Falcon_BlizZACK Posted November 12, 2009 Posted November 12, 2009 I would like an open conversation on such a subject to determine the needs of some gamers. What do you deem 'good graphics'? How important are they? Must developers keep pushing the 'boundaries' even at the cost of other elements to the game? My favourite style of graphics are the bold and colourful type seen in Pikmin/2, Smash Brothers and various Zelda games. Generally smooth. In realistic games, graphics seen in Resident Evil 4 were more than satisfying. I actually found RE5 to be quite an eye-sore, as well as Gran Turismo 5 pro, Metal Gear Solid 4 and a few others. While I 'respect' the technical capabilities being pushed, some of these ultra realistic HD graphics just seem uneceasary. I'm refering to stuff like extra shine in, for example the Tarmac on the roads of GT5, or all the millions of pieces of rubble and sand particles in that middle eastern stage of MGS4. I don't know if I'm just turning 'old skool', because if we're talking about immersion; I still find Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask very immersive, even Final Fantasy 7 and 9. And i feel this was largely due to the other factors such as audio, art and gameplay direction. But for me, especially the audio. I feel graphical enhancements could take a back seat at this stage, whilst focusing on the other elements of why makes a game well received.
Shino Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 I like good graphics, I really do. But most of the times it is used like a carpet where all the shit gets dusted under. Its incredibly easy for a bad game to hide behind the graphics (and numerous do, just not on the Wii). What I believe, and what I think most Wii owners believe, is that we prefer our games to be entertaining in the way they play (ie gameplay) and then have a presentable layer of graphics that's adequate to the way it plays. Not necessarily the most advanced real time rendered computer graphics, but something that's apt. Examples of that would be TF2 (if you played TF classic, you'll agree that was a genius move by Valve), Dwarf Fortress, World of Goo. When people come here saying something sarcastic like "Clearly Wii users don't care about graphics", is missing the point that graphics are indeed important to us, but only after the actual game.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted November 13, 2009 Author Posted November 13, 2009 Yes "adequate" graphics is Exactly what i would use to describe my graphical needs.
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Ah... graphics, such a nice little extra. But that's about all it is! In all honesty, the best "graphics" this generation for me were Braid's, if you know what I mean.
Daft Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 I just completed Uncharted 2 about 20 minutes ago. That game is beautiful. Sadly, from now on, I'll be judging every game graphically against it. The motion capture is stunning, the acting - it's just a joy to play. No, good graphics aren't necessary. MW2 is still a blast and it's pretty ugly in parts but when you get something that is done so brilliantly like Uncharted it puts everything else in perspective (and to utter shame). Like Shino said, gameplay comes before graphics. Killzone 2 looked really striking, personally I love its look but I know a lot of people don't, but its gameplay wore thin. Not that it's a bad game, it's great but it isn't amazing. I'm not sure you can say 'developers keep pushing the 'boundaries' even at the cost of other elements to the game'. You don't really get games that look amazing but are utter dross. You do get a lot of game that look crap and play that way. I think the details thing is interesting. I agree that MGS4 doesn't look that amazing at first but nearer the end when you're in the snow and finally on the submarine, I was flawed. So in that respect I don't think the particle effects were up to scratch (they are phenomenal in Killzone 2, again, shame the actual game isn't likewise). Also, that layer of shine is more a graphical limit than a real intended effect. Graphics will and need to get better for the medium to evolve. With greater graphical freedom comes greater means of expression. I don't need amazing graphics but when a game has them, it's oh so so much sweeter.
Pit-Jr Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) When i pay $50-$60 for a new game, i expect the developers to make the game look as good as possible. Its a visual activity and its the first thing you notice when you start playing and its a good sign that the developers actually gave a shit about the project. It absolutely doesnt guarantee the game will be good though. For example, i wanted to love Infamous, but the developers used the Cell to create the dullest environment ever. Edited November 13, 2009 by Pit-Jr
Daft Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Not to mention the most inane characters ever.
Nolan Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Graphics is dem brown and grey shiny things that make games look all purty. Right? I like good graphics, if a game looks good great hopefully it plays as good as it looks. If a game looks good and plays less than sublime, I'll complain. Killzone 2 suffers from this as does Borderlands. Killzone 2 was just dull to play, Borderlands has some hitbox issues, but that's not the point of this thread. Both games are undeniably pretty, but somewhere a sacrifice was made... Then again, I utterly enjoyed Two Worlds and it plays and looks like Shit. It's late I'm rambling, so I'll probably edit in a more coherent less stupid post.
Kav Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 I'd be happy with visuals as good as Resident Evil 4, Metroid Prime 1-3, Wind Waker and Super Mario Galaxy ( to cover a few genres and styles). I just don't get it when games look worse than these when the machine is easily capable of it!
Mike Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 I'm perfectly happy with the GameCube's top end graphics, like Metroid Prime, Pikmin 2, and F-Zero. It's just a shame that there are so many Wii games that aren't even up to that level.
LostOverThere Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Art style is a big one for me, and in that, I do like crisp visuals. Metroid Prime (1-3), Mario Galaxy, Half-Life 2, and GTA4 all really did it for me. Funnily enough, although I liked the look of Twilight Princess, I found the look somewhat distraction. Hunt me down at will if need be, but I'm not sure, something bothered me about it. I also really dig nice lighting, Killzone 2 was amazing in this regard.
