The Ghost of RubangB said:
Rainbird said:
Name one music track that is more known than the Mona Lisa. I know the example is completely irrelevant, but I don't understand why so many people dismiss graphics as unimportant, when they are in fact quite important. And again, I'm not talking about the tech that renders the image, but about the image itself.
If games like Super Mario Bros., Metal Gear Solid or Sonic The Hedgehog had looked bland and boring, they wouldn't have been as popular. If the visuals don't cut it (and I can't stress this enough, it's not about the technology), then people won't find it as attractive, just like if the music is boring.
You still have games today that don't push graphical technology in any kind of way, but their artstyle and graphical execution are still fantastic.
I have no problem with people choosing music over graphics, but dismissing graphics as unimportant is just ignorant.
I'm talking to everyone who dismiss graphics by the way, not just Rubang.
Goodnight.
|
Maybe "Thriller" or "Happy Birthday" or "Ode to Joy" or "Here Comes the Bride?" I don't know. But even if you're right, my point is that you can't dance to the Mona Lisa. A group of people can't remix the Mona Lisa and sing along. You can't FEEL the Mona Lisa in your bones, making you shake your moneymaker. People can do that to the Mario theme, or a video game. Appreciating visual art is more of a solo activity, while music and gaming can be enjoyed solo or in groups.
It's not that I think graphics are unimportant. It's that graphical improvements aren't worth tripling or quadrupling a game's budget. When games get that expensive to make, they can't take as many risks, because they HAVE to please as many people as possible to try to get their money back. No game has had its development budget tripled or quadrupled due to the soundtrack. Games that do interesting things with music can still take risks and still be affordable.
And I agree that everybody focuses way too much on the technical side of graphics. The games that focus on the tech side and photorealism are the ones that age the quickest.
|
@ bolded - And you are completely correct, but visuals are still hugely important, not just in the game but for the future as well. How much Mario fanart is there in the world? FF7 fanart? It's not the same as music, you don't feel it in your bones or shake your booty to it, but it doesn't need to be. How much charm does 3D Dot Game Heroes gain from its visuals? I dare say 'A lot'.
@ italic - Again correct, and this is something that is wrong in the industry today in many ways. Some games use their bigger budgets well, both for visuals and gameplay, but so many developers try to put their budgets towards 'realism' when they should be focusing on 'authenticity'. I appreciate high tech visuals, but if they're just run-off-the-mill and don't use that big budget in a meaningful way, then there's no point. I would much rather see all the games that try to do realism and fail, do something unique and stylized.
Games like Mirror's Edge, LittleBigPlanet, Valkyria Chronicles, Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days and 3D Dot Game Heroes are all examples of well executed visuals that aren't pushing the technological envelope in any particular way, but pull off their looks with style that make them unique and attractive.
I wish every game could pull off high budget visuals and succeed in sales, but since that isn't the case, I hope developers start doing visuals that don't rely on high budgets to look good, even though they're still in HD. I'm hoping the hardware for the next generation of consoles will be powerful enough to allow developers of 'normal' budget games to take focus away from optimizing, but time will tell I guess.
EDIT: I thought of a new way to say it! "Graphix" may not be timeless, but imagery certainly is. And without the proper visuals, imagery is meaningless.