Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software Entertainment Games

Graphics Don't Matter 131

Posted by Zonk from the listen-to-your-dad dept.
Dave Long writes "My column at GamerDad features some musing on how unimportant graphics are becoming to enjoyment of games. Everything looks great today which removes the excitement of that bullet point on a game box. There's some historical context and speculation on next-gen consoles and graphics' effect on consumers." From the article: "I guess we're getting closer to photo-realism, but I just don't care. The games shown don't look markedly better than anything from this generation. I guess they're impressive in a 'that's close to the movies now' kind of way but the graphics aren't changing gameplay in any way that I can see. It just makes old types of gameplay look prettier. For the people who absolutely adore technology and this incessant need to replicate the real world, there will certainly be things to cheer in the next generation. I'm sure I'll eventually buy the new consoles myself and be at least modestly excited at the graphics, but I've just grown so accustomed to things looking nice on current machines that there's no 'wow' factor anymore."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Graphics Don't Matter More

Graphics Don't Matter

Comments Filter:

  • Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MalaclypseTheYounger ( 726934 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:37PM (#12748118) Journal
    Better is... better.

    Gran Turismo 4 is light years beyond the original Gran Turismo. If I was a late adopter, I would be WOW'd (BIGTIME) in moving from a PS1 (Gran Turismo 1) to PS2 (Gran Turismo 4).

    I imagine the same thing will happen, in time, with the new generation.

    Because we are video game addicts, we (I assume the poster is like me, in being somewhat addicted to getting my favorite latest games) are constantly upgrading, and getting the latest release, etc. GT1 - GT2 - nice difference. GT2- GT2, really nice difference. GT3-GT4, somewhat nice difference (read: difference==improvement).

    But the GT1 - GT4 hop is unbelievable.

    Now use the above analogy with any of your favorite games. Final Fantasy VII vs. Final Fantasy X-2? Huge.

    Grand Theft Auto 1 vs. Vice City/San Andreas? Unbelievably huge difference.

    In 2 or 3 years when the best of the best come out for the next gen consoles, it will blow the pants off whatever came out in the early months of the current generation consoles, IMHO.

    • Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by harrkev ( 623093 )
      Perhaps, but look at it this way...

      Take GT4. Reduce the polygon count by 1/2. Reduce the resolution of the textures by 1/2. Does it harm the game in any way? Perhaps, but not by much. It would still have the same game play. If you crash into a tree, it can have "blob" for the foliage on top, instead of rendering each individual leaf. But it is still a tree, and you still go boom.

      Let me put it another way. Would you like to play a beautiful ultra-high-eye-candy version of Daikatana? Me neither.

      Yo

    • Re:Well... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Geoffreyerffoeg ( 729040 )
      Final Fantasy VII vs. Final Fantasy X-2?

      What about FF VI (III in the US) vs. FF VII?

      • In all honesty, VI (and IV for that matter) is prettier than VII. As a matter of fact, in terms of graphical beauty, I think the entire previous generation should be skipped.

        SNES and Genesis graphics (although 2-D) looked better than most N64 and PSX titles. There are some graphical gems in there, but does anybody seriously think that VII's blocky 3-D graphics are easier on the eyes than VI's 2-D detailed graphics?

        Video game makers didn't get 3-D right until the current generation for the most part*. Lo

    • Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bluprint ( 557000 )
      However, I think the best statement in the article was "diminishing returns". In case someone doesn't know what that is, it's when each incremental input, returns marginally less.

      For example, lets give a rating to graphics, just to be able to quantify it. So, if you go from the earliest games to the next gen, lets say graphic quality goes from a 1 to a 2. The overall game play/quality benefits lets say by jumping from a 5 to a 10 (all other things being equal). Then lets say you move the graphics from
      • it seems to me that at this point depth is where game designers should be heading. I like the sense of scale that is convayed by the previews for Spore, for instance. Or perhaps the could bring something of a microsoft flight simulater to a console, with an acurate landscape patched together from actual sattalite photos. That's the only place i can see gameplay improving at this point. To tell you the truth, current generation graphics are about there. We really need bigger, more detailed maps, more in game
      • Definitely, deminishing returns is a big thing I've noticed. After all, right now the big buzzword on the last generation of engines was normal mapping. Now, I played UT2k4, and I played old UT and Q3 a lot.