Grazza Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Must developers keep pushing the 'boundaries' even at the cost of other elements to the game? That's a good point. I can't remember where I read it, but apparently the A.I. in Halo 3 is not as good as Halo 2, because A.I. needs processing power and (proportionally) more of it went on the graphics this time. Now, each to his own, but to me that is getting priorities wrong. What I want to say is that graphics, power and HD are all related, but actually separate things. The most important one is processing power, because that controls the design of the game and how it feels. Personally, GameCube/Wii graphics are good enough for me at the moment. I'm playing Metroid Prime 3 at the moment and I'm quite happy that the extra processing power of the Wii has been used well.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted November 13, 2009 Author Posted November 13, 2009 That's a good point. I can't remember where I read it, but apparently the A.I. in Halo 3 is not as good as Halo 2, because A.I. needs processing power and (proportionally) more of it went on the graphics this time. Now, each to his own, but to me that is getting priorities wrong. Yeah... I can't shake the image that, given the deadline of a game project, a lot of developers are spending too much time fiddling with some super graphic software, or bringing in stunt, motion doubles and drooling at their own work. This seems like an ego trip.
Guest Captain Falcon Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Yeah... I can't shake the image that, given the deadline of a game project, a lot of developers are spending too much time fiddling with some super graphic software, or bringing in stunt, motion doubles and drooling at their own work. This seems like an ego trip. But AI isn't something you can convey in a picture or to any real extent in a video. You can only see good AI when you play against it and you see it reacting dynamically to your own actions - a scripted walk through proves nothing. So it stands to reason that they put so much effort into graphics it as it's their first tool in drawing your attention.
Daft Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 (edited) That's a good point. I can't remember where I read it, but apparently the A.I. in Halo 3 is not as good as Halo 2, because A.I. needs processing power and (proportionally) more of it went on the graphics this time. Now, each to his own, but to me that is getting priorities wrong. That's not true. Halo 3's one indisputable brilliance is its AI. Anyone who's played it on normal and then on Heroic should be able to see the difference. It's as clear as daylight. Halo 3 runs at only 640p. They sacrificed resolution, nothing else. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/bungie-enthuses-over-halo-3-ai The artificial intelligence of your enemies in Halo 3 exceeds that of previous games in the series by some considerable distance, reckons Bungie web hero Frank O'Connor. "Halo 3 encounters are more fun, more challenging, more varied and more enjoyable than those in Halo or Halo 2," he says, recounting his latest experiences with an in-development build of the Xbox 360 shooter, due out later this year. And so on. Edited November 13, 2009 by Daft
Grazza Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 That's not true. Halo 3's one indisputable brilliance is its AI. Anyone who's played it on normal and then on Heroic should be able to see the difference. It's as clear as daylight. Ah, dash it, I shouldn't have referred to a game I know nothing about! Back to Zelda then... King V mentioned Majora's Mask and this is a brilliant example of a game using extra processing power for game design. The descending moon and the NPC routines are all allowed by the extra RAM of the Expansion Pak. That's how I hoped games would evolve. Compare that to Twilight Princess, where arguably the graphics are too good for the design of the game. Basically, I would like developers to set the design of the game, the physics and the A.I., then set a smooth framerate and sharp resolution (not necessarily HD), and then see what graphics they can build round that.
Daft Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 Basically, I would like developers to set the design of the game, the physics and the A.I., then set a smooth framerate and sharp resolution (not necessarily HD), and then see what graphics they can build round that. That's normally the order things are done. Except the last three (frame rate, resolution and graphics) are balanced toward the end of project, around the same time as each other. I remember watching the Bullet promo on PSN for KillZone 2 (check it out if you can), they had finalised the game but they had enough power to and were still adding graphical effects right up to then end. One was to do with clothing texture that they actually have on that PSN tech demo but didn't make it into the game in time.
mcj metroid Posted November 13, 2009 Posted November 13, 2009 good graphics are generally functional ones but I love difference style as well. I love the cel-shaded look when done right like okami and wind waker. Certain style I like really. I rarely like a game where the graphics are bad because it usually means the rest of the game follows it. But generally i'm a handheld gamer and can look past this. Super mario galaxy graphics to me are perfect and cannot be improved. Rayman for ps1, Even something like donkey kong country 2 and 3 look great.
Konfucius Posted November 14, 2009 Posted November 14, 2009 (edited) I don't really care about graphics that much but details - detailed textures, detailed lighting... This is something that could be achieved with any hardware to some extent but with increased resolution of course more details are necessary and visible. Also I think shaders simplify the added amout of details quite a bit. I can't help but think of Star Wars The Force Unleashed here because the Wii version had blurry textures that looked boring and sometimes I wasn't even sure what it was supposed to look like - now I play it on my PC and everything is extremely detailed. It makes for a more immersive experience immediately. The same applied to Ghostbusters, sometimes it was actually hard to make out the ghosts on the Wii version - and no I don't have a small, crappy TV. On the other hand games like RE4, Rogue Leader or Half Life 2 (to bring in other examples) still look good by today's standards because the textures feature a great amount of detail. I don't know if any of you guys played Crysis but that wouldn't be half the game without the detailed graphics. I remember playing in complete darkness at 2 AM. It was also dark in the game and around me (in the game) planes got shot down and I could see anti-air fire in the distance. There was dust, smoke and debris and I shouted: "I'm in the middle of a fu*king war!" Edited November 14, 2009 by Konfucius
Recommended Posts