other words, the people who say that graphics are so important enjoyed playing older games with bad graphics.

Personally, I don't really care for bad graphics, just as long as they don't affect the gameplay. Some game characters look better on the PSone than they do now, take Crash Bandicoot for example.

The one thing that annoys me is when reviewers say that the graphics of certain games are the best thing since sliced bread.
Take God of War for example. IGN (lol bias reviewers) gave the graphics of this game=

10 Graphics
Top of its class. The only thing more impressive than God of War's technology is God of War's art.

While this game is pretty, it doesn't deserve a ten out of ten if it could be released on the PS3 and only get a 7 for graphics. Some people don't realize that the next gen consoles will improve graphics over their previous gen counterparts. When talking about graphics people should say that they are good for their time, not the prettiest game in existence.

I'm pretty sure IGN gave OoT a better score for graphics than TP, when the latter is miles ahead in graphical quality.

 

[Red Arremer]

I remember back in the day before mp3s and such became common.

Back in the day, music was not determined for what it actually should have been: how good the track itself is, the rhythm, melody, vocals, etc.
In fact, it was only judged on its sound quality, more than on the track itself.

When music on computers became popular, mp3s and such, not midis, the music was brought back to be judged on the music itself, not the sound quality.

That situation about sound quality really reminds me of what games are experiencing now, just on a smaller scale... to a majority of the gamers, graphics is all that matters, not the rest of the content.

 

[mzink*]

I do really enjoy nice graphics, its like eye candy to me. I'll go around just to look at the detail. And I'm one of those people that always wants to stare around at the backgrounds on the smash stages lol. But as long as its a game that I enjoy, the graphics don't really matter to me, they are just an extra bonus. I still love all my older games with basic graphics.

I haven't run into anybody that judges a game solely on its graphics.

 

[Teran]

You know, I love the fact that older games had incredible graphical limitations. Why? Well, because it forced developers to push everything else in the game to draw you in and immerse you. The thing is, we play games, we don;'t watch them. Innovation and pushing the boundaries of player interaction were the keys to getting the players hooked.
With the onset of advanced graphics in the 3D era, this started to shift, and move towards graphics battles. With the ability to emulate a more realistic ingame world, developers went on all out graphics wars, negleting the true core of what a game is.
If a developer is making an effort to push the graphics to their limits, good for them, but there are other areas that obviously need to have the same effort pumped in.
An example is Metroid Prime, they pushed the graphics on that, and not only pushed the graphics, but the artistic style in the visuals themselves made the game absolutely stunning, and I would actually sit back and admire the whole breathing vibrant world sometimes. However, the gameplay was also Metroid through and through, maintaining the magic and care for gameplay in the old games.
Gameplay over graphics, however, should not allow for blatant laziness on the developers' part, which is something that I see plaguing the Wii today. I don't ask for amazing graphics in any game, but I do ask that the developer make some effort for it, as laziness in developing is a slap in the face to us gamers that appreciate a well crafted game, with thought and true passion put in. When effort is put in, it shows. I believe that developers should focus on EVERY aspect of the game, in order to provide the best possible experience they can offer. Hey, it's not even asking much, I mean, games are their bread and butter, so if they're more polished and well made, then more people will buy them. More $ for them, more enjoyment for us.
Simple logic? Yes.
Well it would be, but Grandma Dorris is too busy lapping up "Wii-lchair Aerobics 6". Aaah the mass market, the killer of originality and character...

 

[Red Arremer]

I haven't run into anybody that judges a game solely on its graphics.

Then you surely never argued with XBox- or PC-gamers.

but Grandma Dorris is too busy lapping up "Wii-lchair Aerobics 6".

I seriously lol'd at that line. Especially the pun.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Horrible graphics can break a game for me. When the first 3D games came out on the PS1 and Nintendo 64...some of them were so horrible that great gameplay couldn't make up for it.

