Something that I see quite a lot in gaming discussions is the discussion of graphics. Especially when it comes to the quality of games a popular point of view seems to be that graphics destroy gameplay and/or story. Or to elaborate more; that developers would focus so much on graphics that the rest would get sloppy. Tacked to that I often find the argument of 'triggerhappy twelve year olds' who care about graphics only.

To be honest, sometimes such arguments strike me as somewhat....elitist. When I look back at the history of games I know, I can't say that games got worse while graphics advanced. There is no clear line between game quality and graphic development. I think that gamers/developemrs always have cared about graphics anyways, starting with adding new pixels and more colors, till now with normal mapping and polygons. It's not new. Actually, when I try to remember the first gamer discussions I've been part of (at least 8 years ago) I heard the exact same things.

Of course, what happened now is that a developer can focus on eyecandy only and try to get away with it (was harder to pull off with sprites) but does it happen all the time? No.

I guess the 'graphics nay' is an element of the 'games used to be better' discussion.
NO. Games weren't better back then. In all era's before, also tons of crap have been published. You just no longer remember. I did a little research for a school project into old games, from the NES era. I picked up some random games, and boy, some of those sucked hard.

As for the trigger happy twelve year olds...Of course there are enough idiots around, but i wonder...people who all say this- how were they when they were 12 year olds? I think 12 year olds can also judge what is good gameplay and what is not. They might not think about it and discuss it in the way we do, and some might be total twats on multiplayer, but I dare to bet a good bunch of them still can judge if a game plays well or not. I mean, if we look at games popular in that demographic, its still games that have well balanced and executed gameplay.

Now...I get the point people try to make; a game should be balanced. But please, don't pull your argument into extremes.

I agree. The industry seems to have learned it's lesson about graphics vs. games. There WAS a time where that was all that was focused on. Just prior to the nes era, as all the 4 / 8 bit systems battled it out. Because really there were very few original ideas to companies saw that the pretty games sold better and just decided to go with that. The collapse of the industry and the rise of the nes put a lid on all that since it so completely dominated in graphical power that everything looked good on it. The second rise of graphics was the 16 bit era when, again, there was a battle for graphical supremacy. Anyone remember "blast processing"?

Now the playing field is so level, and development tools so good that even the worst companies can make pretty games. But only the good companies make good games. There will always be 12 year olds who think their console can beat up your console. But in the end it is quality that wins the day.

I admittedly was one of these "graphics don't matter" elitists a year ago before I got my Wii. Now that I have my Wii, I'm not so sure! It's very unsettling playing most games for this console and watching the rest of world blaze past with near-photo-realism.

At the very least, I'd say that good graphics are a sign of good gameplay. Sure, it may not be necessary, but look at the games that *are* the best out there right now (or ever, usually) and a clear correlation can't be denied. The best answer in my mind is that the best game-makers out there are simply better all-around craftsmen who take pride in quality, presentable ouput. Now the Wii is practically swamped with low-budget, low-quality games that likewise have awful visuals (see Bug Island for an extreme example). And the best games on the console? The Metroid Primes and Mario Galaxies of the world that have had time and effort put into both gameplay and presentation.

Oh, and now that I've mentioned the Wii, let's make sure this doesn't devolve into a console war thread. I was only using it in my examples because I have more experience with it.

Graphics... Yay!

Graphics and no gameplay... Please leave.

Nothing wrong with sexy graphics, just as long as the rest of the game is good as well.

Good graphics (whether they're realistic or cartoony, whatever) can definitely enhance the game. It can also work wonders for the atmosphere and the story. But if the gameplay is bad, gamers will easily see through it.

Imagine if <name of company here> would release a sequel to one your favourite singleplayer games, but with graphics that look like they're from 1995. Bet you wouldn't have as much fun.

However, gameplay > graphics... always.

Graphics in gaming has become like stars in film, they pad the "potential" it might sell well in the short run because not everyone is tired of actor "X" or "Y" yet.

Graphics are worthless at least when they supercide everything else if the gameplay is not detailed, balanced and above all fun whats the point?

