# Good Graphics - The Sole Aspect of a 'Good' Game?



## Ryukouki (Oct 6, 2013)

No, I am not writing to criticize _Call of Duty_, not this time. I apologize in advance if I disappointed you. This is most likely going to be a two part article. This first portion is going to be a bit more "specific" in terms of discussion, whereas the next part (to be published sometime soon after this one) will speak in a more broad sense. As consoles get more powerful games are rendered in incredibly high quality. However, does a higher quality viewing experience create harmful side effects on the game? Does it create restrictions in terms of a better story or gameplay? The answer, I would have thought, would be very simple, but as it turns out, nothing in my world is simple, as I spoke to a few friends, colleagues, and older generation gamers, and quite a few of them believed that graphics alone was the sole factor in whether or not a video game is good. Let's hop in a little bit more and explore this ideology a bit more.

[prebreak]Continue reading[/prebreak]

I am most likely going to take some fire for this article. What appears to be a simple cookie-cutter answer is apparently a little bit more complex than what I had anticipated. I had a rather narrow testing sample, but the types of people I spoke to were more broad. I had the intense grass root gamers and then on the other end I had the casual type players. The surprising aspect that I had discovered was that a majority of them thought that good visuals on a game was the sole factor in whether or not the game was good for them. Naturally, I am a bit perplexed at this. One of the subjects claimed that a game like _Super Mario Galaxy _was "trash" because of the fact that the game was only rendered in 480p. As we know, the game received critical acclaim and accolades from media reviewers everywhere. It seems very ignorant. As another example, one of my subjects claimed that _Final Fantasy XIII_, considered by many to be one of the dullest Square Enix adventures to date, was considered like the Holy Grail, because of its marvelous visuals. Personally, I disliked the game. I was critical of its linear and limited gameplay. Others praised it. I do not see why. In regards to my questions, I should have received a clear answer, the expected answer. The one that dictates that graphics should not define a game. Yet, I received the opposite. I want to know why.



_I fail to understand the rationale in how "poor" graphics made _Super Mario Galaxy _a poor game._​ 
I was browsing an article on Siliconera. This particular article claimed that the new _Pokemon X_ and _Pokemon Y _adventures, scheduled for release next week, were a huge graphical improvement over previous generations which affected gameplay in a positive way. This is the normal and expected answer, but the article also established that the graphics were not the only factors that affected gameplay; it was the modification of old mechanics and the introduction of newer ones that brought about such fantastic review experiences. When I conducted that small survey on my university campus, I received almost the opposite, as I had a good amount of people saying that graphics were the only thing that made an adventure good. I countered back with popular games that were released several years ago, with scores and data to back up my argument, but these subjects did not budge in their responses. It is indeed possible that I got a bad batch of study subjects here. I am still trying to understand why they thought in this way. A test pool of about fifty is not really enough to obtain conclusive results. I want to look for the definitive or "reasonable" answer though.

In the meantime, let's go back and explore the other question I brought up: whether a game's increasingly good graphics made for a defining experience. The answer varies. It is subjective to certain criteria. Game graphics are not the sole factor in whether or not a game is going to be "good." Other factors involve gameplay complexity, depth, story complexity, clever mechanics usage; there are a lot more that I am sure you can pick up on. Could it also be that game developers are spending too much time sharpening the visual experience and making their games less complex? This is definitely a problem as of late. I mentioned similar observations in my previous article here. As a quick refresher, this was the article about gaming getting easier. A visible trend in the gaming industry is that indeed, gaming is becoming more of a cinematic experience. The work is being done for us instead of making us rack our brains a bit. There are too many instances of hand holding and quick time sequences that it drives me mad at times. I have not picked up a console game and thoroughly completed it in years. I find that games as of late are focusing too much on looking cinematic rather than focusing on making more complex gameplay. I find that the gameplay matters much more than a visual experience. For anyone that remembers Capcom's _Onimusha _franchise, they remember slightly older graphics, which countered back with an incredibly fast-paced, complex action experience. It is a bit of a shame that this franchise has died off. These are the kinds of games I want to see more of. I would happily throw off impressive graphics if it meant I would be getting a better user experience.

I'm starting to get a bit wordy here, so I am going to close this article off. In general, when we look at games, graphics should not be the sole factor in whether or not a game will be good. It should be better to say that a game is "good" if the gameplay is brought to an acceptable and "complex enough" level and whether or not certain subjective criteria have been filled to make for a definitive experience. Take the new _Pokemon _games. They have mixed up the formula enough for early reviewers to say that this instance is a definitely good experience, a fresher one that has not been seen since the second generation. As far as what I have brought to the table, do you guys as a community agree with some of the points brought up? Do you think that graphics are the only deciding factor? Or are there other factors? Do you also find visually impressive gaming to have adverse side effects on the quality of gameplay? Chime off below, I look forward to seeing these responses.


----------



## Thomas83Lin (Oct 6, 2013)

I've never judged a game solely on graphics alone. I fail to see how graphics determine if a game is good or bad. I believe gameplay is everything.


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 6, 2013)

Thomas83Lin said:


> I've never judged a game solely on graphics alone. I fail to see how graphics determine if a game is good or bad. I believe gameplay is everything.


 

Neither have I, which is why when I tallied the results from that mini-study I conducted, I was quite shocked at what I was seeing...


----------



## calmwaters (Oct 6, 2013)

Well in 8-bit and 16-bit days, I don't think graphics were that impressive. So fast forward to now, where there's all this 1080p, 4Ghz shit powering some monstrosity. But anyway, graphics are not the sole definer of what makes a game good. I'm surprised so many of the people you talked to believed this. I think I'll mention this too: Blu-ray players can be bought to play movies on your televisions. You can also get games in this format and play them in your PS3. If you asked people who own a Blu-ray player and watch movies on it if they think the movie is good because of the graphics, how many people do you think would say yes?

But calling a game bad because it was shot in 480p is just fucking stupid: honestly, there is just no end to people's stupidity. And mind you, the people who say this are normally younger than 20. It's become more apparent now since the game engines have become more complex that we care about how a game looks and how it plays. We just took that it played for granted in the olden days and that was the way it looked. Now we're pickier, hence the "PC Master Race" comments you'll be getting on here.


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 6, 2013)

calmwaters said:


> Well in 8-bit and 16-bit days, I don't think graphics were that impressive. So fast forward to now, where there's all this 1080p, 4Ghz shit powering some monstrosity. But anyway, graphics are not the sole definer of what makes a game good. I'm surprised so many of the people you talked to believed this. I think I'll mention this too: Blu-ray players can be bought to play movies on your televisions. You can also get games in this format and play them in your PS3. If you asked people who own a Blu-ray player and watch movies on it if they think the movie is good because of the graphics, how many people do you think would say yes?
> 
> But calling a game bad because it was shot in 480p is just fucking stupid: honestly, there is just no end to people's stupidity. And mind you, the people who say this are normally younger than 20. It's become more apparent now since the game engines have become more complex that we care about how a game looks and how it plays. We just took that it played for granted in the olden days and that was the way it looked. Now we're pickier, hence the "PC Master Race" comments you'll be getting on here.


 

Heh, how do you think I felt when I calculated the tallies and read the "justifications?" I was surprised as you. It's why I brought it up to the table in the first place; because of the abnormality of these results I want to know whether I got a bad testing batch or whether or not there's another factor present. In regards to the 480p comment, this was a casual gamer in his mid-twenties.