        90% of the time, UT2k4 looks the same as the old games but with bigger maps (comes from hybridizing the engine into partially landscape-based) and higher detail. I don't see normal maps. Very rarely do I see sexy reflections. In a fast-paced FPS, you get up close enough to really notice the high-re
        • Agreed. The one thing I do want from UT200x is more draw distance - it's tiresome to have your view blurred out at (what looks like) 1km or so. Even original UT didn't do that.
    • ### But the GT1 - GT4 hop is unbelievable.

      Its for most part simply a technical improvment, more polys, better textures, etc., from the gameplay point of view they are basically the same, still can't crash my car, still can't drive in multiplayer vs CPU oponents and such. And heck, if I don't use my glasses they even look pretty much the same. There still might be a WOW effect, but that doesn't hold for long, at least for me, since the underlying game is still basically all the same.

      There is basically only
    • Fallout and Fallout 2 were awarded RPGs of the year by some places (esp. Fallout), but most went for Baldur's Gate rather than Fallout 2.

      Morrowind was awarded RPG of the year nearly everywhere.

      Better gameplay? Fallout (esp. Fallout 2).

      Better story? Fallout (esp. Fallout 1).

      Better graphics? Morrowind (arguably - I actually much prefer the look of Fallout, but most people would say Morrowind).

      Time I've spent playing?

      Fallout 1/2: Well over 2000, completing them over 40 times each (longest game over 100 h
    • Better is... better.
      Yes. But Better graphics != Better

      But the GT1 - GT4 hop is unbelievable.
      Graphically yes, but you are in fact playing almost exactly the same game, just with different and more shiny cars. When is the innovation.(I am aware that shinier cars are in fact the primary reason people buy GT games)

      Now use the above analogy with any of your favorite games. Final Fantasy VII vs. Final Fantasy X-2? Huge.
      Indeed. However I will still submit, as will many others, that FFVII is a better game t
  • It's not that I don't like teh shiny, but the shineness of new games doesn't outclass the last generation enough to make that much of a difference to me. Nowadays I'm much more interested in physics and AI (and, of course, the gameplay).

    It's like the difference between 5-speaker surround sound and 8-speaker surround sound. Yes, I can tell. No, I don't really care.

    Give it 5 more years until it's really photorealistic, then the difference will matter to me.

  • I have always felt this way (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pthor1231 ( 885423 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:37PM (#12748124)
    I mean, just look at games like Final Fantasy 7. It had a great story, the people looked retarded. Didn't stop me from playing the hell out of it. IMHO, developers focusing too much on graphics actually makes a game suck, because they don't put enough effort into making the game have a compelling story, or, for that matter, making the game long enough to justify a pricetag of 50 dollars (or more). Just look at games like Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, Fable, God of War. These were all good games with pretty cool graphics, but they were just flat out too short for what it should have been.
    • Of your list, I've only played Sands of Time, but I felt my money was well-spent. I'd rather pay for an incredible short game that's fun enough to play more than once than a mediocre long game any day. We don't all have 40+ hours to devote to video games. I'd like to, but I'm much more prone to pick up a Sly Cooper nowadays than take my chances on an epic because I have a life outside of gaming. I want fun, I want attractive, and I want the gameplay to be rock solid. Sands of Time definitely delivered tha
    • This, as with anything about gaming, comes down to individual tastes. Personally, I though FF7 sucked. Of course, I though every FF game after the first one (US) pretty much blew to some extent. The gameplay was repeditive, the stories unimaginative, and the dialog way too melodramatic.
      Plus, the 40+ hours of gameplay usually involved 20+ hours of watching the same spell animations over and over and over again without any way to skip them. And, <insert diety here> forbid you die after watching a lo

  • To a point.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:38PM (#12748131) Homepage Journal
    .. ala zork, etc, but some games are built around graphics. Imagine Doom3 without graphics and a Zork like interface:
    You are in a large room covered in blood. To the right a Revenant is watching you.