I could care less about photo realism and newb bewb physics, I can even overlook frame rate and story issues if it plays well and is fun to play, now I will at least admit to being a gameplay nazi, Halo 3 and Bioshock and or any random highly rated game since 02 are only slightly above average once you weigh in all the factors of the game, sure there is the rare fun new game but rare i as good as its gets if that now adays.

In the end gamin needs to keep t simple lets not go headlong into OTT graphics and over priced bloated amchines we do not need that, what we need is fun games at a balanced price not shiny T&A fluff thats 60 a pop.

personally, graphics dont mean squat to me, i personally, will stick to my ancient games, and my uber retro version of pong

when i get into playing a game graphics dont really mean that much to me but they do have there role to play of course. what really matters to me is how the game plays and how fun it is (give me a fun but ugly game any day of the week over a good looking but boring one).

i havent really been keeping up with new games recently, and why may you ask? well its because im still amused with my current ones.

some of the games i play
1) Ultima Online i started playing this some time in 1998 and am currently loged in as i type now. As u can imagine for a game over 9 years old the graphics arnt to good any more and competitors to the same market like world of warcraft make it look old and decrepid, but it still hangs on due to its amazing game play, i know many ultima online players who have tryed world of warcraft only to return a few weeks lata. the weird thing is Ultima has had a few attempts to improve its graphics and so far they have all failed with the older playerbase as the new clients are they release actully put the new players at a disadvantage and so many people use the older clients.

2) counter strike. i loved CS 1.5 and CSS is alright but they have tailored it more for the thickits that carnt use sound correctly (now has map to show u were the other team are if they shoot and still some people carnt use it correctly). I believe game play droped as graphics increased here although it wasnt that one happened because of the other i think there both unrelated events.

3) a few weeks ago i dusted off my PS2 and brought smugglers run for £2.50 (well worth it) this is a moderatly hard game and i found it fun to play even the second time arround (both solo and multiplayer) now back when smugglers run 2 was release i remember being highly dissapointed with it, they improved the graphics but i felt they took away a lot of the feel and the fun of the game (so i continued to play the original one a lot)

there is oviously no relation between games that says ones that have good graphics will suck at game play but i seem to find when some thing is re-released or "improved" they focus more on graphics and tend to loose sight on the gameplay aspects.

Yes, but there is also a point at which bad graphics can equate to bad game play. If we are including frame rate into this (and why not?) a game with too low of a frame rate can hinder the basic function of the game. I am not referring to PC games, because as a general rule that is a factor of the system playing it. But a game where a stuttering frame means the difference between landing on that platform and falling to your death, or a choppy shooter keeping you from avoiding the enemy shots is a situation where the graphics need to be at a certain standard.

I just had to reply to this thread.

As a three year MUDder, I have to say that graphics don't make a huge impact on me. I'm going to want storyline, gameplay, and features over the graphics any day. Now, I know I'm not really the majority anymore, but think of this:

You're in a dark forest, walking along peacefully exploring the gorgeous scenery (yes, you're reading the description, but just work with me for a moment). Suddenly, you're confronted by another player, playing a character who is on the opposite side of the current war than you. You both draw your swords and away you go. The battle commences with you strike at his head, hoping you can open enough wounds on his head so that you can perform the "best" move for your particular class, bashbrains, a simple manuever which simply crushes his skull. Now... in order to do this, you have to wound his head enough, that his skull is weak enough TO crush. The bad part right now, is that he's parrying mainly in a stance that's guarding his head, so that you're out of luck on that. Since he parried, he's gotten in a hit on you, his blades have severed an artery in your left arm, which you can see after you diagnose yourself using rudimentary First Aid knowledge. Since you're most likely desperate to stop the bleeding, you stop swinging your maces long enough to grab a healing herb (a certain type that will help your blood clot) and eat it, then apply a mending potion to the arm so that you feel better.

Now, when do you get that kind of complexity in a modern day MMORPG? Just to be fair, I'll admit that I love playing Guild Wars, and though it's graphics aren't necessarily top of the line, once again I'm going for gameplay over the graphics. I love the strategy involved, etc, over the fact that the graphics are probably topped by other MMO's out there.