 

[Geist]

While I do agree and disagree with points made in the OP, let me first say that it was a pretty good read.
There's nothing I hate more than seeing someone try to pull a cheap-shot at a good game simply because it doesn't look as good as another game. I strongly agree that graphics are the farthest determining factor in a game's quality, because I know that by experience.
Ocarina of Time is still miles better than the average mainstream game on any console.
People who judge a game by its graphics are most likely mentally challenged, a raving fonboy, or someone who has absolutely no idea what they're talking about and have to justify their opinion by using something totaly irrelavant.

I have to disagree with you in another way, you vaguely mentioned this, but you didn't go into depth. You said that graphics help intensify the gameplay, but aren't the determining factor. This is half true. While there are many games that seem to exist only to render the realistic physics of bouncing boobs, or see how well they can render splashes of blood and testosterone running down the screen, there is the odd game that has gameplay that's almost completley defined by concept and art, for example killer 7, the latest Prince of persia and Super Mario Galaxy.
There are games that do so well with graphics that they can become extremely immersive and almost breathtaking. I know a few games that are able to trick people at first glance into thinking that they're real too.

 

[Firus]

The thing is, we play games, we don't watch them.

With the exception, of MGS4, of course. =P

 

[Red Arremer]

there is the odd game that has gameplay that's almost completley defined by concept and art, for example killer 7, the latest Prince of persia and Super Mario Galaxy.
There are games that do so well with graphics that they can become extremely immersive and almost breathtaking. I know a few games that are able to trick people at first glance into thinking that they're real too.

Or Okami, heh. I know what you mean, but this is a different thing.

What I was talking about was, as you put it so nicely, "games that seem to exist only to render the realistic physics of bouncing boobs, or see how well they can render splashes of blood and testosterone running down the screen".
If a game uses graphics and style in a way to present itself and lets it flow into the gameplay, that's very intense and I love the games you mentioned (except Prince of Persia cause I didn't play it). There, the graphic is a tool to make the gameplay flow even better.

But if the graphic is the only thing a game has to offer and is otherwise shallow, I see nothing really good in it.

 

[Geist]

But if the graphic is the only thing a game has to offer and is otherwise shallow, I see nothing really good in it.

Yeah, unfortunately there are alot of those games out. It seems the newgen consoles linger at the extremes, with the PS3 and 360 drooling at how good their grass and lens flares look, while the Wii is content with being able to tell the difference between a circle and a triangle.

Ironically the graphic whores fail to realize the other side of what graphics can do for a game, because for them, it's only about how realistic the game looks. They don't realize that the majority of really good games are the ones that break the graphical barrier and inspire originality.

There are always games that do realism well. If you've ever played Little Big Planet or Shadow of the Colossus you know what I mean. Both of those games look good enough at times that they immerse you immediately, but they aren't up in their ***** with realism.

With the exception, of MGS4, of course. =P

OUCH that was a cheapshot xD

 

[Lemonwater]

I agree that fun should take priority over graphics, but it's not to say that you cannot play a game simply because it looks great. Graphics should add to the game play, but the quality of game play is not affected by the graphics. Some people choose to play games because they look nice, which is fine, but game play is what matters most overall.

Also, there are different tastes in looks as well. Some people absolutely hate 2-D games because they say the 'graphics are bad,' but that makes no sense, since some 2-D games (like Guilty Gear and Muramasa: The Demon Blade) are very artsy. You can't simply say the 'graphics are bad.' There's a certain difference between a game in which each pixel can be seen and a game with a lot of artistic flair and creative design. The visual appeal of games (at least to me) lies in the creativity of the designs, not the realism. Who wants to play a game based on real-life things anyway? That's totally boring.

 

[Red Arremer]

There are always games that do realism well. If you've ever played Little Big Planet or Shadow of the Colossus you know what I mean. Both of those games look good enough at times that they immerse you immediately, but they aren't up in their ***** with realism.

I've played Shadow of the Colossus, I absolutely didn't get along with the controls. My friend played like the first 6 or so bosses to show me (the last one was that electric eel thing), and I thought it was all a little bit boring, as well... I dunno. It looked great, but it also had nothing I would've looked for in a game.

Who wants to play a game based on real-life things anyway? That's totally boring.

That's what makes The Sims so unpopular, right?