    > shoot revenant
    You shoot a rocket at the Revenant. The Revenant runs towards you.

    > shoot revenant
    You shoot a rocket at the Revenant. The Revenant runs towards you.

    > shoot revenant
    You shoot a rocket at the Revenant. The Revenant runs towards you.

    > shoot revenant
    You shoot a rocket at the Revenant. The Revenant runs towards you.

    > shoot revenant
    The Revenant falls mortally wounded to the ground.
    Weeee!

    • Re:To a point.. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by pthor1231 ( 885423 )
      ala the first frame of this comic [penny-arcade.com]
    • Man that looks like an awesome game. Where can I download it?

      Seriously, I grew up on those types of games. I still go looking for BBS systems I can telnet into once in awhile, to play BRE, SRE, LORD, and TW.
      • There was once a text adventure version of Doom2 called Doom2D. But I can't seem to find it anymore.

        It's even gone from Doomworld [doomworld.com]

      • Re:To a point.. (Score:3, Informative)

        by Ford Prefect ( 8777 )
        Man that looks like an awesome game. Where can I download it?

        I think the text-adventure port of Doom 3 is still languishing in development hell, but there's always Interactive Fiction Quake [loonyboi.com], although the graphics admittedly aren't quite the same...

      • LORD? Take a look at Legend of the Green Dragon [lotgd.net]. It's supposed to be based on LORD (I don't know, I've only played LotGD). Oh, and it's open source PHP.

        And if you do decide to play, you might want to look at other servers, if you think the main server has too many players.

        And I almost forgot -- you can control the game almost entirely by keyboard alone. See those underlined letters in the menu to the left? Just type C, for instance, to Create a character.

    • Unrealistic, should be... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Shazow ( 263582 ) <{andrey.petrov} {at} {shazow.net}> on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:56PM (#12748384) Homepage
      Imagine Doom3 without graphics and a Zork like interface:
      You are in a large room covered in blood. You can't see anything.

      > use flashlight
      You take out your flashlight which reveals a Revenant. The Revanent runs towards you.

      > shoot revenant
      You can't shoot with a flashlight. The Revenant runs towards you.

      > use rocketlauncher
      You put away your flashlight and take out your rocket launcher. The Revanent runs towards you.

      > shoot revenant
      You shoot a rocket at the Revanent. You miss. The Revenant runs towards you.

      > shoot revenant
      You shoot a rocket at the Revanent. You miss. The Revenant runs towards you. You are hit from behind.

      > turn south
      You turn south. You see a Revanent. The Revanent hits you. You are hit from behind.

      > run west
      You bump into a Revanent. The Revanent hits you. You are hit from the left. You are hit from the right. You are hit from behind. You fall mortally wounded to the ground.

      > fuck
      You cannot use your reproductive organs while dead.
      Weeeee!

      - shazow
    • Except a Revenant goes down in two rockets (and spends more time shooting at you than running towards you) in Doom 3 but I guess details like these don't matter.
    • My point exactly. I currently own 5-6 consoles, and have spent more time lately playing older games than my newer ones. Why? Perhaps its for nastalgic value, perhaps I'm shitfaced and can only mentally handle a game I've been playing for a third of my life--but I think it goes beyond that.

      With gameplay, whenever someone says "Oh man, ____ was so much better back in the day" if all of the particles in the universe were pixals, that still wouldn't be enough for the rolleyes image I want to post. For examp
    • hey, you may find that boring, but that's what Eamon games were all about in the 80's. Designable and editable, it was a pretty fun text adventuring game universe. I remember some even had sound (some Star Wars-based mission had the 'sounds' of lightsabers hitting and missing.) Because of that, I think that's one of the first fun games I played on my Apple IIe. Here's an example of the gameplay:

      > ready sword

      Ready.

