Graphics Ain't Everything...But They're Always Something
I'm not sure exactly when it started - perhaps during the 16-bit generation, when the Genesis vs. Super Nintendo wars were going on - but the graphics debate unfortunately continues to this day.
And to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure why. Those who claim graphics are meaningless are just plain stupid. I mean, that's beyond naive. The very true saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words," is quite relevant in a form of entertainment that relies on moving images that we view on a screen. I'm the biggest defender of old-school classics in existence and yet, I'm not about to say developers could better depict emotion with a sprite and a little heart over its head. That's just plain asinine.
But it seems even gamers of today aren't willing to admit that graphics play a significant role, and I think it's because they don't want to come across as superficial. It's the same reason certain people try to tell us that "looks don't matter." Yeah, well, they do; it's called chemistry, biology, nature; I'm sorry, it exists. Cruel truth, just accept it. As for games, it doesn't make you a "graphics whore" to say that you appreciate a fantastic visual presentation, nor does it make you ignorant to say that you - shock of shocks - like games to look good.
Sure, subjectivity always plays a role, and we could go twelve rounds on an Uncharted vs. Crysis debate, but the bottom line is that what we see is a major part of our entertainment. Regardless of your personal preferences, there's no doubt that better graphics work to bring this industry to another level, especially in regards to the aforementioned emotion and sensitivity. It's about seeing the quirk of a pair of lips, a narrowing of the eyes, or a particular gesture that adds weight and meaning to a scene. These days, that's becoming more and more critical.
At the same time, as this remains an interactive medium, nobody can say graphics are more important than gameplay. That's just illogical. In truth, I'm not even sure why this is such a complicated or hot-button topic; I see this as being awfully cut and dry. Not much to argue about here.
Tags: video games, gaming, gamers, game graphics, game visuals
8/27/2012 9:01:33 PM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (36 posts)
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, August 27, 2012 @ 9:43:52 PM
Reply
Open world games with numerous gameplay options like Skyrim or Dishonored or Fallout I think should be given plenty of leeway as the graphics aren't the biggest focus and just naturally suffer a bit by the nature of the game. Go ahead and add the Darksiders series to that too. On the flip side if emotion is your route a-la Beyond TS then you better bring the goods ya know?
I'm very susceptible to nostalgia but I think we should take care not to delude ourselves about just how effective the storytelling of the past was when we read text conversations, nobody's faces even moved, and character animations did not yet resemble the movements of real people or even the way we would expect unrealistic characters and critters to move.
The good news is if you have a great imagination graphics are less important to you across the board.
Beamboom
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 2:43:42 AM
The smaller the playfield, the more details and gloss can be appended per square inch. This is why the Killzone 3 and Uncharted maps have to be so friggin' small/narrow, or why Infamous can be that much more open.
And it is from this perspective that Skyrim becomes so damn impressive: The size VS graphics ratio is astonishing.
Last edited by Beamboom on 8/28/2012 2:45:47 AM
xenris
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 11:29:59 AM
I am impressed by graphics, but really games like Journey, Limbo, Lone Survivor and other emotional games are really what I like to play.
But what you said does ring true. If a game is a corridor shooter they should really try to make it look good, as it would seem like they have left over resources.
fatelementality
Monday, August 27, 2012 @ 9:59:12 PM
Reply
SmokeyPSD
Monday, August 27, 2012 @ 10:35:10 PM
WorldEndsWithMe
Monday, August 27, 2012 @ 10:58:12 PM
Ultimadesires
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 2:04:59 AM
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 9:40:31 AM
Killa Tequilla
Monday, August 27, 2012 @ 10:43:10 PM
Reply
Jawknee
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 1:11:24 AM
Killa Tequilla
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 2:00:57 AM
Leafs25
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 12:08:37 AM
Reply
Last edited by Leafs25 on 8/28/2012 12:09:53 AM
VampDeLeon
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 12:27:24 AM
Reply
Personally, I never held graphics that high, during when PS2 was popular my friends would mock on how I still enjoyed playing the crappy graphics of PS1 games. It was their loss though. :p
Ben Dutka PSXE [Administrator]
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 9:07:34 AM
VampDeLeon
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 11:42:40 AM
Highlander
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 4:59:31 AM
Sony, get your act together please, this is the single most ridiculous thing you've done in a long time. Software emulation of the PS1 console is freaking child's play these days, you are the platform owner, if you can't get it right, don't you think people might ask WHY?
daus26
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 12:45:25 AM
Reply
The assumption is that a game with bad gameplay is because the devs focus too much on the graphics or whatever. It's a ridiculous mindset.
