RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS THREAD!

[Slowtrain]

There are some people, such as myself, who have been around long enough and played enough games to understand that no amount of awesome graphics ever made a bad game good.

 

Where are you getting this? Did you even click the link? No one is claiming that good graphics make a bad game good.

 

 

Not directly. But that's always the implication in statements like that, right?

 

Better graphics=more immersion=better game. WHich is a total bunch of crap. Freaking "Hunt the Wumpus" with it's ASCII text graphics was more immersive than Oblivion or Fallout 3.

 

WHat he should have said is "Eye candy is easier to pimp than quality gameplay so we focus on the former rather than the latter." That I would agree with.

[Hell Kitty]

Not directly. But that's always the implication in statements like that, right?

 

No.

 

Better graphics=more immersion=better game. WHich is a total bunch of crap.

 

No it's not. A good game with good graphics is better than a good game with poor graphics. NO ONE is saying that good graphics make up for a poor game. That's entirely in your head. Sometimes you've just got to listen to what people are saying, not what you have decided they are saying.

[Slowtrain]

A good game with good graphics is better than a good game with poor graphics.

 

That's simply not true.

 

Possibly it is true that all other things being absolutely equal, better graphics would make the same game better, but in the real world, with a limit on resources, all things are never equall.

 

NO ONE is saying that good graphics make up for a poor game. That's entirely in your head. Sometimes you've just got to listen to what people are saying, not what you have decided they are saying.

 

 

I agree that Hines isn't saying it, but it is very much implied.

 

He is saying that better graphics = better immersion. That implies that better immersion is desireable, ie good.

 

 

So a game with better graphics has better immersion and is therefore a better game.

 

And all he has to do is look at the games his own company has made over the last few years to see that that is not true.

 

Graphics are such a minor part of creating a quality game experience.

 

But they are an easy sell.

 

Edit: Wzardry 7, which I believe your screenie was from, is just as immersive, if not more so than Oblivion

Edited March 17, 2011 by Slowtrain

[Niten_Ryu]

No it's not. A good game with good graphics is better than a good game with poor graphics.

 

Yeah and in the age of there Metacritic score of 75 can mean the death of the game, good graphics (both from technical and art direction point of view) and are absolutely vital. No matter if it's 4 hour FPS or 40 hour CRPG.

[Guest Slinky]

For some people graphics are the biggest factor in immersion, so to them good graphics goes a long way.

 

I'm not one of them, but I understand them. To me audio, especially music, is very important for immersion. For example, one reason I love MotB is because I really like the music in it.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Slinky

[Morgoth]

Funny how so many people who say graphics isn't important are the first ones that blame i.e. DA2 is an ungly game.

[Hell Kitty]

A good game with good graphics is better than a good game with poor graphics.

 

That's simply not true.

 

Possibly it is true that all other things being absolutely equal, better graphics would make the same game better, but in the real world, with a limit on resources, all things are never equall.

 

What? You seem to be implying that good graphics and good gameplay are mutually exclusive, which is nonsense. Maybe you've thought every game you've ever enjoyed had crappy graphics, but I've played loads of great games that also looked great.

 

He is saying that better graphics = better immersion. That implies that better immersion is desireable, ie good.

 

So a game with better graphics has better immersion and is therefore a better game.

 

Yes, but what he is NOT saying is that graphics are the only thing that effects immersion.

 

It's common for people to claim that graphics aren't important.

Pete Hines is saying that isn't true, graphics ARE important.

You're choosing to interpret that as graphics are the ONLY thing that is important.

Your interpretation is WRONG.

 

Graphics are such a minor part of creating a quality game experience.

 

Games are a visual medium, it's ridiculous to claim that the visuals are a minor part of the experience.

[Azdeus]

Funny how so many people who say graphics isn't important are the first ones that blame i.e. DA2 is an ungly game.

 

That said, there is a difference between art and graphics itself. I've been under the impression that it's the art people hate in DA2, not the technical stuff or resolutions.

 

And art-style is alot more important than the technical quality of it all.

[Hell Kitty]

And art-style is alot more important than the technical quality of it all.

 

Yes, absolutely. It doesn't matter how technologically advanced your engine is if you don't have the artists and direction to do it justice.

[Slowtrain]

What? You seem to be implying that good graphics and good gameplay are mutually exclusive, which is nonsense. Maybe you've thought every game you've ever enjoyed had crappy graphics, but I've played loads of great games that also looked great.

 

 

Yep, I sorta am.

 

Resources spent on graphics = resources not spent on other things. The more money one spends on making their game pretty, the less money they have to spend on making it good.

 

That doesn't neccessarily mean that all games that look good are bad and all games that look bad are good, since there are other elements at work.

 

But basically pretty = pretty, nothing else.

 

Yes, but what he is NOT saying is that graphics are the only thing that effects immersion.