      > attack bluebeard

      You hit Bluebeard for 14 points of damage.
      Bluebeard misses.

      You

    • Re:To a point.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Rallion ( 711805 )
      You know what? I think that would be better.

      Doom 3 is the ultimate example of graphics not mattering. They spent so much time on the graphics engine that they forgot to make their game fun.
      • Doom 3 is the ultimate example of graphics not mattering. They spent so much time on the graphics engine that they forgot to make their game fun.

        That is indeed true. Doom 1 and 2 were fun to play, doom 3 wasn't. The graphics look better, but the feeling of the first two games is gone.

    • What about imagining Zork with graphics and a Doom3 like interface?

    • Re:To a point.. (Score:3, Informative)

      by WWWWolf ( 2428 )

      Well, they already did Q1 E1M1 as a text adventure [loonyboi.com], and, in my humble opinion, if you forget the slightly sarcastic tone in it (after all, this was made as an April Fools joke)...

      As you enter the West portal room, the words "THIS IS THE FIRST EPISODE: DIMENSION OF THE DOOMED" materialize in front of you. After briefly panicking slightly, you continue, when all of a sudden the words, "THE MYSTICAL PAST COMES ALIVE..." pop up. Carefully, doing your best not to trip any more mystery words,you tiptoe your w

  • graphids DO matter (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:39PM (#12748153)
    ... but just not in the way that most people think.

    Will it make any difference to me if each individual drop of water in a waterfall is individually rendered and given its own physics? No. But will it matter if the waterfall doesn't look like a real waterfall or doesn't seem to fit? Yes.

    It's not about how photorealistic something looks, but whether or not the art style used enhances the game by making you feel as if you're there. After a certain point, the graphics won't get any better. We'll be able to pump out more polygons than we know what to do with. Game designers need to use them to create a world that we can immerse ourselves in.

    For example, I absolutely love the graphical style used in Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2. The world I'm exploring feels so much deeper than Halo 2's. Don't get me wrong, Halo 2 has excellent graphics, but they just weren't used to design the same type of rich world that Metroid has.

    • I agree with you, and both agree and disagree with the article. I think there needs to be an aknowledgement that there are fundamentally two different kinds of games.

      The first kind is non-immersive; it either requires the use of imagination (e.g., text-based games) or doesn't attempt to immerse the player at all (e.g., Tetris.) For these kinds of games, graphics are irrelevant and gameplay is all that matters.

      But there is another class of games, mostly RPG and FPS, that have as their goal total imme

      • It's also important to realize that realistic graphics are not the only way to create immersion. It's more important to have a consistent art design throughout a game. It's not neccessarily the "realism" of a game that helps me get involved in it. I completely bought into my character in Knights of the Old Republic, despite the fact that in real life I've never flown around on a space ship, I've never played with a light saber, and I usually don't see aliens walking around. None of those futuristic sci-fi t
      • It's worth pointing out that there are RPGs and FPSs that don't require the ultra-pretty realistic graphics that you seem to be indicating. In fact, I think I could argue that the graphics really don't matter all that much in either of those genres.

        Let's start with RPGs. Paper Mario is a very good game, one that definitely has the ability to pull the gamer in and hold their attention for hours. The graphics there? Very stylized and cartoony, and something that the N64 could pull off very well.

        An ev

    • I draw a distinction between 'graphics' and 'art.' When people say 'graphics,' 97% of the time they're talking about polygons and shaders and whatnot.

      Another example to add to your Metroid/Halo comparison:
      Everquest 2 has better graphics than World of Warcraft. But it doesn't actually look as good, in a lot of ways, because the art isn't as good.
      • It's probably more fair to distinguish between the two, because saying a game has good graphics can be deceiving. Theoretically you could make a simple box with millions of polygons in it, but it still might not be exciting to look at.

        Honestly, I believe graphics have a lot less impact on a game than the art style and how you use the graphics does. I really don't care if it has xxx,xxx polygons in it. I want it to look good.