That's another reason I don't play WoW (though I have to admit, I'm penniless and the whole subscription doesn't set well with my college tuition). I don't like the fact that the gameplay is all about grinding, you're always grinding for another level, or more gold for the better equipment, or for the access to high level dungeons for raids. It's always the same thing. *shrugs* I just have to say that I'm more about what the game is about.

Leaving the world of MMO's for a little while, I'd have to say that I prefer older games in general over the newer ones. Looking at the C&C history, for instance, I much prefer a game of Tiberian Dawn or Red Alert 1 over playing Generals (though this might not be the best example for us die-hard C&C fans). And I also recently found a game called Castles (not sure if you guys remember it, but I believe it went to Abandonware recently). It's a DOS game from back in the ninety's sometime, and I had hours of fun in the last summer playing it on end, trying my darndest to be named the next King Arthur.

All I'm really saying is, as a gamer for like, however long I've been gaming for, I prefer the gameplay elements to be good over the graphics to be snappy. Am I elitist? Maybe, but maybe I just prefer my imagination to be engaged rather than my eyes.

~Akcin, ie Daemynic.

MUDs vs MMOs is the same argument as Books vs. Movies. I think tt is going a bit to the extreme to say you prefer games without graphics because it lets you visualize it.

But I do agree there are more then a few examples of games where the original are far better then the sequals despite better graphics.

Is it just me, or is anyone else in the mood to play Adventure or Rogue?

*chuckles* I spent hours on Rogue as well. Never got into the Adventure/Zork games that much, mainly because I'm not great at puzzles, another reason I never got into the Myst games. ;)

*laughs* And the Books vs. Movies argument is fun! But really, MUDs and MMOs still are both games, at least I was staying within the genre, right?

Graphics don't mean a lot to me, unless the graphics are so sloppy I just can't tell what I'm doing and it slows down gameplay (the Dynasty Warriors games are notorious for that, yet still fun).

For most of the games I play, the graphics are nice but the story and/or characters seem to be lacking substance (the gameplay usually takes a blow or two as well). Don't get me wrong, a story is there, but it doesn't feel complete.
Then there are the games I look forward to, most of which just look to amazing to be true. Then when they are released, that thought becomes a reality (it becomes the previously mentioned issues).
On a sidenote, this is the same way I feel about most movies (incomplete plot but great special effects). Plus they always seem to show the best parts in the trailer and the actual movie is poo.

I try not to have to many expectations for games any more. They just need to be fun.

I meant Adventure on the 2600. No puzzles there, just a violent square with an arrow killing ducks.

My philosophy with games and movies is the same. I have certain expectations when I go in. As long as the game/movie does not fall below them, I am satisfied. I didn't expect Katamari to be a graphical powerhouse telling an epic tale. I wanted wacky Japanese fun with unexplainable rainbows and pandas.. and I got it, I was happy. I wanted Spiderman 3 to be at least as good as Spiderman 2.. and I was disappointed.

Oh, woops. Sorry, xbeaker, I was thinking Adventure the text game made by the guy that also wrote the programming code behind the first node for the ARPAnet (original predecessor for the internet, designed for the Department of Defense for the United States). *chuckles* Still think it's funny that the guy who programmed the node infrastructure for our modern day internet was also the guy who made the first widely spread game (originally designed for his kids as a puzzle text adventure, based entirely off the caves in South Carolina, I believe. He was an avid spelunker).

I'm not going to begrudge a game for looking pretty- heck, I'll admit, good graphics tend to make a good experience better- but at the same time, if there isn't much of a game behind those pretty polygons, it's not going to keep my interest much longer then when I press start.

With that said, however, the graphics must at least do their job- a clean but relatively ugly game like Katamari Damacy works, but if a really pretty game is cluttered and indecipherable and makes the game a chore to play because it's hard to tell what parts of the world you're intended to interact with and what parts of the world are just there... older adventure games and modern FPS titles are the most guilty of this. Of course, BAD graphics can just compound the problem into one big gigantic mess of indecipherable rubbish. Really, I can't think of many reasons, barring nostalgia and elitist hypocrisies, for BAD graphics actually being better then good ones.