 

 

That's quite true.

 

It's common for people to claim that graphics aren't important.

Pete Hines is saying that isn't true, graphics ARE important.

You're choosing to interpret that as graphics are the ONLY thing that is important.

Your interpretation is WRONG.

 

 

OK, fair enough.

 

Games are a visual medium, it's ridiculous to claim that the visuals are a minor part of the experience.

 

 

*shrug*

 

They are an extremely minor thing for me. Which ultimately was my original point. Pete Hines is wrong.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Reducing an argument to its simplest form usually doesn't get to the truth. It's not that graphics aren't important, it's a matter of priorities and trade offs. It's true that more resources devoted to graphics, animation, physics etc implies less content, since that content gets harder and harder to implement. But you can create the best possible content using text only very cheaply and very few people would play it, so it's always a trade off between available resources and how you're going to utilize them. The real problem is most modern games are at the wrong place in the graphics/content trade off.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Wrath of Dagon

[Tale]

Graphics are such a minor part of creating a quality game experience.

 

Games are a visual medium, it's ridiculous to claim that the visuals are a minor part of the experience.

They're also an interactive medium. Yet sometimes have prospered neglecting that element.

 

I'd prefer a 15 minute unskippable pong graphics sequence.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Tale

[Hell Kitty]

Resources spent on graphics = resources not spent on other things. The more money one spends on making their game pretty, the less money they have to spend on making it good.

 

Spending more money on x doesn't make x better.

 

But basically pretty = pretty, nothing else.

 

Well that's rather shallow of you. Good graphics aren't simply about being pretty. I've always loved the graphics in the PS1/2 Silent Hill games, but they certainly aren't pretty games.

 

They are an extremely minor thing for me. Which ultimately was my original point. Pete Hines is wrong.

 

If Pete Hines had said slowtrain is lying when he says graphics don't matter then yeah, he'd be wrong. You not the kind of person to appreciate a game's graphics, but he wasn't just referring to you.

 

Yet some developers prosper while neglecting that element.

 

How so?

Edited March 17, 2011 by Hell Kitty

[Slowtrain]

Spending more money on x doesn't make x better.

 

 

AGreed. One can spend money poorly trying to make something good. I was assuming, for the sake of this discussion however, that the money being spent was well utilized regardless of whether it went toward graphics or mechanics.

 

Well that's rather shallow of you. Good graphics aren't simply about being pretty. I've always loved the graphics in the PS1/2 Silent Hill games, but they certainly aren't pretty games.

 

Ok. Perhaps a definition of what qualifies as "good" is in order since that was never originally defined.

 

If Pete Hines had said slowtrain is lying when he says graphics don't matter then yeah, he'd be wrong. You not the kind of person to appreciate a game's graphics, but he wasn't just referring to you.

 

 

I don't consider myself particularly unique or special, so if I sincerely believe that graphics are not terribly important, then there are probably others who believe the same. Probably a sizeable number as well.

[Tale]

Yet some developers prosper while neglecting that element.

 

How so?

 

Cutscenes. It's the equivalent of splicing in segments of Atari 2800 games in the middle of Crysis.

 

"Fudge yeah, I'm shooting all of these guys. WHEE. And now a cutscene, I'll just put my controller down and wait."

Edited March 17, 2011 by Tale

[GreasyDogMeat]

Cutscenes. It's the equivalent of splicing in segments of Atari 2800 games in the middle of Crysis.

 

"Fudge yeah, I'm shooting all of these guys. WHEE. And now a cutscene, I'll just put my controller down and wait."

Eh, don't complain too much about those cutscenes. 'Cause then the devs will make the cutscene long and unskippable and place it before a hard boss battle that requires a specific pattern you need to learn through trial and error. You complain about that too, then they add Quick time events! Now not only is the cutscene unskippable, but you have to tap random buttons that pop up as fast as you can, follow that by a segment of mashing a button as fast as you can giving you early carpel tunnel syndrome. Miss just one button press or you don't mash that button as furiously as you should have and start again!

 

Plain old cutscenes aren't that bad.

[Tale]

Cutscenes. It's the equivalent of splicing in segments of Atari 2800 games in the middle of Crysis.

 

"Fudge yeah, I'm shooting all of these guys. WHEE. And now a cutscene, I'll just put my controller down and wait."

Eh, don't complain too much about those cutscenes. 'Cause then the devs will make the cutscene long and unskippable and place it before a hard boss battle that requires a specific pattern you need to learn through trial and error. You complain about that too, then they add Quick time events! Now not only is the cutscene unskippable, but you have to tap random buttons that pop up as fast as you can, follow that by a segment of mashing a button as fast as you can giving you early carpel tunnel syndrome. Miss just one button press or you don't mash that button as furiously as you should have and start again!