  • Doy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Apreche ( 239272 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:40PM (#12748158) Homepage Journal
    Some people are real gamers. They care about games. These people don't care about graphics, only gameplay.

    There are others who are not gamers. They just happen to be people who play or enjoy playing games. These people are often prejudice against games with less graphics and towards those with better.

    Just like people who care about movies often go to see movies based on quality regardless of budget, while people who simply enjoy movies see big budget blockbusters.

    The key is that the big money is in making the big games with fancy graphics. Because there just aren't that many people who actually care about games as opposed to people who just enjoy them.

    Need proof? Play counter strike. You make a lot more money selling some fancy looking piece of poop to those shitcockers than you would selling a balanced work of art to the 100 guys who actually care. Look at the MMOs where you have people addicted to collecting worthless digital items and customizing avatars that look cool, obviously they never played a MUD. And of course, the people who didnt like Wind Waker before ever even playing it based on it's looks. They do realize that at heart it is essentially the same game that Zelda 64 was and the new one is going to be? No, because they aren't real gamers.

    Those of us left who ARE real gamers have to stick together. Gotta make sure that quality games keep getting made for us to enjoy regardless whatever fancy graphics crap comes out. I have high hopes for Civilization 4 and the Revolution. Let's see if they can be fulfilled or not.
    • shitcockers

      Penny Arcade Fan? Or is this the kind of language used in CS? :)
    • I totally agree with you. I have high hopes, though, that with all the half-complete projects by amateurs and small studios, some genuinely new (and really fun) gameplay will emerge. Right now I play Vendetta Online [vendetta-online.com] because its an MMORPG that you can have fun in without a lot of treadmilling. Guild Software also gets my 10 bucks a month because they are a tiny, privately owned company run by "real gamers". Their goal is to have a self-sustaining game world where seasoned players make new content, and th
  • That's why I look forward to the addition of the PPU.
  • For like the past week or so I pesonally see that yes graphics are just about to the Picture quality that I see on a regular basis so really how much further can we go... I can see very little difference between what I recently played in Like Tony Hawk UG2 and like what was shown for the X360 and well I would say that there is alot going on with the PS3 but those were Pre-Rendered and weren't even running on their new GPU. Recently I have been noticing that the gameplay is going stale I dunno maybe it's ju

  • Put another way.... :) (Score:4, Funny)

    by HRbnjR ( 12398 ) <chris@hubick.com> on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @12:45PM (#12748239) Homepage
    All women look great today which removes the excitement of that bullet point on a dating profile. There's some historical context and speculation on younger womans' effect on men." From the article: "I guess we're getting closer to super-models, but I just don't care. The girls shown don't look markedly better than any woman from this generation. I guess they're impressive in a 'that's close to the porn movies now' kind of way, but the looks aren't changing lifestyle in any way that I can see. They just make my traditional lifestyle look prettier. For the people who absolutely adore beautiful women and have this superficial need to be with the best looking woman, there will certainly be things to cheer in the next generation. I'm sure I'll eventually date these younger women myself and be at least modestly excited at their looks, but I've just grown so accustomed to the nice looking women of the current generation that there's no 'wow' factor anymore.
    • This would be a great point if you were doing an apples/apples comparision.

      All women do not look great today. Women (and men for that matter) haven't suddenly *all* become so gorgeus as to have no difference.

      A beautiful woman stands out because she is a rarity. The point of the article is that the new consoles are churning out all "beautiful women" and there won't be any non-beautiful women in the newer offerings.
      • I dunno, have you been outside recently?
        They really do build them a LOT differently from when I was that age (I'm talking about ~18 year olds - I'm 25 now)

        In my graduating class of 1997, there were probably a half-dozen "REALLY FRIGGIN HOT" girls, and a handful of the 'very cute' to 'dateable' variety. Then the rest were 'do-able' to ..... well, let's not be mean and just say "not so do-able".

