Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Has anyone else noticed how games have become all about graphics? I mean they have stories made by 5 year old children and gameplay that only a mutant could master but if they have good graphics people love it.

I still play Morrowind the old FF's Diablo 2 stuff like that and enjoy it no matter the amount of times I've finished it and I'll still be playing it for years to come. Hellgate London was a waste of money Assassin's Creed got dead boring and I don't play Eragon anyomore. Games with good graphics just seem to have no longevity or soul.

--------------------

Since I advertise CoN there I think it's only fair that I advertise The Wiki here.

That is such a brutal overgeneralization that I really don't know quite what to say. There have always been good and pretty games, there have always been bad and pretty games, there have always been good games that were bland visually, et cetera.

I just don't think there's any good way to come up with any sort of conclusive way to say that this is now a more significant phenomenon than it was in the past, just as you can't say the opposite either - it's just a matter of opinion, and there are plenty of examples of both kinds of games right now just as there have been since graphics actually started becoming a significant part of games.

Now, if I boil it down to just your first question, I don't know that I have noticed what you're noticing, no. But, then, I guess I don't play as many games for their stories as I used to, myself, or even games in general. Perhaps you're simply most angry because you found yourself buying games that were pretty and then were angry at yourself for buying them, later?

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

I remember having arguements about what graphics add to or detract from a game 15 years ago, and it's been such a long time I almost thought no one put it in these terms anymore. These days it's more common to put the question in terms of whether or not the cost of developing a big title is justified by the returns. And that's a troubling question.

But 'graphics' in itself is not a troubling question. It is important for a game to look good. However, people tend to say 'good graphics' when they mean 'a well-developed visual presentation', and the later is a lot more important to a good game than the former, and can be acchieved without making it the focus of the whole project.





--------------------

"Cavefish is delicious, but only if cooked."

I would have to say that because of the advance in graphics, it is much harder now than, say in 1986, to make a good game. Games now have to be polished with more detail and color and 3d modeling and mechanics etc. In comparison, games like Donkey Kong, or Pitfall required a lot of imagination on the player's part, and there was a sort of 'maverick' feel to the design of the games in that they were not epic stories or movie-like in any way, but rather just games with very quirky, ridiculous plots that were made that way partly because of the graphics limitations, and I like to think also partly because the designers themselves were kind of on the fringe of society, and had their charming quirks as well. At the very least, I would offer that they weren't taken so seriously as they are now.

Moving on to the '90s, we started to see people's ambitions grow with the capacities of the gaming systems, and things such as Final Fantasy came out, where you have a pretty polished game, but there were still many visual approximations involved that limited the artists' capabilities, and forced him/her to find creative ways to work around them (e.g. 256 colors, small sprites, limited animations, memory, limited sound tools, etc.) I think a lot of the charm of these games and their ancestors come from the obviousness of the genius involved in working around and thriving among these types of limitations, not to mention their constant innovations in exploring different ways to interact with the user. Also because of these limitations, it's like the game makers have given the audience a part in creating the game for themselves, as much of it is their own imagination which creates the world, guided along in intricate ways by the work of the game makers.

As graphics advanced, and other limitations such as sound and memory also advanced, we naturally see fewer workarounds, and more freedom on the part of the game makers to push the envelope in these areas. Additionally, the audience has come to expect a cleaner look and feel (and sound, etc.) to a game. And naturally, with more sophisticated tools come a higher level of commercialism. Standards are definitely not what they used to be, and yes, although this adds many possibilities, it can also take away some tendencies, such as the charms I mentioned above. Each level of game evolution has its own charm, just as books have their own unique charm, comics have their own charm, radio, theatre, television, etc. They all have their limitations, and they all engage the audience in some way, but their natures are different, and so the experiences drawn from each are different. There's advantages and disadvantages to each, and all types have their jewels that shine as masterworks in their respective areas.

--------------------

Oh tell me why
Do we build castles in the sky

This question has come up before, but in different formats.

I guess that you could argue that the state of industry possibly causes the companies to make newer games with the same stories as their prequels, making the emphasis of marketing to be that the new installment in a series is its better graphics. And therefore the publishers also have to advertise about their graphic quality.

But I have to side with Ranger, it is important but nevertheless there are good and bad games in every era or generation.

Quote

I would have to say that because of the advance in graphics, it is much harder now than, say in 1986, to make a good game. Games now have to be polished with more detail and color and 3d modeling and mechanics etc. In comparison, games like Donkey Kong, or Pitfall required a lot of imagination on the player's part

I would have to say that is incorrect. It took a lot of imagination on the designer's part to utilize such limited technology and use it to create a good game.

My belief about this issue is that even though technology affects game design, ultimately making a great game is extremely difficult. That's why you can't just have good graphics and have a good game.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Visually, there is infinitely more potential for creativity and ingenuity. Today's games have the ability to take on entire lives of their own in terms of how they can be made to 'feel', the communities that get behind them and their design and the proper development teams continued support.

Do I think that this detracts from the gaming experience? Hardly. It's easy to be inventive when you're given a bunch of limitations and a pretty clear set of rules you're to follow. Harder still is to come up with something absolute imaginative when the canvas is completely blank and there are no real limits.

As was put earlier, there have always been good and bad games, there have always been graphically impressive games and ones that fell short of the mark and they will continue to exist. The fact is that when you look back on the earlier systems, you're more inclined to remember the gems and so you feel like they were more frequent and few between than they really were. I can assure you, there were mountains worth of awful, uninspired games on the NES and SNES.

And really, what did you expect from a game based on Eragon? Ground-breaking gameplay?

The fact is you just have to be patient and know where to look.

--------------------

Okay, but there was a goat!