Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Servant Corps]

According to me, Games are works of art, because the point of games is to please people. If you are happy, then that game is successful.

In that respect, why the hate on graphics?

Graphics look pretty. Graphics are pleasing to the eyes. They are enjoyable to look at. They look great and grand. In that case, graphics make a game more entertaining, and more fun.

Games also need good gameplay, in order to be pleasing, but having Good Graphics does not automatically make the game the spawn of Satan. I would argue having Good Graphics and Good Gameplay is the ideal, not only are you having fun because of the gameplay, but you are also enjoying the graphics.

I must be missing something.

[Drakale]

mmk
I'm not sure who you are arguing with here.

[Duke 2.0]

 Graphics are pretty yes, and they do add a flair to games. I know I would not enjoy FF Tactics as much if not for it's art style.

 However, many people feel that big game companies are investing in graphics to the point where gameplay is no longer being developed. There are many resources spent to graphics that would be better invested in other fields, like making sure the game is not buggy upon release, or more gameplay hours, or even just investing in an artist with a sense of style.

[Gunner-Chan]

I think servant was trying to question the confusing hate on complex graphics in the Indie community...

I think...

[Servant Corps]

I was just wondering why the Indie Community hate graphics. Just was all. Graphics, to me, seem to be part and parcel of a game, along with the gameplay. That was all. It's not about questioning the beliefs, I just want to know what they are.

[Kagus]

Couple things to consider here.  For the one, there's more than just "good graphics - bad graphics".  You've got High graphics, Low graphics, Good graphics and Bad graphics.

High graphics are the bleeding-edge innovations of the industry, showering you with the most detailed and fancy digital magic this day and age has to offer.  Low graphics, not so much.

Good graphics are graphics that are just innately pleasing, fitting, or easy-on-the-eyes.  People like to look at good graphics, because they just look good.  Bad graphics, not so much.

There is really no relation between the two.  A game can have ancient (or just bad) graphics technology and still look beautiful.  This is why we sometimes get surprised by how good some old games look.  On the flip side, a game can have the absolute best graphic enhancements the industry has to offer (and the hardware to run it), but it really just looks like hi-def crap.


The "hate on graphics" comes from certain gaming companies putting most (sometimes all) of their eggs in the "High graphics" basket.  This causes the other areas of that game to suffer due to resource constraints (time not being the least).

High-graphic games are bought by people who are impressed by the shiny graphics.  Hell, to some level, just about all of us fall into that category.  Even if something doesn't look particularly "good", we can still be impressed by incredibly detailed graphics.

The problem comes from when people buy lots and lots of these games, which cause the industry to react by making more High graphic games.  This causes an industry imbalance that leaves good gameplay and solid plots behind in favor of the latest and greatest HDR lighting update.

So it's not really a disdain of High graphics, it's a disdain of the commercial community that springs up from a graphic-centric industry.  We want games that are actually fun to play.  If we want something pretty to look at, we'll buy a painting or rent Baywatch.

[Duke 2.0]

 Again, it isn't so much hating graphics so much as hating games that invest too heavily upon them. Not to mention the indie community worships gameplay innovation, and generally games that have good graphics don't carry much innovation.

 I'm sure I could show you a good number of indie games with rather nice graphics, if just from the style point of view.

 Edit: Props to Kagus for one-upping my posts.

[Zaranthan]

Duke 2.0 nailed it. I'm selfish when it comes to games, and I want them done my way. Pretty graphics have been outselling solid gameplay for years, and the selection is waning thin on the gameplay end. I rage against gr4phx because every FFX-2 costs me a Chrono Trigger.

Kagus beat me to my more sensible note: the emphasis on high quality modeling and texturing means many art directors have forgotten the most important function of graphics: representing game elements to the player easily. Silhouettes are the most powerful image element when you're trying to recognize things flashing around the screen, and far too many games have given their models similar silhouettes with only minor details to differentiate them. Fire up Gears of War and try to figure out if the guy charging at you has a machine gun or a sniper rifle before he starts shooting. Then do the same thing in TF2. If you can do the former, go try out for hockey, because you'd make a terrific goalie. If you can't do the latter, get new glasses.

[Puck]

Pretty graphics are fine, no problem with that.

But these days games tend to be like women; if they are overly pretty, they often neglect to develop an interesting personality.

Crysis, for instance, is the boring "daddy's princess girl" among games.

Now those truly nifty good looking games/girls with personality, they'll blow your mind.

Problem bein, a lot of adolescent males settle for less.

 

[Sowelu]

Having played plenty of games in the Verge community (rpg toolkit...kinda...) a long time ago, I've seen a lot of bad, bad graphics.  In fact I'd be willing to say that the "indie community" is where the grown-ups go, after they are done making awful games.  If you say "but wait, this indie game was awful", trust me, there's way worse out there.

The things I've seen cannot be unseen.  3d models with trashed UV maps.  Grass tiles that are THREE SHADES OF VOMIT GREEN, SCRIBBLED ON EACH OTHER IN RANDOM CIRCLES.  What I've learned about graphics is that you should NEVER use a tool that is too high-level for you.  It is very possible to abuse 24-bit or even 16-bit color, and it is VERY possible to abuse high resolution.

If your skill or your time investment is not up to making GOOD tiles that are 64x64x24...then any tiles you make in that style will vastly detract from the look of your game.  So you should consider scaling down to 16x16x8, and for the same skill and time investment, you can make a much cleaner product.

I've seen indie games that I had to turn off because the graphics made me nauseous.  And EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM was trying to have "good" graphics.  They failed, hard.

You know what I like in graphics?  Things like Knytt Story.  Small tiles, low colors...but immense detail, a vibrant world, and unique features all over the place.  That's what graphics are about:  Making a detailed, vibrant world.  Not using high colors or high resolution, those are only a means to an end.

[Soulwynd]

I must be missing something.

Yes, the fact that they overlook gameplay in order to waste time on the looks of the game. Plus the assumed fact that the current generation of retards buying games is like "She looks good, so she must fuck good."

Gameplay should always be more important than graphics even if it's nice to see good graphics. Like DF's blood splatters or dragon breath. It's fun but I don't think you'd play DF just for those.

[Keiseth]

Sowelu sums up my own personal opinions as well.

Graphics are pretty yes, and they do add a flair to games. I know I would not enjoy FF Tactics as much if not for it's art style.

That was the most incredibly awesome art style for a turn-based strategy game that I've ever seen.

Having played plenty of games in the Verge community (rpg toolkit...kinda...) a long time ago, I've seen a lot of bad, bad graphics. 

Hey, I remember Verge. I came from the Sphere community (similar idea, I suppose) not too long ago. They had been experimenting with a gameboy color spectrum of colors, making maps and such with such limitations. I dare say most of the "constrained" art maps looked several times better than maps made in 32 bit color. I learned a lot from that.

I think the most significant innovation in graphics in (the console genre, anyway) in the last several years was HD. HD is the most important aspect of next generation consoles, in my opinion. It makes *every type of game* look better. 2D, 3D, ASCII, whatever. At a rather low (processing) cost, too.