Transformers?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/transformers_the_movie/

That's your evidence of special effects bringing scores up? Just for reference, a 57% is significantly lower than Ratatouille for the Wii:

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/936570.asp

It is also significantly lower than Spiderman: Friend or Foe:

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/939524.asp

Yeah, sounds like film critics were heavily swayed by the amazing special effects.

That wasn't a bad example, it is actually pretty representative of the movie industry.  Most of those "summer blockbuster" movies get bad reviews and do well at the box office.  The movies that are critically acclaimed and win awards are usually things that most people have never seen and aren't necessarily box office successes.

Of course, those are generalizations.  There are always exeptions.

Look, Fumanchu, you cannot possibly argue that graphics are not superficial. They are the DEFINITION of superficial: what you see on the surface. That is what superficial means: what you see on the surface. Graphics are superificial.

You're essentially arguing that, since special effects are only in, say, 70% of a movie, it isn't relevant, while graphics are in 90% of a game (not "all the time," as you suggest, as there are start screens, menus and select screens, etc.) it is totally different! Come on now, special effects aren't denigrated in film because they are only in 70% of the movie, but because they are cosmetic. It wouldn't matter if they were in 10% of the movie or 95%. That issue does not go away with video games.

Please. This argument is ridiculous, and your examples (which presumably were intended to argue in your favor) have done nothing but reinforce my position.

It's fine if you care about graphics, just as it's fine if you happen to like pulp fiction like Transformers or 300 or whatever crap Hollywood pumps out. But if we want video games to be taken seriously -- and I do -- the fascination with the superficial needs to end with reviewers. Graphics are, by definition, superficial.

Yes. Graphics don't have to redefine the genre with every release, but things like no lip syncing, jittery animations, unbelievable textures, and a general artificial feel can mar my experience. Some games like Parapa the Rappa or Loco Roco aren't mind blowing, but the art direction fits the product. Imagine going to a sci-fi movie and none of the special effects work. The story may be good, but the film is going to suck.

Maybe it should be called "art direction" and not graphics, but they're definitely important. It's called "video" games for a reason.

I guess when it comes to framerate issues and such I would think it would be nice to add graphics to the score//but graphics in my opinion should be left out. It's each and everyone's own opinion. Someone might think Sonic Unleashed graphics are horrible but I think their pretty good, but IGN gave the graphics department a 4 for being to cartoony//ya know//its all personal prefrence//

But I certainly think gameplay should be the main factor into the score//graphics are should have little impact on it//other than technical issues//and on that note some people can play a game and ignore the technical issues i.e. The Last Remnant.

 This is a very very good point. Obviously film and games are different but the films that critically do well are not films that have spent millions on special effects. Films with good stories and emersive atmosphere are generally the Oscar winners.

I don't think it is a question of growing up as such but more that the games industry needs to understand that good graphics don't make a good game. Same as good special effects don't make a good film. The difference is when a film is crap people are honest about it, if you look at reviews for just the Oscar films this year you see some have scores like 80%, in the film world that is very high. But if a game gets an 80% score it is generally considered poor.

So i think games reviewers need to get back to basics, tell it like it is. But i think the thing they need to do the most is make multiple reviews. I.e get 3 people to say their opinions and scores, then with those 3 scores work out the average from that. But a problem is that today review sites/magazines are not as legit as they once were. pressure/bribes from studios can influence reviews.

It is like reading a book/magazine, you don't give the book high scores because it has a nice cover. It is what is inside that matters.

Agreed.  That is where the change really needs to come from.

Unfortunately, I don't think that will happen until we hit near photorealism.  Then they will be forced to focus on something else because games won't be able to look better.

Just for the record, I think the argument Hyruken states right at the beginning -- movies are not like games and shouldn't be compared to them in general -- is the best argument. That is reasonable.

Of course, it's funny to see some people (not all, I'm not naming anyone here) who desperately want games to be like movies suddenly dislike the comparison when it turns against them.

"We want epic stories! Big production values! Video games will be the new entertainment medium of the 21st century!"

"What's that? Graphics shouldn't matter, because special effects don't matter in film? Movies aren't like games!"

Ok, I've articulated/portrayed my point wrong.

Superficial or not - do you deny that they can greatly enhance the enjoyment of a movie or game in question? If so, what's wrong with rewarding the efforts of the people that strive so hard to add to a more immersive experience for the viewer/player?

I have no idea why a facet such as graphics, which can either make or break a game or movie should be so easily overlooked. If they were executed badly the critics would have no qualms in taking points off the score.

Graphics should count but mostly for art styles that fit the game and framerate...