I don't know if I disagree with the general article. Everyone can have its own opinion on how important graphics are. But we have seen beautiful trailers and generally gameplay much later since the beginning of time and I am a littlebit surprised that it is such a big issue suddenly this generation. Although we all know why don't we?

But singling out Killzone2 is bullshit. There were playable levels out at E3 2007 and developers were talking and people were commenting on the gameplay since then. It recreates a war atmosphere plays like Call of Duty4 with a Gears cover system and yes it looks amazing. Its an FPS for gods sake what do you want to know about the gameplay?

epsilon72 said: How could anyone possibly think Paris Hilton is hot??? Then again, I'm not much of a fan of Angelina Jolie either. Too......manly.

QFE

Rath said: Audiomatic said: Good Graphics + Bad Gameplay = No Bad Graphics + Good Gameplay = No Good Graphics + Good Gameplay = Yes So, i'll take great graphics first.. Whats wrong with bad graphics and good gameplay? I don't understand people who can't stand games with graphics that from a technical, or even an asthetic, standpoint are terrible. I mean games such as Civilization, Ocarina of Time, Pong, Tetris, Rogue, FFVI, Chrono Trigger, Links Awakening, SMB3, SM64, Starcraft, Metroid, Warcraft II, those are fucking amazing games. All of which fall so far short of our current graphical standards (especially rogue) that its not even funny. I really, honestly, don't consider you a gamer if you can't enjoy at least half of the listed games.

 I agree with you... I enjoyed many excellent games with crap graphics ,by todays standards, over the years. The problem is that now that i have seen what graphics can be like I find it very hard to go back and play any of these games again...

I'm not saying I need Crysis level graphics to enjoy a game, but a minimum level of graphics is now a must (depending on the genre of the game) for it to keep my enjoyment high...

The article written ok, but it bothers me (along with everyone else that suggests the same) that if a game has good graphics then it automatically means that its gameplay is not very good... 

Rath said: Audiomatic said: Good Graphics + Bad Gameplay = No Bad Graphics + Good Gameplay = No Good Graphics + Good Gameplay = Yes So, i'll take great graphics first.. Whats wrong with bad graphics and good gameplay? I don't understand people who can't stand games with graphics that from a technical, or even an asthetic, standpoint are terrible. I mean games such as Civilization, Ocarina of Time, Pong, Tetris, Rogue, FFVI, Chrono Trigger, Links Awakening, SMB3, SM64, Starcraft, Metroid, Warcraft II, those are fucking amazing games. All of which fall so far short of our current graphical standards (especially rogue) that its not even funny. I really, honestly, don't consider you a gamer if you can't enjoy at least half of the listed games.

Plenty. It's important to make use of new developments as they are innovated. That includes both the technical aspects and the design aspects.

Someone placed the emphasis on the "game" aspect of video games. The same thing could be said in that they are "video" games to distinguish them from text games, board games and physical puzzle games.

I don't agree that video games have become static over the last ten years from a design standpoint. Most developers will agree that advances in technology allow them to realize game play and design elements that simply weren't feasible on older hardware. 

But problems arise when too much emphasis is placed upon the technical aspects of the visuals at the expense of solid design and game play. So in that respect, I have to agree with the article. 

This is similar to the film industry when film makers rely too heavily upon digital effects to sell a movie RATHER than use digital effects as an effective film maker's tool to visually tell the audience aspects of a story. Every film maker working within a scenario that requires settings, events or characters that cannot convincingly be created with models and make up would have to limit what they wanted to visually convey on screen depending upon the tools available previously. Currently, film maker's with access to the high end tools are only limited by their imagination and the skills of the graphical artists re-creating that vision in the most realistic (or stylistic) manner possible.  

Chrono Trigger is a bad example of an excellent game (a personal top ten of all time) with solid design but "poor" graphics. For the time and for the hardware it was running on, they were well above average. And even though bit mapped graphics are almost non-existent for epic story telling games these days, Chrono Trigger still represents very well for hand drawn animation. Back then, the challenge was conveying as much visual data as possible with a few pixels as possible, and in that respect, few games performed as well as Chrono Trigger.