        I have some younger friends in my neighborhood, and their graduating class pretty much looks like something you'd
        • Hollywood has succeeded in reshaping the way men think about women. Specifically, the idea of what is doable. In old times, it basically came down to two criteria: alive and able to cook. What you're seeing now is the effect of the "not-so-doable" ones, who in fact nobody ever did.
          • You're right, in part - but I still am talking about the fact that younger people are just built different from those just a half-generation behind them.

            Maybe not you specifically - but how many people do you know have eyed up a girl in a mall or other store, only to deduce by their peers or the age between her and her parents, that she's a freshman at best?
            Sure it's happened basically for decades, if not centuries - but I can guarantee that it's happening probably just as often these days, as it has in th
            • What you're describing is the sexualization of women at earlier and earlier ages. It's disgusting, really, to see how some 12 year olds feel they have to dress to fit in with their peers. With "role-models" like Brittney Spears, Paris Hilton, or Christina Agullaria, girls are increasingly being seen in society as "useful" only if they dress provocatively. Hence, a 12 year old girl today may look like an 18 year old girl 20 years ago because they are dressing in a manner that is not suitable for their age. I

    • Re:Put another way.... :) (Score:5, Funny)

      by analog_line ( 465182 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @01:27PM (#12748860)
      I agree. My girlfriend doesn't have the latest graphics, but her gameplay is quite good.
  • "Great Graphics" have dimished returns lately, just like he's saying.

    What's 'cool' now is "Great Physics." We have the 'visual' physics, with rag-doll deaths etc. Then we have the gimmick/puzzle physics that you saw in HL2. But at times, there is the essential gameplay type physics.

    As graphics level off, the 'cool' games will start bulletting physics as their glitz and glamour..until that becomes an almost perfect simulation as well. I wonder what will be next.

  • Graphics still make me go WOW! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kjkeefe ( 581605 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @01:01PM (#12748476)
    I played Ultima Online for about 7 years. So I was used to playing a game without killer graphics for a long time. My thoughts were the same thing as the poster, gameplay is all that matters.

    Well, I recently began playing World of Warcraft because I am sick of how bad UO has gotten. After playing WoW I realize just how much I was missing! There have been times in game where I was climbing a mountain and when I got to the summit and looked out into a valley I literally vocalized, "Wooooow...". It was almost a gut reaction and afterward I thought to myself, "... that was silly...". But it really does make a difference in how much I enjoy the game. I actually enjoy the beautiful views you can find in that game. After playing WoW I am a fervent believer in the "games are art" school of thought. Some of the screen shots from that world are just astonshingly beautiful.

    Just the other day I was playing and my (not technology inclined) mother happen to look at my screen and remarked, "Wow, that is really pretty, what is that website?" I explained that actually it was a virtual game world and that I was looking off a boat I was riding watching the sunset.

    I believe that you can't have a successful game without well thought out game play, but the artwork is what can make it a masterpiece.
    • I think the fact that you played UO, with terrible graphics by today's standards, has skewed your view on what is considered amazing graphics. WOW has a nice graphical style, but is hardly considered the cream of the crop for graphics. The fact that you consider WOW's graphics good enough exactly proves the author's point; these days most games have graphics that are good enough, the gameplay is what matters most.

  • It's time for a Picasso (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fwitness ( 195565 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @01:02PM (#12748489)
    The reason Picasso came up with some of the most brilliant art of our time is that his age saw the introduction of the camera. Artists no longer needed to struggle to replicate actual scenes, as the camera did this faster and better. Art needed to evolve to find a new niche. Picasso showed that art need not be about the image itself, but portraying the subject in a more abstract (and some would argue more complete) manner.

    Games are going to have to focus on content as we approach photo-realistic real-time rendering. People are not going to buy one game over another because the grass has clearer shiner blades. It's about time too. Bring on the Ico's, Katamari's and Viewtiful Joe's of the future. Let's get back to exploring gaming as interactive entertainment and forget looking at purty images that move.
    • You should talk to Nintendo. They enjoy making games that aren't striving for photo-realism. I just finished Paper Mario for the gamecube. That game combines 2d and 3d in some very silly and purposeful ways. It has the same cartoony, bright art design that all mario games have had, just refined and cleaned up as technology has allowed. It's also a very fun game, so there's that too.