----------



## calmwaters (Oct 6, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> Heh, how do you think I felt when I calculated the tallies and read the "justifications?" I was surprised as you. It's why I brought it up to the table in the first place; because of the abnormality of these results I want to know whether I got a bad testing batch or whether or not there's another factor present. In regards to the 480p comment, this was a casual gamer in his mid-twenties.


 
Can I write this deduction about active and casual gamers, then? The ones who are casual believe whatever the game reviewers tell them, whereas the active gamers might believe what the game reviewers say, but will still try it out so they can get their own opinion?


----------



## Gahars (Oct 6, 2013)

I wouldn't put much stock into those responses, because the average person is going to give you the same response across most visual-based mediums ("Transformers was sooooo good! Did you see all those robots? And they exploded, too! KABOOSH!"). As long as their eyes got a treat, they couldn't care less about plot construction, character development, etc.

They're not necessarily wrong. I mean, if that's what floats your boat, hey, who am I to argue? It's not exactly fair or reasonable to expect casuals to engage with the material as if they were true connoisseurs.

As for my own view, I find it funny when people try to dismiss visuals as meaningless ("Graphics don't matter, and if you think otherwise, you're just a fanboy!" etc. etc.). Fact of the matter is, video games are a visual medium, so yeah, visuals are a pretty big deal. If your visuals are ugly or cluttered, that's going to seriously hurt the game.

And really, you don't even need to be taxing on the hardware; a good aesthetic design goes a hell of a long way. For all its technical prowess, Gears of War looks like utter shit next to Rayman Origins.

Graphics/Aesthetic aren't everything, but they're far from nothing.


----------



## Dork (Oct 6, 2013)

Because a game can't have good gameplay and good visuals, right? A good game is determined by many factors, though the gameplay is most important, it still needs others for it to make it complete.
And graphics can mean anything. Super Mario Galaxy proved that good art direction can make up for a lack of raw system power.


----------



## DinohScene (Oct 6, 2013)

People are far to spoiled.
That and everybody seems to get it wrong.

If a game has shitty aesthetics, it'll be a visually bad game.

These days, developers try to put all their resources into graphics etc.
Which severely impact gameplay and storyline.
Aesthetically... it won't improve much also.


Personally, I'd rather play a "shitty graffix" game that has a good storyline then a "ohmahgurd graphix wank wank" game with a shit storyline.


----------



## ipwndeveloper (Oct 6, 2013)

I believe graphics are a nice addition, to the story of the game.  Its like a good book, just because the pages are made of gold, does not mean the story is gold.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Oct 6, 2013)

I think it really depends on the game's art style.
Mario is never going to look super realistic and that's fine so I don't think the game's graphics should ever be a major reason why anyone thinks it's bad unless there are a lot of graphical bugs that hinder the experience.
However something like Call of Duty that does have realistic graphics should be judged a lot more on it's graphics than Super Mario Galaxy. Still I don't think you can judge Call of Duty only on it's graphics because there still is a lot more to it.


----------



## Coto (Oct 6, 2013)

Keep in mind, that to achieve a "good 3D engine", the developer must polish it and improve (or keep the best effects for later) things such physics and feature good artist designers.

That engine seems more and more polished, and well, you see the final results, like Capcom, TRI-ACE, Namco, and other does.

TL;DR version: There is a high chance you'll find better "visually improved" games from big 3rd party companies, on a sequel-like improved either visually complex features, or better gameplay experience retaining older projects, under equal timelines


----------



## ßleck (Oct 6, 2013)

First of all people think graphics are importnant because... Well a video game is a visual presentation. People enjoy having a clear game because it's pleasant to the eye and the game is easier to understand. If you have a game where everything is messy and you can't tell stuff apart, people will think the game is unplayable. Nowadays with people getting used to their CoDs and whatnot they expect those great graphics to return in other games and if they don't get those graphics they will think the game is unplayable. So basically great graphics become a standard for video games.

I, like possibly many others, disagree with this. Graphics are a nice little extra at best. It isn't entirely necessary even though some games might need it more than others. The same thing can be said about the story. But if you only play a game for the graphics you can go see a movie and if you only play it for the plot you might want to read a book. If you want to decide if a video game is good or not you should rather look at stuff like the gameplay.

Now the actual question. I don't think good graphics hurt video games. With todays technology why wouldn't you add amazing graphics to your game. Good graphics can't make a game worse. But if your game is already very bad it's probably going to stay that way. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't add good graphics. Bad graphics don't make bad games any better either.


----------



## SickPuppy (Oct 6, 2013)

A good game is one that catches your interest, one that you keep coming back to and keep playing. I think the gameplay has to be good first, otherwise why would you keep playing it regardless of graphics.

After playing strictly Wii games for a long time, I thought I'd give a PS3 game a shot, I looked at the available games and saw Darksiders 2. I recognized the title because of the hype the game got. So I tried it out and was really disappointed, I expected more from the graphics, it being a PS3 game opposed to being a Wii game. I played it for about 10 minutes before quitting it, I thought the gameplay and graphics sucked. Went back to playing mario.


----------



## The Milkman (Oct 6, 2013)

"Oooooohhhhh nooooooo! A small amount of people had different opinions from me! FRONT PAGE NEWS!"

Even Kotaku couldn't do a better job.


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 6, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> "Oooooohhhhh nooooooo! A small amount of people had different opinions from me! FRONT PAGE NEWS!"


 

Heh, like I said earlier, it was a test that I was baffled by. And if you think that you can do a good job at this, I advise you to talk to staff and apply for Magazine Staff. Since nobody's really willing to make open-ended discussions and devote time to it, someone's going to have to take the initiative.


----------



## Chary (Oct 6, 2013)

The only time I ever bought a game based on graphics, is when I bought Pokemon Ruby instead of Pokemon Silver. And I was _six_ years old.


----------



## The Milkman (Oct 6, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> Heh, like I said earlier, it was a test that I was baffled by. And if you think that you can do a good job at this, I advise you to talk to staff and apply for Magazine Staff. Since nobody's really willing to make open-ended discussions and devote time to it, someone's going to have to take the initiative.


 

I would expect the magazine staff to devote time into things such as (gasp) news, hell i'll even settle for some reviews. Having USN articles on the front page is nice and all, but does that suddenly open the floodgates for the mag staff to just post this sort of thing up here? Its as if you're saying "Welp, community does everything the mag staff can do now, might as well post generic topics on the front-page for discussion!"

Not saying I don't like the idea. I'm saying for godsake man, make it something that requires a bit more logic then band-wagon hopping!


----------



## calmwaters (Oct 6, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> I would expect the magazine staff to devote time into things such as (gasp) news, hell i'll even settle for some reviews. Having USN articles on the front page is nice and all, but does that suddenly open the floodgates for the mag staff to just post this sort of thing up here? Its as if you're saying "Welp, community does everything the mag staff can do now, might as well post generic topics on the front-page for discussion!"
> 
> Not saying I don't like the idea. I'm saying for godsake man, make it something that requires a bit more logic then band-wagon hopping!


 
I thought you said the msg staff. But regardless of logic, there will always be some people that will already be on the bandwagon.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 6, 2013)

Good graphics don't make a good game but they really help make a game good.

