tube82 said:
selnor said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
Lafiel said:
MaxwellGT2000 said:
Munkeh111 said:
Graphics have to be there to complete the game. Take games like Mass Effect, Uncharted or Heavy Rain where the emotion of the characters is very important, and that would only really work with brilliant graphics. Likewise, the scale of things in God of War III is very important for the overall feeling of the game, and it really does wow. Of course, these games aren't about just fun, but general enjoyment, there is more gaming than just "fun."
Of course, if you want to look at a game that is just about mucking around, then look at Just Cause 2. The graphics are key in drawing you into the game, and wanting you to explore. Being able to see these beautiful vistas encourages you to take a look and discover more of the game world
|
I have to stop you right there, the only game I've ever played that's made me cry like a little girl was Mother 3 (to a lesser extent Earthbound) with its 2D SNES style graphics, I can tell you it's all about art design over graphics anyday, if you want to give those effects you can do it if your team has the talent, more power isn't going to change that.
I've seen plenty of crappy looking "HD" games that were technically more impressive than anything you could find on the Wii and yet games like Super Mario Galaxy trump it, because it's art and talent over anything else.
|
huh? doesn't he say the same you do?
Graphics have to "complete the game", ergo the art must serve the games nature, which in Heavy Rain's or Mass Effect's case means it must be realistic for those games to work and realistic looking games need a lot of hardware power (or they end up unintentionally funny, breaking the immersion).
"Mother" works brilliantly with cartoony graphics and wouldn't work with "realistic" ones.
To me "graphics" consist of the three components - technical aspects, art style, animation and if all go hand in hand you have a "graphically impressive game", like SMG for example, while many HD games only have technical powers and an unfitting art style and therefore aren't impressive.
|
Mother 3 is a very serious game even more so than Heavy Rain, it's all about how you go about making your game.
I was making the point they don't have to be balls to the wall with power to make a visually pleasing game that gives the effect that you want, point being games like Indigo Prophecy from the Heavy Rain devs last gen. I wasn't really debating anything other than power doesn't make a whole lot of difference its the talent of the people going into the project.
Games like Final Fantasy IV are visually pleasing to this day, have a lot of atmostphere, and pull off a lot of effects and feelings and it was the first FF game on the SNES and they had a while to refine that into FFVI. The games give off the aura of a serious story, a living world, and the effect that it's pretty big and epic, no 3D required :P fast forward to FFXIII and while the battle system is pretty fun and its a really pretty game, I never get the moody feeling like I did with FFI-IX, and it's all about the team coming together on the right parts and having someone heading the project with a real vision in mind to make it all work.
|
I have to disagree. I never owned 1 single Nes or Snes title that emmersed me into feelings. Never. Not any FF game at all. I got the story, but in terms of feeling it was just thought not emotion.
I firs tbecame emotional in a game with FF7. And that was due to the CGI not the speech bubbles in gameplay. I believe totally, that graphics are a huge part of the emotion. Imagine Armageddon when Brucie dies as words on a screen with a cartoon character? It wouldn't and doesnt work.
I never once played Snes or Nes, or even PS1 and N64 for that matter to get a great emotion. The only real emotion was frustration when I didnt finish a level or boss.
To be honest a few games in the N64/PS1 days showed me games were starting to get emotionally involving and were starting to offer the graphics to portray enough character emotion to make me feel for that character.
|
please don't compare "lifelike graphics" we have nowadays with top notch actors! an actor is not good, or a scene believable, because he looks lifelike, most of them obviously do ;) , but because of his acting. and thats exactly why i think the opposite of what you say is true. if anything, the uncanny graphics and animations nowadays resemble a bad b-movie actors! scenes with not-so-lifelike characters that leave more to the imagination often touch me a lot more.
...and the first movies i cried at were bambi and dumbo (ok, i was a kid then, but still). there is no problem to deliver emotions over cartoony characters if you do it right.
|