      A lot of Nintendo's games are like that, but they aren't the only ones taking a pragmatic approach to visuals. A good example

  • Art (Score:1)

    by dyftm ( 880762 )
    Why are graphics seen as a detriment to gameplay? I consider graphcis in games to be art - half life 2 being a prime example. It's a beautiful game. Entirely dismissing a game because of below par gameplay is just as bad as only liking games because of good graphics.

  • You know what that article need? (Score:3, Funny)

    by El_Muerte_TDS ( 592157 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @01:05PM (#12748533) Homepage
    More screenshots. It's only text.
  • ... is that it's not just about how good the graphics are, but about expectations.

    For instance, if I had seen PS1-like graphics in the 8-bit era, I'd have drooled. But these days, PS2 / Gamecube / Xbox graphics just don't impress me. The games I like, I like them independently of the graphics, and it's the same with those I don't like.

    Some parts from current games *may* impress me, but it's more of a art / landscape thing, not just polygons or effects. For instance, there was a church in Resident Evil 4 w
  • ...Why did Sony bamboozle us at E3 with flashy pre-renderings that had nothing to do with what the PS3 would output? And why did MS come out immediately to counter by saying their demos were on alpha kits at about 1/3rd the power of the X360, and would they would get a lot better? Fuck, by the next generation of consoles, one of these guys will have a GPU so powerful it can generate new colours, like fuscheen.

    It's basic biology, or psychology, or whatever ology - me wantee sparklie pretty thing. The grap
    • So explain how text- and stick figure-based games like Kingdom of Loathing [kingdomofloathing.com] have over 500,000 players? This and many other games of it's ilk are incredibly popular because the rely soley on game play. Not on shiny polygons.
    • The deformable landscapes you speak of have more to do with physics than they do graphics, and with the introduction of the PPU's we could start to see this become more and more prevalent. Also improving A.I. is another big challenge in creating new gameplay in new games coming out, and it is not an easy challenge to overcome. Graphics will eventually plateau in I think 2 or 3 more generations of upgrades, and then it will be some time before the abilities are used to there fullest. By that time I believe
  • 1) I look for suspension of reality when playing - when you look at a screen and you see something that is CLEARLY a limit of the hardware/software (polygons rather than smooth curves), it harms that suspension of reality. Gameplay is important, but if that's all I wanted, I could play Chess.

    2) Any graphical limit is a limit on the designers or the artists ability to bring their vision to full realization. The more advanced graphics become, the better an artist will be able to transfer from the canvas of h

    • ... A limitaiton such as the one you speak of is not wholly the artisit's fault, nor is it tje fault of technology. It's the designer's fault for being too broad-sighted to see that every single detailed idea he wants cannot be implemented in one game, or too narrow sighted to see how such ideas might be implemented differently, without running into hardware/software/technological issues. It's also known as compromise.
    • While I fully understand your point of view, you're missing something. There is a serious problem with the focus on graphics, and one that's getting much, much worse: Cost. Games these days cost tens of millions of dollars to produce! The biggest reason for this is how vital it is for sales to have great graphics. And then more gets spent on the game, and it becomes even more vital to sell more copies. Ultimately, this can only lead to rising retail prices if it continues. Also, expect lots of developers an

  • Consider chess (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheSHAD0W ( 258774 ) on Tuesday June 07, 2005 @01:18PM (#12748727) Homepage
    Ever play chess with a really elaborate set? Intricately engraved figures with so much fine detail you could scream? Kinda difficult picking out the pieces, isn't it? I really prefer a nice, simple, classical set, where you can identify the piece at a glance.

    I think videogames are approaching the same limit. You aren't going to be paying attention to detail when you're actually playing the game, it's at best ignored and at worst a distraction. The best thing for developers to do would be to work at reducing distractions.