It's hard to convey some things in a game without good graphics. It makes characters more real and easier to relate to, scenes more memorable, environments more scenic and atmospheric, and just help give a game a sense of grandeur.

I wouldn't necessarily say graphics make a game but no one thing does. A game can't float alone on good gameplay or a good story or good music, it's a culmination of several different elements, and graphics is one of them.



The Milkman said:


> I would expect the magazine staff to devote time into things such as (gasp) news, hell i'll even settle for some reviews. Having USN articles on the front page is nice and all, but does that suddenly open the floodgates for the mag staff to just post this sort of thing up here? Its as if you're saying "Welp, community does everything the mag staff can do now, might as well post generic topics on the front-page for discussion!"
> 
> 
> Not saying I don't like the idea. I'm saying for godsake man, make it something that requires a bit more logic then band-wagon hopping!




I forgot GBAtemp is a no fun allowed zone and we can't try to provoke interesting conversations by putting interesting topics on the front page.

Thank you our almighty mag staff moderator.


----------



## The Milkman (Oct 6, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Good graphics don't make a good game but they really help make a game good.
> 
> It's hard to convey some things in a game without good graphics. It makes characters more real and easier to relate to, scenes more memorable, environments more scenic and atmospheric, and just help give a game a sense of grandeur.
> 
> ...


 

I forgot, my opinion clearly can't be voiced either on GBAtemp. But of course its best to make such a point of it in a thread which is based on the sharing of such things.


----------



## calmwaters (Oct 6, 2013)

The Milkman said:


> I forgot, my opinion clearly can't be voiced either on GBAtemp. But of course its best to make such a point of it in a thread which is based on the sharing of such things.


 
I'm staring at your signature while I'm reading your comment. The two of them just compliment each other so well. I don't really know why; it's just one of those things.


----------



## The Milkman (Oct 6, 2013)

calmwaters said:


> I'm staring at your signature while I'm reading your comment. The two of them just compliment each other so well. I don't really know why; it's just one of those things.


 

Its well intended my man.


----------



## RodrigoDavy (Oct 6, 2013)

Gameplay should be a major concern in video games, but of course having good looks, good plot and good music helps a lot. I find realistic visual to be rather dull imho, it may look realistic but they are rather ugly to look at, especially since most realistic games are about war. I usually enjoy colorful games like the Nintendo ones but I also find the game Walking Dead very beautiful.


----------



## Duo8 (Oct 6, 2013)

I thought the people around me were the only ones.
But...


Spoiler


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 6, 2013)

Putting too much effort into good graphics can hurt the game, there are a lot of good looking games that run like shit.
What games need is a balance of graphics and gameplay, they need focus on not only making the game look good, but play as good as it looks.


----------



## the_randomizer (Oct 6, 2013)

The Catboy said:


> Putting too much effort into good graphics can hurt the game, there are a lot of good look games that run like shit.
> What games need is a balance of graphics and gameplay, they need focus on not only making the game look good, but play as good as it looks.


 

All I can say to this is QFMFT


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Oct 6, 2013)

Games are an odd thing, on one hand if the graphics suck so bad you cant tell whats happening in the game? But games like that haven't existed in a long long time and the Dreamcast/PS2/Xbox/GameCube generation finished it off. At that point graphics became so good that really even to this day 99.999% of the games released could be done on those consoles and not much would be lost. Going back further in time to the generation of consoles prior to those and the graphics where bad enough that it would be almost impossible to do some of the games we enjoy today at least when it comes to graphics ability to convey emotions on NPC's or FMV's. 

On the other hand sometimes graphics are not really needed at all. Zork is a pretty fun game if you haven't played it and many board games are awesome with friends and family, deal me a hand of Uno and watch my manipulative competitive side come out in spades... lol

TLDR: Graphics have been good enough for a long time.


----------



## thebsharp (Oct 6, 2013)

An interesting followup to this survey would be a controlled test (too time and resource-intensive, I know). Basically, get games from the same genre of clearly different graphical quality (and overall quality) and see how the two compare to test subjects. For the Final Fantasy example, FFVI vs FFXIII. Of course this is very largely subjective, but it would be a neat little test. Will the beautiful FFXIII best the generally adored FFVI on graphics alone? How about Super Metroid 3 vs Metroid Other M?

A fun, but wholly unpractical, test, heh.


----------



## medoli900 (Oct 6, 2013)

I think that a game with beautiful graphics aren't necessarily good (i'm looking at you, Heroes of ruins), but bad graphics can hurt the game. Multiple game on Atari need the explanation on the game box to be understood and sometime it can't be understand even with the explanation. But what is bad graphics? It depends of the game. For puzzle game, minimalist graphics can be ok, like neves.

In short, what make a good game is entirely subjective. My mother is a casual gamer and love the Jewel Link series even if it got very bad review. To me, a good game is its capability to stick me to the game for a great amount of time (Animal Crossing: New Leaf got me with 100 hours of gameplay in the first 2 weeks i played it) and for that, it depends of the games. For RPG's, a good gameplay and, the most important for me, a good OST and story. For puzzle game, the variety of puzzle, the complexity of puzzle and the graphics. A good OST isn't hurting either. For bullet hell game, i didn't saw any that have HD graphics, but i can be wrong. The OST and graphics (artistically, like Touhou with the form of the bullet pattern) are the selling point.

TL;DR: We can't tell for sure what make a good game, since it is entirely subjective. But we can distinguish crappy job with masterpiece (Prisoner of Power/Portal 2)



thebsharp said:


> An interesting followup to this survey would be a controlled test (too time and resource-intensive, I know). Basically, get games from the same genre of clearly different graphical quality (and overall quality) and see how the two compare to test subjects. For the Final Fantasy example, FFVI vs FFXIII. Of course this is very largely subjective, but it would be a neat little test. Will the beautiful FFXIII best the generally adored FFVI on graphics alone? How about Super Metroid 3 vs Metroid Other M?
> 
> 
> A fun, but wholly unpractical, test, heh.



What about testing FF X against FF X HD? XP


----------



## grossaffe (Oct 6, 2013)

I think the trend of focusing on graphics is detrimental to gaming.  Yes, graphics are an important to an extent, but pushing more pixels and more polys isn't gonna make the game itself better.  The problem comes in when developers focus a growing percentage of their budget towards graphics taking it away from more important areas.  You wind up with 5-hour long games that cost astronomical sums of money and when they sell "only" 5 million copies, it loses it's developer millions of dollars and they go under.

I look at a game like Xenoblade Chronicles on the Wii, and wonder if that game would have turned out as good on another console that had greater graphical capabilities and thus resources diverted from creating the expansive open world, vast network of NPCs, and lengthy, engaging story.


----------



## mightymuffy (Oct 6, 2013)

Good topic, and already good replies, which I can't add much to really! Gahars with his Transformers movie comment = hit the nail right on the head! 

The poll then: difficult to choose aye or nay there really! My fave three games of last year were Fez, Forza Horizon & Spelunky.... now Forza Horizon, it could be argued, wouldn't have been have as great if the graphics weren't so impressive on it... Fez & Spelunky on the other hand IMO benefitted from the simpler graphics! Fez in particular, the 'crap' graphics forced you bring out that old rusty, dormant section of your brain called 'imagination', harking the game back to my childhood years playing Mario World or Metroid. Visually giving us everything WOULD have spoiled that game....
I still voted no though, as it of course depends entirely on the game & its setting (ie Forza Horizon)


----------



## KingBlank (Oct 6, 2013)

Graphical fidelity and aesthetics are important, people seem to think good graphics mean more realism.