Also, nostalgists- face it, many games sucked back then too. I don't care how many fond memories you can pile on it from good games like Super Mario Brothers 3 or Mega Man 2, there's a hundred more Deadly Towers and Heroes of the Lance. Remembering the good games is nice, but we got good games now too, and even the bad games, generally, are better (and at least playable) compared to their 8-bit counterparts.

MUD vs MMO is pretty much preference for anyone on either side of the argument. I used to play MUDs, and I play City of Heroes now. Text input was fun until game worlds learned to simulate things properly through a GUI. I might be an action-oriented thickie, but I prefer to just press 1 to fire my eye beams instead of >a thug eyebeam.

Honestly, I think it's a bit simple to look at how it can't be graphics making gameplay "worse".

See, the artists aren't programming the game, and the programmers aren't creating the art. One has no effect on the other as they are completely different departments. So really, how can you be getting sloppy spending too much time on graphics? Especially when everyone knows about "crunch time", meaning that programmers are certainly not finishing their job and waiting for weeks for the artists to get done.

The idea that it's all about shininess is honestly pretty foolish. Especially this generation, as I believe people are underestimating how much better games are now than they were during the PS2/Xbox/GameCube era.

Quoting myself: Now...I get the point people try to make; a game should be balanced.

Everyone starts off that a game aint worth it if it has pretty graphics only, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make ;) Hey, I also still play old games.

But I think my main point got across mostly :)

Now, as for text based muds...it sounds nice, such descriptions. But lets say there is a combat on regular basis, dont you start to recognise certain phrases after some time?

I wouldn't say producers are concentrating more on graphics. But I would say that a lot of generic and mediocre games are being praised simply because they look nice and a lot of genuinely fun and great games are being shunned because they don't have the top-of-the-line graphics. Par exemple, I was playing Half-Life 2 once and my brother leaned over my shoulder and immediately commented on the graphics. And when I say 'commented', I don't mean it in a positive way. That was a snapshot of Half-Life 2, one of the greatest games ever, and my brother rejected it simply because he didn't like the Source engine's graphics.

Graphics Vs Gameplay is like the age old question on who to date. Should I date the super model that thinks tuna is really chicken from the sea or a deranged form of a person that is the smartest person alive. Balance is the best way to make games (and dates) and if one happens to lack in one field, but makes up in another... fine with me as long as I get my money/bandwidth worth.

I dont see much of a down side to graphics, it makes games that would have been mediocre to begin with more tolerable, and makes most good games better as long as they dont change the feel of the characters.

noahshinji:
Graphics Vs Gameplay is like the age old question on who to date. Should I date the super model that thinks tuna is really chicken from the sea or a deranged form of a person that is the smartest person alive. Balance is the best way to make games (and dates) and if one happens to lack in one field, but makes up in another... fine with me as long as I get my money/bandwidth worth.

Duh, you date the good looking girl who thinks tuna is chicken.

Wait, no. I didn't see the third option. Date the girl who has money and bandwith.

Graphics is only a bad thing when they try to replace good play with them. Graphics sell the games, but it's the gameplay that keeps you coming back to them.

after my brief encounter last time, ive decided to add some more points, as ive already said, graphics dont do much for me, cmon, my favourite game is Dungeon Keeper, honestly, it is one of the best games ever. Download it or something, or even just go out and buy dungeon keeper 2, thats pretty much the same, with a feature or 2 added, slightly better graphics, and a better flowing storyline.

graphics are unrelated to fun, aka gameplay, which is all that matters to me.

graphics are an easy target for game reveiwers, because anyone can glance at two screenshots and like one more than the other- but if anyone can have that opinion, is it worth anything?

Kronopticon:
after my brief encounter last time, ive decided to add some more points, as ive already said, graphics dont do much for me, cmon, my favourite game is Dungeon Keeper, honestly, it is one of the best games ever. Download it or something, or even just go out and buy dungeon keeper 2, thats pretty much the same, with a feature or 2 added, slightly better graphics, and a better flowing storyline.