    • Re:Consider chess (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cowscows ( 103644 )
      Yup, the graphics really only matter the first time through. Maybe not even the whole way through. I'll ooh and ahh at nice shadows and lights and stuff, but the novelty will wear off quickly. Hopefully there will be a few visual surprises throughout the game, but the higher complexity textures on all the concrete corridor walls ceases to amaze me pretty quickly.

      Graphics are good enough that visually, I can get immersed in the game and pretend I'm there. It could be improved upon probably with VR glasses o

  • Sure... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    And a commercial during the Super Bowl doesn't make your Doritos taste better. But damn if it doesn't sell a lot of Doritos.
  • I've played Castlevania: Symphony of the Night about 7 times now. I played Castlevania: Lament of innocence once and never touched it again. By all accounts of the video game industry I should have loved the newer one because the graphics were in 3D. However, issues with the controls and camera positioning just didn't make it fun after a few hours of play.
  • When Atari was released, people were amazed by the graphics (I'm sure this point will astound several of our younger readers). Even then, there were people complaining that the graphics really only stood in the way of allowing you to do whatever you wanted to do in the game the way you could in text-based games - as long as you could figure out the syntax!

    The real point here is that, since games have had graphics, there have been people that felt the state-of-the-art graphics only got in the way of what
    • This may have been true for a while but games such as Elder Scrolls: Oblivion looks to disprove that theory. The graphics are incredible but the part that everybody is looking forward to is the freedom that the player will have. The developers have so much power know with the advanced engines, sound, AI and physics that they have been able to create an entire virtual world.
  • Then we old Atari 2600 programmers could get back in the game.

    On the other hand, you can't perform advanced gameplay on the 2600 unless you embed a hard drive in the cartridge.

    It's a nice fantasy though.

  • Stale (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by brkello ( 642429 )
    Ahh, is gaming news so stale that all we get are people re-hashing the same old stuff all the time. It's such a dull article. He argues that the graphics aren't any better in the next gen. Then he states that they will be better and he will be excited, but it won't "wow" him. Give me a break.

    Graphics are only one piece of gaming. There is this dumb notion on here that enhanced focus on graphics is causing a decline in game play. It's easy to fall in to this trap that stuff in the past was better than
  • Games keep looking better and better but they aren't necessarily getting better. I find my Xbox collecting a lot of dust lately and my Gameboy SP getting played everyday.
  • Take a look at the differences between Doom II and III. 3 certainly has much better graphics, and that definitely helps with the suspension of disbelief, but the gameplay is much the same. People are looking for new types of gameplay.I think UT2004 did this very well; It gave us Onslaught and Bombing Run.

    You can have a game with really good gameplay, but bad graphics, and that's okay, but you can also have a game with stunning graphics that has absolutely terrible gameplay, and that's horrible to play.
    A go
  • About a year ago I went to a friend's LAN party and they got a wild hair up their butts and decided to play a few rounds of TIE Fighter. Undeniably a great game, but with very dated graphics. After solving a few DirectX issues, we got the game running and free-for-all combat ensued.

    The poor graphics spoiled it. We all bitched about how this game screems for an update. We played a dozen rounds and moved onto something else.

    You might not notice anymore when a game has great graphics, but you sure as hell w
  • I have a "l33t machine". I get good frame rates in Doom3 and such games.
    However, the games I enjoyed the most lately are almost all 2D. Specifically FreeDroid, Crystalis (NES), Soul Calibur (DC emu, KEYBOARD > GAMEPAD!!!), Castlevania: Aria Of Sorrow (GBA), Zelda: The Minish Cap (GBA).

    Almost all these games are graphically inferior but the gameplay is just awesome. I don't really care if it is technically superior, but I do care if its aestethic and plays right.
    Hell, considering Doom3, I enjoyed more pl
    • I got Doom III for the xbox. Spent a few hours playing it, then spent the next few days playing the xbox port of Doom I and II that came with it. Never have made it back to III.

      But then, I still spend an inordinate amount of time in nethack and ctetris.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close