----------



## TemplarGR (Oct 6, 2013)

Good graphics are desirable in a video game. Better graphics means better immersion.

The problem today is not that we have good graphics.

The problem is that 90% of the effort is put towards good graphics, and the rest are an afterthought. Because the budget is limited and when you spend a big chunk on making sure advertisements look good, then the game suffers...

I believe with this gen of consoles (PS4/Xbox1) we are at the point of "good enough" graphics. Of course there is always room for improvement, but it will demand far beefier hardware for little improvement in gfx quality.

Let's see what will happen in this generation. Will developers try to sell on graphics alone, or will they try to develop the gameplay?


----------



## TobiasAmaranth (Oct 6, 2013)

Clearly people have not played enough good indie games or games like Terraria.


----------



## jacksprat1990 (Oct 6, 2013)

A lot of western developers go for presentation over substance. That's why the a lot of Japanese developers are still better.


----------



## EyeZ (Oct 6, 2013)

Good graphics can compliment good gameplay in a game, but graphics without gameplay is a non starter.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Oct 6, 2013)

Like others have said, my opinion on this is that good graphics can make a good game great, but don't make a bad game good.

To me, graphics are very important. For me, who doesn't rely on things like official reviews and whatnot, games need something to grab my attention. If I'm scrolling through lists of newly released or upcoming release games, I'm looking at three things. Title, developer name, and screenshots. If the title isn't from a familiar franchise, or come from a developer I enjoy, all that is left is the attractiveness of the name and screenshots.

Now, when I say graphics are important, I don't mean super HD graphics. I mean graphics that are aesthetically pleasing. If it looks really cool and badass, awesome. But if it's cartoony and quirky, that's awesome as well. The game I'm playing right now is Shin Megami Tensei IV, and the next one I'm going to play is Pokemon Y. There's a pretty big difference between the graphics of the two, but I enjoy both. If SMTIV had poor graphics, would I still enjoy it? Yes, probably, but I wouldn't enjoy it as much as I do now.

While I don't believe good graphics are detrimental to gameplay directly, I do believe they are detrimental indirectly as some have said before, because it takes away developer resources. I'd rather have a 40 hour game with good graphics than a 20 hour game with great graphics. Whether it's an RPG, a collectathon platformer, or a side-scrolling shooter, good graphics will make the game more enjoyable, but only if they have a good gameplay to begin with.


----------



## Nah3DS (Oct 6, 2013)

as graphic quality increases, so does the development cycle of each game.... resulting in major investments of effort and money, to the point that it's no longer profitable to some companies


----------



## Satangel (Oct 6, 2013)

EyeZ said:


> Good graphics can compliment good gameplay in a game, but graphics without gameplay is a non starter.


 This really. Good graphics are a very important pluspoint, and it draws a lot of players in. But those players won't be satisfied if they only play the game for 3 hours, cause the gameplay sucks. They'll feel like buying an empty box, although it's a nice box, no content in it. Kind of like marrying the average Playboy model or so


----------



## Blaze163 (Oct 6, 2013)

I still rate the original SNES Starwing as one of my favourite games of all time. Graphics are the very least of my concerns. I'm not going to say better graphics don't make a game better, I'd love for Starwing to be remade. But I don't consider it essential to the experience. Graphics don't make up for shoddy gameplay.

There's also a need to distinguish between technically impressive graphics and aesthetically pleasing graphics. Super Mario World doesn't have fancy high def graphics, technical marvels and ridiculously overdone lighting effects that make everything shiny. But it's still a delight to play and to look at. Whereas I was playing the Battlefield 4 beta last night and the digital effect on the title screen looks odd. You know the one I mean, where everything's divided into tiny squares. it makes it look like it's been knitted. It's very technically impressive but to my eyes it just looks goofy. And then there's the dust which prevents me from ever being able to shoot at anything (kind of a hindrance for an FPS) and the fact that everyone looks the damn same so I never know if the guy who just ran in front of my scope is on my side or not so I just pop him in the face and hope for the best. It's confusing. Call it realism all you want, it still doesn't make it a good gaming experience.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2013)

People often misjudge what _"Graphics"_ are and what they're used for. Graphical fidelity is a method of conveying an artistic vision of the developer and they have to be sufficient to support the developer's intention. Good graphics merely serve the purpose of displaying the intended _"look"_ of a video game and it's better to have more refined tools than poor, crude tools - that's the reason why we moved on from blocky Atari 2600-like graphics which required... plenty of imagination to actually make out what's on the screen. For the same reason we no longer make black and white movies - we want visuals to properly represent the medium in question.

Graphics allow for the visual representation of what the developer wants us to experience and they're nothing to frown upon - there's enough room on the market for ultra-realistic ones and cartoony ones, and frankly, even cartoony ones benefit from a better feature set. _"Borderlands"_ is a good example here - the game is cartoony, but you can't say that it has _"bad graphics"_, it's actually high fidelity graphics and they do their job of conveying the vision of the developer - they enhance the experience and give it an almost comic book-like feel, so clearly in this case _"graphics mattered"_.

Never mix up graphics with aesthetics - people equate _"Realistic graphics"_ with _"good graphics"_ and that's just not true, realism is an aesthetic element, just as much as celshading or other techniques are.

To conclude, graphics don't make a game good or bad - that's a matter of a variety of factors... but they're one of the ingredients, so it's hard to ignore them or push them to the margin.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Oct 6, 2013)

Not sure what's the point of this thread. I thought we all agreed long time ago that gameplay is the most important aspect of a good game. Why reviving this discussion?


----------



## Arras (Oct 6, 2013)

Good graphics make a game better (and with good I mean the same thing Foxi above me does) but too much realism is in my eyes harmful, even if it looks great, because it will inflate budgets and development costs.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> Not sure what's the point of this thread. I thought we all agreed long time ago that gameplay is the most important aspect of a good game. Why reviving this discussion?


The most important one, but not the sole defining aspect of whether a game is good or not. A game can have great gameplay mechanics, but if it's running in monochrome using a PC speaker for sound then what chances does it have to hit the top in 2013? 

_"Good"_ means a balance between constituent elements - good graphics alone won't do, good sound alone won't do, good mechanics won't do, no element won't do on its own, each ingredient combined together has to create a product appealing to its audience.


Arras said:


> Good graphics make a game better (and with good I mean the same thing Foxi above me does) but too much realism is in my eyes harmful, even if it looks great, because it will inflate budgets and development costs.


Keep in mind that with techniques such as motion capture, 3D object scanning etc. budgets are wasted not on _"creating high fidelity graphics"_ but on _"making them work on 7-year-old consoles with ancient specs"_ because at this point they are ancient. We're currently held back by hardware, but fortunately there's a new generation of it just around the corner which will nullify many of the current generation optimization problems, giving developers more wiggle room so that they can focus on_ "making games"_ rather than _"making them work"_.


----------



## BORTZ (Oct 6, 2013)

I think the general consensus here will probably shake out to: graphics do not make a game,  but they can break it.


