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

[Blaze163]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Obveron]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Foxi4]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.