That being said, a part of me would still like to see a FFXIII engine based remake of Chrono (or FFVII for that matter), but I don't believe it would actually improve the game unless more depth was added to the combat system, more in depth background was added to the world of Chrono Trigger and its inhabitants.  

I fully agree with the article on how some of the rhetoric used to hype games, and argue over them on the internet is pretty ridiculous. Yes libellule, it's possible to find someone commenting on the gameplay of KZ2 if you really look for it, but practically all of the hype from the developers and media is graffixgraffixgraffix.

Too bad he only uses a PS3 game as an example, and a lot of people have trouble not seeing it as an attack on their console.

If I were to write something similar, then I'd take a slightly different approach. Graphics are important, but the important thing in good graphics is how a game looks, not how advanced the technology behind it is. To me games like Killzone 2 or Gears of War look like utter shit. Sure they have a zillion pixels per square zong, but the biggest real difference is how one is completely grey, and the other completely brown. On the other hand, games like Katamari or Psychonauts are very pleasant to look at, even on less impressive hardwre. There's also a bunch of Nintendo stuff, but I imagine I won't get away with mentioning them without this turning into round 205924 of the console wars. =P

If I had to name one of the shooters I've played as the one that looked the best, it would be Team Fortress 2. The graphics are clean and look nice, but the real treat is the extremely distinctive style that gives the game and every character a unique feel and personality. After that it's probably Halo 3, probably because it's a scifi shooter with actual colours, and the character designs are mostly very nice. I realise some games have slightly better effects and whatever, but that won't help with a artistic approach/graphical style/whatever that makes WH40k look like Viva Pinata.

Disagree with me? Well yeah, that's because this stuff is extremely subjective. It's not like anyone can agree on the best gameplay or writing either. Producing a phrase like "if I had to name the X that I thought looked the best" in a casual internet discussion is a pain in the butt, which might explain why most people prefer to say the best graphics. =P

The thing that annoys me the most is how some people keep switching between what they mean with good graphics. For example in the last "best graphics of last gen?" thread we had, several members were seriously claiming God of War or Final Fantasy XII had better graphics than any Xbox or Gamecube game. There's nothing inherently impossible about that, but these were the exact same members who were at the same time claiming the Wii could never have as good graphics as the HD consoles because of the less powerful hardware.

And just for the record, I don't think gameplay is everything in a game. Planescape Torment is one of my all-time favorites and has extremely shitty gameplay, but the writing is so far above anything else in all of gaming that I really don't care. Shadow of the Colossus has some serious gameplay issues, as well as a number of other faults, but the sheer awesomeness and beauty of it all (despite the PS2 hardware) made an ever-lasting impression on me. God Hand has some serious issues as well, but it's made by Clover, and thus automatically superb.

Gameplay isn't everything in a game, but using more advanced (which really shouldn't mean better) graphics sure as hell isn't more important.

Regarding Crysis, part of me thinks that games like that have to be made just for the hardware fiends to justify upgrades or their current monster rig. If nothing else, games like Crysis are great graphical benchmark programs to test rigs, not that this is why people should buy them.

I don't feel the game itself actually justified the purchase of $300 worth of video card for passable performance. But then again, I didn't play the whole game because it just wasn't that great to me personally, even though the visuals were unmatched and it did have some interesting design elements worked into the game, courtesy of the nano-tech suits (essentially a spin off of the Far Cry animal spirit powers).

From a sales perspective, totally lackluster compared to the technical breakthroughs. Whether it was because everyone didn't want to spend hundreds in hardware just to play the game, or if it was because the rest of the game wasn't as good as the visuals is open to debate. I'd say probably both.

But if any lesson could be taken from Crysis, it's that graphics alone won't sell a game. But this is not by any means proof that they simply don't matter as some personally feel.

Re: KZ2. Never played the original. Ignored the hype and when it didn't deliver, I didn't bother buying it when it came out. As for KZ2, I can't have an opinion, legit or not until I play a demo. Visually, it looks like Guerilla has delivered on their 2005 (only slightly less impressive for a 2009 game) target render. I'll go far as to say that as long as the play implements aspects from the current best of breed and that the controls don't inhibit the ability to play through the game, I'll play through it completely. 