----------



## Obveron (Oct 6, 2013)

I really don't know anyone who said graphics are the sole aspect of a good game.  The author is arguing with his imagination,  because nobody has ever said that.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 6, 2013)

jacksprat1990 said:


> A lot of western developers go for presentation over substance. That's why the a lot of Japanese developers are still better.


 







Yes Japanese developers are definitely substance over style.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Yes Japanese developers are definitely substance over style.


For all intents and purposes, fecal mater is considered _"a substance"_... It's just not a very stylish one.


----------



## Osha (Oct 6, 2013)

I couldn't care less about graphics, as long as the gameplay is good and the music puts me in the mood.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2013)

Osha said:


> I couldn't care less about graphics, as long as the gameplay is good and the music puts me in the mood.


 
True, graphics don't matter at all, it's good that we came to this conclusion.



I think the Magnavox Odyssey-like games should make a huge come-back this generation - I can see overlays working just fine with the Wii U gamepad. I mean, it's graphics you can enjoy even without turning the system on, and you can take them anywhere!


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 6, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> I think the Magnavox Odyssey-like games should make a huge come-back this generation - I can see overlays working just fine with the Wii U gamepad. I mean, it's graphics you can enjoy even without turning the system on, and you can take them anywhere!


 





They're just "instantly memorable", not dated!

EDIT: Image courtesy of Gahars.


----------



## Serafim (Oct 6, 2013)

I understand the results of your research, in fact, I do have a frind at work who believes graphics quality is what makes a good game. I fail to understand this concept, yet I am not saying that companies should put aside graphics development, but they should not rely solely on graphics.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 6, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> They're just "instantly memorable", not dated!
> 
> EDIT: Image courtesy of Gahars.


 
This image is specifically painful to look at when you realize that the amazing complexity of _"Metro"_ was created in an environment far inferior to that of Mojang HQ's. The game was coded in a cramped room where programmers couldn't even turn their chairs properly, but of course you already know that.

This is why I'm not a huge fan of putting Indie titles _(although it's hard to call Mojang an Indie developer at this point)_ and full-scale titles in the same _"scope"_ and ending up using varied degrees of scrutiny when grading them, you could practically add _"for an Indie game"_ at the end of each score there and you'd probably get a better picture of what they actually meant _(shame on you, IGN! Shame on you!)_.


----------



## Arras (Oct 6, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> They're just "instantly memorable", not dated!
> 
> EDIT: Image courtesy of Gahars.


The sound part surprises me even more to be honest. I can barely even remember Minecraft having music the last time I played it.


----------



## ILOVETOPLAYNESGA (Oct 6, 2013)

I believe a large part of the reason that people look for games with good graphics solely (having two friends who do, and observing some others) is, in part, because many games have become very predictable for many of the genres they play... many of the nuances are lost. For companies, it makes sense because creating a game costs so much now, in part because of the amount of graphical work that must be done compared to in the past even to be on par. So, as the games become more and more the same, with very few differences, they look for whatever has the most eye candy for them.

In my opinion, as someone who was greatly saddened at how slow SSBB played as compared to SSBM, the game play should be core to the game, and the graphics branch out from that. Of course, sometimes this leads to games that already exist being copied and released with a pseudo storyline and different graphics (think Candy Crush Saga...)
Anyway, for me I would have had just as much fun with 8-bit or 16-bit graphics for SSBM, or even just stick figures, if everything else had stayed the same.


----------



## Enchilada (Oct 6, 2013)

Most of the people I know think that the graphics are the most important.

I don't think it affects gaming, but it does affect companies like Nintendo. Most people go play Call of Duty, Battlefield, GTA etc. instead of Pokemon, Zelda etc. because of the graphics.


----------



## Silverthorn (Oct 6, 2013)

As soon as I read this article, it reminded me of this.
Seriously though, I think graphics are important, but not in the sense of high definition and polygon numbers.
What i mean is, they don't have to be detailed, as long as they are coherent with the gameplay and story offered.
Graphics should not break the immersion of the player or hinder his progression, but if you consider Minecraft,, I believe the cubic graphics go well with the simple gameplay of the game.

As for the quality of a game generally speaking, you really cannot consider just one aspect and say it is the most important, because just having one or two really bad points will really drag down the overall quality of the game. 
If for example there is a game with gorgeous graphics, story and gameplay but horrible music/dubbing, the player will probably turn off the sound and even if he thinks the game is good, he will probably always remember how bad that part of the game was. Same goes with a game who is good everywhere except for story/gameplay/etc...
Bad aspects of a game will stand out a lot more to the eye of the player.
That's why I think a good game is a game that is decent overall and has some very strong points, whatever they are.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Oct 6, 2013)

Graphics are not the sole thing that make a game good. Skyrim is a prime example of good graphics but lousy design and implementation. Sure, it's a vast open world, but many of the textures are the same, many of the environmental details like trees, grass, animals and various NPC's have almost the exact same characteristics that prevents one from differentiating them. Also, despite having nice graphics and a big open world, the game is riddled with bugs which can break whatever task you are doing and force you to start from a save point. I have had issues where falling through the world has forced me to restart back a couple of levels just because I was wandering around the world and leveled up while I was doing it and there was no auto saving. That sort of thing does impact the gameplay. Hell, I got killed once because archers were able to shoot through the walls.


----------



## NakedFaerie (Oct 6, 2013)

A good game comes down to everything and nothing. A good game to be could be the opposite to you. Where you might think Candy Crush is a good game where I think The Last Of Us is a good game.
I also think Barbarian on the Commodore 64 is still a good game and love playing it.
What one thinks is a good game another wont. I think FPS are great games others think RTS are great games. It all comes down to personal preferences and in the end to have a GOTY (Game Of The Year) you need lots of people to also think that game is great. Example is The Last Of Us. I've read a lot about that game and I was one of the negative posters about the demo but after playing the full game I changed my opinion and I think its a good game, pretty much to a GOTY but in my personal opinion I think the ending sucked bigtime, or should I say the lack of an ending sucked. I think it just stopped, I was expecting so much more from an awesome game.

I didn't real the artical at the top but he started about COD. I know COD has a huge following and I like parts of COD but its not really a great game if you ask me. I like long story games, something that takes a lot longer than an evening to finish where COD have never been those sort of games. They have always been a money making game because there are lot of suckers who pay overly expensive prices for last years levels in this years game. If you want to play the map from last years COD then load up last years COD and play it, no need to pay an extra $20 for the exact same experience. COD hasn't changed controls, gameplay, level maps or just about anything for many years. I think the last 4 COD games are even made on the exact same engine so they all look the same just a different color skin and turn left instead of right.
So in the case of COD no it doesn't make a good game if its got better graphics as its not meant to look good, its meant to make lots of money from suckers with more money than sense. Games like The Last Of Us ARE supposed to make money from looking good and having the gameplay to match and a story you want to pay for.

I know people will hate me for that but its true and the truth hurts. COD is just money maker not a good game. Its only good because there are lots of stupid people out there paying for it.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 6, 2013)

tl;dr read the entire thread (because lol readng is 4 dum ppl).

But I think people misinterpret or use the wrong meaning (IMO) of the term "Good graphics". Good graphics shouldn't mean the overall "OMG IT'S LIKE I'M ACTUALLY THERE" quality, it should mean how well the graphics coincide with the game, how well it works with the content. For example, a game like Cave Story has good graphics because they work really well with the game, or Skyrim, even with low-res textures the game looks good and works with the setting/story presented. 

