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

[The Milkman]

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.



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Spoiler

 

[The Catboy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[TemplarGR]

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]

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

 

[jacksprat1990]

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

 

[EyeZ]

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

 

[Pedeadstrian]

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.

 

[PolloDiablo]

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]

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