It doesn't matter what's more important. Like mentioned before, they all add up together to what makes a good game. You can't ignore one or the other.
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 12:56:05 PM
Ultimadesires
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 2:17:02 AM
Reply
Take another example, I thought Final Fantasy XIII's visuals were breathtaking. Not just the cutscenes but the battles and open map to, I spent countless hours riding that chocobo across gran pulse just admiring the scenery. Obviously the 360 version while not bad did not have as much detail and more jaggies. When XIII-2 I noticed that the quality of the graphics were more equal to the 360 version of XIII-1 & it did bug me a few times.
Oh course when I go play an older game, I do not have such expectations. Mind you some games do put me off like Doom for it's garish visuals and pixels everywhere. But in general I am willing to play anything from the NES onwards.
Lawless SXE
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 3:11:48 AM
Reply
I don't know. I just think that good is good enough. Pretty is great, but hardly necessary.
___________
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 4:10:18 AM
Reply
exactly why allot of games this gen suck!
ME series for instance.
1 was focused on telling a story in a RPG styled world.
2 toned that down a little to gain more fans but kept the story.
3 was ok we still have not made enough money so lets add big epic bosses big space fights and big wow explosions!
f*ck the story!
sadly everything has to be produced by micahel bay these days.
all shirt no trousers........
in short ill take ME2, U3, over ME3, U2, any day of the week!
Last edited by ___________ on 8/28/2012 4:11:09 AM
Alienange
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 5:28:23 AM
Reply
That's the REAL joke. I spoke to a "gamer" once who doesn't play Minecraft because he, as he put it, "needs a game with good graphics." There wasn't enough palm or face for me at that moment.
Clamedeus
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 1:44:19 PM
Solid Fantasy
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 5:58:58 AM
Reply
At the end of the day graphics are an "almost essential" bonus, but gameplay is still the most limiting factor.
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 9:45:40 AM
Reply
xenris
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 11:34:39 AM
Reply
I do love me some graphics, but as I get older I get more and more interested in responsive gameplay.
I mean you could make an amazing platformer game where you played as a square and the graphics were grayscale. If the gameplay was fun and challenging and responsive I would enjoy it.
Now that is an extreme example but my point is graphics aren't needed to make excellent gameplay however graphics can help convey feelings and an artistic tone. Even then I think music makes a more emotional connection with people than realistic graphics, Journey would be a good example of this.
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 3:38:40 PM
xenris
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 5:04:20 PM
The only time when I don't care is if it doesn't affect gameplay like in Heavy Rain, or any other type of game that is by nature more slow paced.
I have the same concerns about DmC too. Time will tell I suppose :\
WorldEndsWithMe
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 7:07:33 PM
Rogueagent01
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 @ 10:00:10 PM
Reply
And sorry, but emotion is emotion it is not reliant on graphics, that to me is asinine.
SS4
Friday, August 31, 2012 @ 10:14:58 AM
Reply
Like you see a really hot one and then u talk to her and realize shes an airhead or whatever . . .
Thats a one nighter and you move on with your life.
Now you can meet one without the perfect look but as you get to know her, shes great and you just want to spend more time with her. Now if you are looking for a GF you want at least a certain visual level as a minimum but the content is more important. Now for friends only the contents matter most of the time.
So games are like that. Graphical orgy can lead to one night rental and great game can be life partner or must add to your collection :P
Hope this exemple made some sense to some of you lol.

See Full Image









homura
Reply
Monday, August 27, 2012 @ 9:37:13 PM