The post above me seems to be crying about Call of Duty (or at least as I'm typing this it's the post above me), so I'll mention this...Call of Duty isn't popular because of its "OMG DES GRAFX R SO GUD", it's popular because it's easy to pick up and is a great multiplayer game (even if it reuses shit from the previous games, don't fix it if it ain't broke and all that). I'm not one to play Call of Duty for it's multiplayer (I pirate that shit for the story ;O, but I'm not going to say it isn't a good game because it appears to be the same (I found after actually trying the multiplayer of each CoD that there's a noticeable difference between them though...). 
/Call of Doody

Personally, though, I feel the graphics make a big impact on your first impressions of a game whether we want it to or not. When I first tried Skyrim, I was amazed at how far the design and the textures have developed over 5 short years. 



Spoiler



Look at this shit


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 6, 2013)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> tl;dr read the entire thread (because lol readng is 4 dum ppl).
> 
> But I think people misinterpret or use the wrong meaning (IMO) of the term "Good graphics". Good graphics shouldn't mean the overall "OMG IT'S LIKE I'M ACTUALLY THERE" quality, it should mean how well the graphics coincide with the game, how well it works with the content. For example, a game like Cave Story has good graphics because they work really well with the game, or Skyrim, even with low-res textures the game looks good and works with the setting/story presented.
> 
> ...


 
Heh, I wasn't out to criticize Call of Duty.  More of a fun teaser opener to engage a crowd. ._. I have nothing against people who like that game, just not my cup of tea. And you'd be surprised at what you'd find in the gaming corner of the university. I hear people go OMG GRAPHICS wank wank. It's awful.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 6, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> Heh, I wasn't out to criticize Call of Duty.  More of a fun teaser opener to engage a crowd. ._. I have nothing against people who like that game, just not my cup of tea. And you'd be surprised at what you'd find in the gaming corner of the university. I hear people go OMG GRAPHICS wank wank. It's awful.


 
Wasn't referring to you


----------



## Silverthorn (Oct 6, 2013)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> tl;dr read the entire thread (because lol readng is 4 dum ppl).
> 
> But I think people misinterpret or use the wrong meaning (IMO) of the term "Good graphics". Good graphics shouldn't mean the overall "OMG IT'S LIKE I'M ACTUALLY THERE" quality, it should mean how well the graphics coincide with the game, how well it works with the content. For example, a game like Cave Story has good graphics because they work really well with the game, or Skyrim, even with low-res textures the game looks good and works with the setting/story presented.
> 
> ...


 

Yea, that's pretty much what I think too. Graphics have to be coherent with the other aspects of the game, not just burst the polygon count.


----------



## jacksprat1990 (Oct 6, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Yes Japanese developers are definitely substance over style.


 
My bad. It must still be cool to be blinded by presentation.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 6, 2013)

jacksprat1990 said:


> My bad. It must still be cool to be blinded by presentation.


 

Nah I'm just blinded by good taste.


----------



## emigre (Oct 6, 2013)

Oh this thread again. Yawn.


----------



## Chocolina (Oct 6, 2013)

Why exactly is this a topic?
I think the type of people that visit this thread are the type of people that know content and gameplay makes the game, not graphics, so who are you writing for?

Graphics just draw in the crowd and its a natural phenomenon that every new game tries to look its best.

I'm sure gaming veterans are good at judging books by their covers though.


----------



## dragonblood9999 (Oct 6, 2013)

all i want is for the game i am playing to have excellent game play and a gr8 story. i don't care about the graphics.
look how good games were during the 8 bit and 16 bit era.
good graphics should be the icing on a good cake and not on a pile of shit


----------



## Sicklyboy (Oct 7, 2013)

Graphics play a very, very large role in how much I enjoy the game, but gameplay does as well.

I wouldn't be on a GTA IV fix right now if it looked like something that was homebrewed for the Atari 2600, regardless of how well it played.

However, I also wouldn't pour hundreds upon hundreds of hours into Super Mario Bros even if it looked like it was live-action.

Gameplay wise, I love Forza 4. It's a racing sim. It plays really damn well. I know there are better, even more realistic ones out there, but it's the best one I have personally ever played. And the game is fucking gorgeous, too, for a 360 game. The amount of detail that Turn 10 put into the game is unbelievable for a 360 game, going so far as to have your rotors start glowing bright orange from heat after braking quickly.

However, it could be the best, most realistic racing sim possibly creatable by man, but if it had graphics of a Sega Genesis racing game, I wouldn't play it at this point, because of how much I am missing out visually. Give it to me 10 or 15 years ago and I would be all over that shit, disregarding the fact that I didn't like racing games back then.

But then again, give me a good jRPG. As long as it plays well, I don't (realistically) care how it looks. If it looks stunningly beautiful though, then that's a major bonus. But those types of games don't thrive on realism. A few months ago, after receiving a dual port Sega Genesis to USB adapter, I decided to fire up a ROM of The Duel: Test Drive II. Despite being bad at it, I loved this game as a kid. (For the record, video is the Amiga version, I had the Sega Genesis one, the game looks largely identical, but audio is definitely higher quality in this than the Genesis one). I played for a few minutes and fuckin hated it. The game looks terrible compared to todays graphics, and it was hard to play too. But not being able to see more than ten feet in front of the car really turned me off from it more than anything. This is a genre that needs good graphics.

I'll stop droning on, because I think you guys can gather what I'm getting at with this. All I'd be doing is providing more examples.


----------



## Ethevion (Oct 7, 2013)

Depends completely on what I'm playing. I agree with Sicklyboy on Forza 4. It's looks beautiful and has a great physics engine. When I'm playing a racing sim, I want it to look and feel as real as possible. When I play a game like Pokemon or Sonic or some shitty games on my phone, I don't give a rats ass for the graphics. To me, the games are fun to play and that's what matters most.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Oct 7, 2013)

Ethevion said:


> Depends completely on what I'm playing. I agree with Sicklyboy on Forza 4. It's looks beautiful and has a great physics engine. When I'm playing a racing sim, I want it to look and feel as real as possible. When I play a game like Pokemon or Sonic or some shitty games on my phone, I don't give a rats ass for the graphics. To me, the games are fun to play and that's what matters most.


 
Exactly.  On some games it doesn't really matter.  Forza is supposed to be a (semi) realistic game.

Pokemon isn't supposed to be realistic.  Dragon Quest isn't supposed to be realistic. Faster Than Light isn't supposed to be realistic.  Those games don't look "stunning" but they look perfectly acceptable for the genre they represent.  Call of Duty probably wouldn't be a fun game if you were playing as and fighting against stick figures on a white backdrop but with all of the fluid animation that the current characters have, regardless of how damn well the game plays.


----------



## Transdude1996 (Oct 7, 2013)

"OMG WTF Look at how realistic this leaf is" is okay, but it is hurting the industry when that is the main focus among a lot of developers. Not every games needs to realistic, but not every game needs to look like a Saturday Morning cartoon, just find the visuals that work for the game.


----------



## iluvfupaburgers (Oct 7, 2013)

Graphics are not everything in a game as many has already mentioned. It has to go with the type of game. i agree, i have noticed lately though that many games are focusing to much on the multiplayer which is fine if you enjoy playing with others online but story telling is getting more dull because of this.