Parokki said: To me games like Killzone 2 or Gears of War look like utter shit. Sure they have a zillion pixels per square zong, but the biggest real difference is how one is completely grey, and the other completely brown.

Would you like Killzone2 better if they looked like this

 

LOL the one with the unicorn is cool. They should ship it like that.

greenmedic88 said: Plenty. It's important to make use of new developments as they are innovated. That includes both the technical aspects and the design aspects. Someone placed the emphasis on the "game" aspect of video games. The same thing could be said in that they are "video" games to distinguish them from text games, board games and physical puzzle games. I don't agree that video games have become static over the last ten years from a design standpoint. Most developers will agree that advances in technology allow them to realize game play and design elements that simply weren't feasible on older hardware. But problems arise when too much emphasis is placed upon the technical aspects of the visuals at the expense of solid design and game play. So in that respect, I have to agree with the article. This is similar to the film industry when film makers rely too heavily upon digital effects to sell a movie RATHER than use digital effects as an effective film maker's tool to visually tell the audience aspects of a story. Every film maker working within a scenario that requires settings, events or characters that cannot convincingly be created with models and make up would have to limit what they wanted to visually convey on screen depending upon the tools available previously. Currently, film maker's with access to the high end tools are only limited by their imagination and the skills of the graphical artists re-creating that vision in the most realistic (or stylistic) manner possible. Chrono Trigger is a bad example of an excellent game (a personal top ten of all time) with solid design but "poor" graphics. For the time and for the hardware it was running on, they were well above average. And even though bit mapped graphics are almost non-existent for epic story telling games these days, Chrono Trigger still represents very well for hand drawn animation. Back then, the challenge was conveying as much visual data as possible with a few pixels as possible, and in that respect, few games performed as well as Chrono Trigger. That being said, a part of me would still like to see a FFXIII engine based remake of Chrono (or FFVII for that matter), but I don't believe it would actually improve the game unless more depth was added to the combat system, more in depth background was added to the world of Chrono Trigger and its inhabitants.

Actually I think every single game I listed had excellent or at least on par graphics at the time. My main point was to refute the point he seemed to make that a game with good gameplay and poor graphics are bad. From your post you seem to agree entirely that these games, which are many miles away from todays standards of graphics, are still more entertaining than most modern games due to their excellent design, you're right in saying that art style was prominent in some of those and things like Chrono Trigger are still pretty today due to their artwork but games like pong never were actually pretty.

I also agree with your point that remakes that merely change the graphics don't actually add anything to the game experience in general. I know I'm not going to buy FFIVDS as I own FFIV Advance =P.

 

@Parokki.

Actually now you mention it I loved the look of the original Halo, its look kind of crossed boundries between comic book style (ie. XIII) and realism. I don't know if they meant for it to look slightly fake but to me it did and I loved it =P.

 

Edit: @Griffin. Actually I would prefer if they put a little more life into the world, probably not the unicorn though.  

Portable gaming is different to me. I was pretty happy when Link to the Past was published for the Gameboy Advance. It offered a convenient way to play the game again (I rarely remove games or systems from storage to play them) with the exact same graphics as the original, only cleaner, since I wasn't playing on a CRT TV through an S-video cable.

If there was any game on the SNES that I really enjoyed, I would buy it again for the GB Advance or DS, just for that convenience factor. Chrono Trigger in particular would have been perfect.

I never actually finished FFVII even though I bought it when it debuted. I've trying repeatedly to get back into it, but ironically, the very thing that made the game industry newsworthy (visually the most impressive game of its time) is what now distracts me when I'm playing the game. The 3D graphics simply look too primitive to the point that they're just not visually appealing to me. I would suffer through just for the story, but like all FF games, there is way too much grinding to slog through for the good bits of story line.

Hand drawn 2D animation by contrast seems to age better for me personally.

But I keep buying them from FFVII, FFVIII, FFX, FFX-2, FFXII and eventually FFXIII even though I've yet to finish any of them.