Exactly. A lot of classics, like DK2, didn't have the best graphics. They were still fun and enjoyable games. It all comes down to the choice; would you buy Deus Ex or TimeShift? (the former great gameplay, the latter great graphics)

I want the graphics good enough to understand all the action. That's about it. So long as you're not looking at something pertinent to the plot of the story and it's not an indecipherable blob, it's okay. Other than that I want gameplay...I definitely think they can be merged, look at The Orange Box, the games on board are great, and they all look good too. But I don't empasize it much at all.

I do kind of like graphics as an extra layer to a game, as long as it was kept seperate from the rest of development, and doesn't cause major framerate hitches. But when comparing something like Final Fantasy 5-million-polygon-faces to Super Mario 12, I'm not going to bring graphics into the debate.
Still, it is possible for a game's graphics to be just too bad. Now stop groaning because of the previous sentence; this DOESN'T happen often. As the guy above said, as long as they're good enough to indicate what's going on, and can convey what's needed (emotion, level of destruction; ie no 2d explosions for a nuke) then I'd say don't bother going excessive.

You wouldn't get alot of the games that you do now without the aid of higher graphics, since they would be needed to portray the game and things you are doing within that game clearly.

However, I do think that the graphics side of design has almost hit it's peak where it's not really needed to go any further. I think the industry might be turning their head towards something else.

You all know of Crysis I'm sure seeing how this debate is about graphics. Now, I don't care for competitive gameplay anymore after several hundred TK's from APM's in BF2 and 2142, getting shot through a wall in Counterstrike and I could rant about any FPS. The only FPS I cared for was Halo and that was simply because custom games (ie tower of power) were just fun to mess around in and it didnt matter if you win or lose.

I also don't care for the story, something about your a group of american super soldiers trying to rescue some people (or as stated in a trailer "investigate a crash site") on this large island full of koreans. If anyone owns the game, has played the beta, demo etc etc. you would know not only is this game as shiny as it was told to be but it also has a remarkable physics engine.

The Crytek engine is a new milestone in not only the physics but the environmental destruction. Destroying buildings in every possible way: Throwing grenades, using explosives, punching them with your fists, throwing enemies/boxes/barrels/chickens/turtles into them, driving a car/tank, using a nuke etc etc etc creates a pretty big gameplay element.

You think that Halflife: 2 looked good? That the source engine was amazing? They dont even compare.

The point is that this game tries to satisfy all audiences for Gameplay and Graphics. And yes the multiplayer is fan-freaking-tastic as well, or at least the Beta was other than a few bugs which is to be expected and is the entire reason in participating in a Beta in the first place.

Crysis serves as a great example of why graphics don't sacrifice gameplay and can actually add to it, even if you have poor eye sight and don't understand what anti-aliasing does.

I agree that Crysis is a great example of why really good graphics don't mean the rest of the game has to suffer. I had to run the demo on the lowest settings so I didn't get much out of the eye candy Crysis is known for, but the game play was a lot of fun. Switching between different suit powers to fit the situation makes it more than a run of the mill FPS, but maybe I just get a kick out of throwing my enemies twenty feet with one arm.

I think companies that try to overemphasize graphics these days will fall on their face. Back when video games were fairly new, and catered mostly to impressionable kids that might have worked, but now there are adult gamers, and kids who have been playing games all their life that have been graphically impressive compared to the Pong I started with. They aren't as wowed by eye candy.

A lot of times on a site like Kotaku when a new game preview is pre-rendered CGI the first comment will ask where the video of the game play is.

On the other hand there are a lot of people dismissing Kane and Lynch because it lacks shiny graphics so there are at least some people who value eye candy.

Yanarix:
graphics are unrelated to fun, aka gameplay, which is all that matters to me.

graphics are an easy target for game reveiwers, because anyone can glance at two screenshots and like one more than the other- but if anyone can have that opinion, is it worth anything?

tell that to the studios that bank their game budgets on looks and not game play design....sadly it is part of the problem when devs focus on graphics as filler because they don't have the time to work on game play issues.