You also have to remember, graphics have always been important, specially for developers which seems to think its a decisive factor for sales. if you have been in gaming for a long time, you will remember the bit wars, in which every console manufacturer tried to create the best console and mentioned it ran a certain amount of bits as the important factor of the console.


----------



## Vipera (Oct 7, 2013)

////


----------



## assassinz (Oct 7, 2013)

Here's the bottom line: Detailed graphics in a game are good. But if the graphics/visuals are better than the game-playing experience itself then the game is shit!


----------



## Metoroid0 (Oct 7, 2013)

Not the graphics or the game-play is MORE important, but combination of both.
I like to see a nice graphics as well to play good game and good frame-rate may i add (60fps)


----------



## medoli900 (Oct 7, 2013)

Transdude1996 said:


> "OMG WTF Look at how realistic this leaf is" [snip].


 
You didn't play Animal Crossing, did you?


----------



## Lanlan (Oct 8, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> As consoles get more powerful games are rendered in incredibly high quality.


 
This was funny. But I think casuals jerk off over graphics so much because that's the easiest thing to digest. They might not be able to appreciate the finely tuned pace and gameplay of some games, which looks decent enough, but they can tell if an ass has enough polys to look good at a glance. I think art style is more important than pure graphical fidelity though, i.e. Wind Waker. But on a personal note, I think I'd rather have 60 FPS with decent graphics than 30 FPS with great graphics. Which ties in to a better gameplay experience.


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 8, 2013)

Lanlan said:


> This was funny. But I think casuals jerk off over graphics so much because that's the easiest thing to digest. They might not be able to appreciate the finely tuned pace and gameplay of some games, which looks decent enough, but they can tell if an ass has enough polys to look good at a glance. I think art style is more important than pure graphical fidelity though, i.e. Wind Waker. But on a personal note, I think I'd rather have 60 FPS with decent graphics than 30 FPS with great graphics. Which ties in to a better gameplay experience.


 

If we're talking PC games, I wouldn't know either as I'm still on an integrated HD GFX 2500 card that can run games from the stone age.  Personally I think that the art style should mesh with the overall feel of the gameplay, if you know what I mean. We could easily pull some shit with Skyward Sword, but yeah, we've pretty much meshed those types of arguments somewhere in the past four pages.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 8, 2013)

I like how everyone uses CoD as an example as if CoD is a textbook bad game. Maybe not your cup of tea but the multiplayer is very popular for a good reason. I know my share of "hardcore gamers" who still enjoy a good match of CoD now and then.


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 8, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I like how everyone uses CoD as an example as if CoD is a textbook bad game. Maybe not your cup of tea but the multiplayer is very popular for a good reason. I know my share of "hardcore gamers" who still enjoy a good match of CoD now and then.


 

Heh, I'm not saying CoD is a bad game by any means. Not at all. I understand that it's a good multiplayer game, which is completely fine. It was more aimed as a humorous topic opener, and I was having issues thinking of a decent good graphics game at the time of writing that seemed to fit around what I was aiming to say.


----------



## LegendAssassinF (Oct 8, 2013)

To me it doesn't matter since most people that buy games don't finish them anyway. Catherine a game that was considered sub-par was an amazing game that got you to think deep about yourself and others. How many games do you know that would be willing to take that risk in a market that only cares about Graphics.... You can clearly see Graphics sell a game when CoD makes one every year and everyone buys it yet it is the same game with balance fix every year.


----------



## LegendAssassinF (Oct 8, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I like how everyone uses CoD as an example as if CoD is a textbook bad game. Maybe not your cup of tea but the multiplayer is very popular for a good reason. I know my share of "hardcore gamers" who still enjoy a good match of CoD now and then.


 

I just don't think multiplayer is a reason to call it a game. That is the main problem with today's game is that people only care about the multiplayer and not enough about the single player that made games amazing. Look at Assassin's Creed an amazing series that got an overhaul because multiplayer was forced into it. AC1/2 and Brotherhood had amazing stories and the rest are lacking because they put a lot of time into the multiplayer side since Brotherhood had a good one.


----------



## ZAFDeltaForce (Oct 8, 2013)

I'd say how good a game is should be determined by the overall experience. Claiming a game is good based on a single factor would be biased and inaccurate. Imagine how silly it would be to say that a certain game is excellent because the sound effects are amazing, without even considering the other aspects.

Graphics, sound design, innovative game play, story and other aspects all come together; they need not meet technologically advanced standards individually to gel well together. A game with excellent graphics but a shit story makes for a pretty but boring and unimaginative experience. A game with an excellent story but shit game play could result in fatigue-inducing grinding. But a game with average graphics, a good story, decent sound design and fun game play could make for an amazing experience.

By today's standards, Half Life 1 graphics are terrible. Yet, I readily load that sucker up and start playing any time, because it's a fun game.

That being said, graphics can only be rated at the generation they were made, so what characterizes "good graphics", is by no means arbitrary. Though there exists certain basal levels where graphics are considered decent, what constitutes "good graphics" will change and evolve over time. This goes for every other aspect of games. Remember when Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare introduced kill streaks and was well-reviewed by all? Now, kill streaks are the standard in modern FPS games and is hardly considered innovative by the discerning gamer.

What remains largely timeless however, is the mix of all these aspects to deliver the overall experience. People have a different affinity to different mixes and thus will arrive at different conclusions on whether a game is "good" or not, but I say as long as you enjoy the overall experience, who cares?


----------



## Gahars (Oct 8, 2013)

LegendAssassinF said:


> *I just don't think multiplayer is a reason to call it a game.* That is the main problem with today's game is that people only care about the multiplayer and not enough about the single player that made games amazing. Look at Assassin's Creed an amazing series that got an overhaul because multiplayer was forced into it. AC1/2 and Brotherhood had amazing stories and the rest are lacking because they put a lot of time into the multiplayer side since Brotherhood had a good one.


 

"Multiplayer games aren't games." Are you having yourself a giggle, matey?

I mean, I'm a sucker for a great story, but multiplayer is no less legitimate of an experience than single player. Acting like multiplayer and singleplayer are in some war, and only one can emerge victorious, is just silly.

Plus, really, let's not pretend that the story of Assassin's Creed was ever anything approaching good. The games have declined in quality, certainly, but that's less to do with adding multiplayer (as you yourself mentioned, Brotherhood was the series' high point, and that introduced the multiplayer) and more to do with the fact that they're pumping the games out faster than they can come up with good ideas.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 8, 2013)

LegendAssassinF said:


> I just don't think multiplayer is a reason to call it a game. That is the main problem with today's game is that people only care about the multiplayer and not enough about the single player that made games amazing. Look at Assassin's Creed an amazing series that got an overhaul because multiplayer was forced into it. AC1/2 and Brotherhood had amazing stories and the rest are lacking because they put a lot of time into the multiplayer side since Brotherhood had a good one.


 

I think all the games that are entirely multiplayer (Counterstrike, Team Fortress, any MOBA, hell you can almost classify most fighters are purely multiplayer experiences) really beg to differ that multiplayer IS a reason to call it a game.

Do you consider Super Smash Bros. a game when really the single player content is always underwhelming and far from endearing and what people actually enjoy about it is the multiplayer aspects?

Also Assassin's Creed is far from an "amazing series" and has continually gotten worse and worse.