 

Plain old cutscenes aren't that bad.

Why can't all game developers be like Valve?

[Hell Kitty]

I was assuming, for the sake of this discussion however, that the money being spent was well utilized regardless of whether it went toward graphics or mechanics.

 

Money well utilized should result in a good game that also looks good. Money that results in poor graphics and/or poor gameplay is not money well spent.

 

Ok. Perhaps a definition of what qualifies as "good" is in order since that was never originally defined.

 

As previously mentioned art direction is more important than tech. I think Thief 1 & 2 look a hell of a lot better than Thief 3, even though 3 probably has more technical tricks up it's sleeves.

 

I don't consider myself particularly unique or special, so if I sincerely believe that graphics are not terribly important, then there are probably others who believe the same. Probably a sizeable number as well.

 

Lots of people like to say that they think looks aren't important. Like Hines, I believe that more often than not they aren't being honest. I don't think they are willfully lying, I think that like you people jump to the conclusion that "looks are important" means "looks are the only thing that is important" and don't consider themselves as having such as shallow view, but as I said before it's all too common to see people claim that graphics don't matter and then turn around and complain about low res textures and jaggies in the latest screenshots. Hines never claims everyone is lying, and the existence of people like you doesn't make him wrong.

 

Cutscenes. It's the equivalent of splicing in segments of Atari 2800 games in the middle of Crysis.

 

Using cutscenes don't equal neglecting interactive elements. MGS4 has more cutscenes than all other games combined, but the gameplay itself is fab and they improved on previous games. Also, I'm pretty sure you're on drugs and I'm going to have to talk to your mother about this.

[Tale]

Using cutscenes don't equal neglecting interactive elements. MGS4 has more cutscenes than all other games combined, but the gameplay itself is fab and they improved on previous games. Also, I'm pretty sure you're on drugs and I'm going to have to talk to your mother about this.

Yes, having segments of completely absent gameplay is neglecting gameplay, even if the rest of the gameplay is well done. If the player is putting his controller down, you have failed interactive media.

 

If someone mixes completely crap character models with good character models, you call them out for it. You don't excuse mix and match.

Edited March 17, 2011 by Tale

[Enoch]

Using cutscenes don't equal neglecting interactive elements. MGS4 has more cutscenes than all other games combined, but the gameplay itself is fab and they improved on previous games. Also, I'm pretty sure you're on drugs and I'm going to have to talk to your mother about this.

Yes, having segments of completely absent gameplay is neglecting gameplay, even if the rest of the gameplay is well done. If the player is putting his controller down, you have failed interactive media.

 

If someone mixes completely crap character models with good character models, you call them out for it. You don't excuse mix and match.

You can take that logic to some pretty ridiculous extremes-- no work of interactive media is being interactive 100% of the time. Is having a player select a dialogue response and then doing nothing while the conversation flows to the next decision point "absent gameplay"? How about the space of time between pushing the "reload" key and when the reload animation finishes? Should the game have a pong tournament going on off to the side while the player is checking the map screen?

Edited March 17, 2011 by Enoch

[Tale]

Using cutscenes don't equal neglecting interactive elements. MGS4 has more cutscenes than all other games combined, but the gameplay itself is fab and they improved on previous games. Also, I'm pretty sure you're on drugs and I'm going to have to talk to your mother about this.

Yes, having segments of completely absent gameplay is neglecting gameplay, even if the rest of the gameplay is well done. If the player is putting his controller down, you have failed interactive media.

 

If someone mixes completely crap character models with good character models, you call them out for it. You don't excuse mix and match.

You can take that logic to some pretty ridiculous extremes-- no work of interactive media is being interactive 100% of the time. Is having a player select a dialogue response and then doing nothing while the conversation flows to the next decision point "absent gameplay"? How about the space of time between pushing the "reload" key and when the reload animation finishes? Should the game have a pong tournament going on off to the side while the player is checking the map screen?

Ridiculous extremes are not an argument. Nothing works there. That's the problem with hyperbole.

 

Graphics are important! Did you see the resolution of that loading screen, it totally sucks! This map only has two colors! I think I see a pixel on the gun!

 

There's reasonable (is it really necessary that you give me dramatic camera angles and steal player control to introduce this boss?) and unreasonable (the player has to be mashing buttons at rapid pace constantly).

Edited March 17, 2011 by Tale

[WorstUsernameEver]

Was this posted?

 

Molyneux: I lied, lol.

[Morgoth]

So, Molyneux apologized again? How very British of him.

 

That won't stop him though to make up bull**** again for his next title.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

So, Molyneux apologized again? How very British of him.

 

That won't stop him though to make up bull**** again for his next title.

Oh I hope he never changes. That's what makes Peter Molyneux so entertaining!

[Big Bottom]

Yes I feel this is history repeating again.