----------



## LegendAssassinF (Oct 8, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I think all the games that are entirely multiplayer (Counterstrike, Team Fortress, any MOBA, hell you can almost classify most fighters are purely multiplayer experiences) really beg to differ that multiplayer IS a reason to call it a game.
> 
> Do you consider Super Smash Bros. a game when really the single player content is always underwhelming and far from endearing and what people actually enjoy about it is the multiplayer aspects?
> 
> Also Assassin's Creed is far from an "amazing series" and has continually gotten worse and worse.


 

I'm saying games that are split between Single Player and Multiplayer


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 8, 2013)

LegendAssassinF said:


> I'm saying games that are split between Single Player and Multiplayer


 

I think my Super Smash Bros. example still stands, or any fighting game for that matter. The single player content (minus like Soul Calibur and even then only II, III, and IV or the Mortal Kombat reboot) is always pretty boring and unexciting. You go through an arcade mode fighting random CPUs that get progressively harder. Maybe you'll fight a unique boss at the end. And that's about it. The game's real value shines on multiplayer.

So what gives a fighting game a reason to be a game but not a FPS? And it's not that CoD's single player is bad it's just more focused on cinematic spectacle than level design. Which is fine, games can do that. Spec Ops: The Line has bad level design and boring gameplay but it's a really good game because it conveys an excellent story and themes. CoD conveys a fun story and some nice visuals, like an action movie does. And action movies can be great.

EDIT: And it's worth noting that the most visually impressive games so far are actually great games too. CoD is far from a pinnacle of visuals.


----------



## LegendAssassinF (Oct 8, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I think my Super Smash Bros. example still stands, or any fighting game for that matter. The single player content (minus like Soul Calibur and even then only II, III, and IV or the Mortal Kombat reboot) is always pretty boring and unexciting. You go through an arcade mode fighting random CPUs that get progressively harder. Maybe you'll fight a unique boss at the end. And that's about it. The game's real value shines on multiplayer.
> 
> So what gives a fighting game a reason to be a game but not a FPS? And it's not that CoD's single player is bad it's just more focused on cinematic spectacle than level design. Which is fine, games can do that. Spec Ops: The Line has bad level design and boring gameplay but it's a really good game because it conveys an excellent story and themes. CoD conveys a fun story and some nice visuals, like an action movie does. And action movies can be great.


 

Brawl is the only game where they actually put a real story mode into the game that wasn't just 1v1 until the game was done. That was a great idea that worked for the first time playing through for a couple of hours. FPS recently became all about multiplayer and no love for the single player there are amazing FPS that have great story mode. Unreal Tournament 3 is an amazing game with amazing story mode that highlights all the multiplayer options.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 8, 2013)

LegendAssassinF said:


> Brawl is the only game where they actually put a real story mode into the game that wasn't just 1v1 until the game was done. That was a great idea that worked for the first time playing through for a couple of hours. FPS recently became all about multiplayer and no love for the single player there are amazing FPS that have great story mode. Unreal Tournament 3 is an amazing game with amazing story mode that highlights all the multiplayer options.


 

Wait we're actually saying Unreal Tournament's single player mode is an example of *good* single player modes for FPS games?

I give up.


----------



## astrangeone (Oct 8, 2013)

I play games for entertainment.  Sometimes I find the story/characters engaging, sometimes it's the gameplay mechanics that have me being engaged, and sometimes it's the social aspect of it.  Visuals do play an aspect in player engagement.  You can have games that have a simple but distinctive look to them - Tetris, Bejeweled, Mario (especially the Paper series), even Pokemon, and to a lesser extent Final Fantasy.  These do the job of characterizing the area.  Hell, I was drawn to Kirby's Epic Yarn because of the visuals.  Usually these visuals end up helping create rounded environments and interesting characters.  I mean, look at Luigi's Mansion 2 - the greenies get different weapons, Luigi reacts to the environment - it all works to create Luigi as a scared sh!tless character, but is going through the missions because he has to.  (It's better in the original because Luigi's motivation was to rescue his brother.)

However, if the visuals are on the more realistic side (eg.  every shooter ever), I don't find myself as immersed in the story.  Video games operate on weird logic.  I have to find a specific key to open a wooden door.  I have a flamethrower, a foot, and a lockpick.  Why can't all of these work?  It kind of breaks the atmosphere of the game, and makes me wonder...why?

As for the gameplay mechanics being something that I love.  Take Monster Hunter for example.  It is addictive because combat is fast, fluid and very responsive.  Also because the mechanics of creating new weapons increases people's wanting to kill certain monsters and be good at it.  It is a game that rewards skill and creates new reasons for the player to come back to the gameplay mechanics.  Pokemon is like that too.  You take monsters, customize 'em with moves or EVs, and go back to fighting more monsters.  The core gameplay mechanic is what gets you hooked on the game.  (Nobody plays Pokemon for the story, right?)

Because this is the age of the Internet and easy connectivity between players, we have the social aspect of gaming.  Pokemon always has the aspect of being social/multiplayer.  In this, novice/veteran players are given certain visual perks (eg. your score or your title being a different colour).  (The trainer card turning different colours.)  It's like Team Fortress and the obsession with HATS.  It's a way to create prestige in a player community and create a distinct look.  I'm one of the few players who hates being forced to play online or with others, but this is a visual way to create different online personas.  I admit, I was happy when my guild card in Monster Hunter 3U turned rainbow (do 230+ unique missions) two weeks ago!


----------



## Transdude1996 (Oct 8, 2013)

medoli900 said:


> You didn't play Animal Crossing, did you?


No, why?


----------



## liamash3 (Oct 9, 2013)

While graphics can improve a game, they aren't necessarily essential. As others have said, without good or decent gameplay/story, the game won't be that fun even if it looks amazing graphically. I still like it if a game looks pretty and has good gameplay/story, but it isn't a requirement. If I like how the gameplay or story is, I'll play it, even if it has poor/no graphics (I'm thinking a text adventure here, but the point stands).


----------



## medoli900 (Oct 9, 2013)

Transdude1996 said:


> No, why?


 






















Leaf... Leaf everywhere :Q


----------



## EMP Knightmare (Oct 10, 2013)

Great work on this article Ryukouki, being a gamer from the days of Commodore 64 and Intellivision I've never seen graphics as a major role in a game being "good" if anything I believe Extra Credits made a great video which I strongly agree with.


----------



## RedCoreZero (Oct 11, 2013)

Graphics do matter. Not as much as gameplay, but it sure does matter. What if Call of Duty looked like an N64 game? Not as appealing is it? Imagine a Zelda game with next gen graphics, it would give it a more serious tone and give it a better fitting essence than Skyward Sword that's for sure. It changes the way we see the game and how it feels, and that is definitely a crucial element for a story driven game.


----------



## Ethan Allen (Oct 28, 2013)

Mostly graphics is the main attraction for games, to create a good game graphics plays a major role...


----------



## emigre (Oct 28, 2013)

I don't play gaems unless they have good graphics.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 28, 2013)

emigre said:


> I don't play gaems unless they have good graphics.


 
Ya but you're a Blasian so your opinion is null and void.



assassinz said:


> Here's the bottom line: Detailed graphics in a game are good. But if the graphics/visuals are better than the game-playing experience itself then the game is shit!


 
Errr.... no. Last of Us. Amazing graphics, beautiful story. Pretty bland gameplay. It was good gameplay, but nothing like ZOMG!


----------

