Graphics Of Video-Games.
 

One of my huge pet peeves is when people say that a game has "bad graphics" because it does not look photorealistic. I say - THIS IS WRONG.

Why?

Graphics being good or bad has nothing to do with realism - it has to do with the feeling the game wants to create. Some games (for instance, Crysis) rely heavily on photorealism, and in THIS case, its photorealistic graphics are very good.

But it's different for different games. Graphics might be really good, but not at all realistic (World of Goo for instance). In World of Goo, the graphics fit perfectly for the game, and are in other words really good.

And it can of course be the other way around - graphics may look really realistic, but bad - uninspired, boring. In this case the graphics do not succeed in establishing the feeling that fits for the game, and are therefore bad.

Good or bad graphics depends on the ART DESIGN FOR THE INDIVIDUAL GAME. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH PHOTOREALISM.

If the graphics of a game succeeds in giving the game the feeling it is meant to have, the graphics are good - no matter if they are realistic or not. Photorealism is only ONE way of showing a message.

Thoughts on this?

Needs more Neytiri.


Oh and I like photorealistic games, not games such as borderland. I think it's a bit of personal preference involved there.

Of course. But you have to agree that the graphics of Borderland fits greatly into the game they wanted to make, no matter if YOU like it or not ;)

In other words - the graphics of borderlands are good, but not everyone might like them. I can compare this with, say, movies. A movie might be really good (say, the godfather), but that does not mean everyone likes it. However, it is still well-made.

I only played borderlands for an hour or so, but I didn't like the game at all, because of the graphics. Did it fit the game? Hard to say since I didn't try it enough.

Had this small discussion on IRC:

If you'd lived on Pandora all your life and you came to Earth, and was forced to live here... would you enjoy it? I really do not think so.
If you'd lived in some real ****hole, way worse than Earth, and then came to Earth - would you enjoy that? Very likely.

It's all relative - you judge everything depending on previous experiences.

Yes, but you cannot apply that logic to video games, since all video games are so different. TA, for instance, is very different from, say, Crysis.

Two very different games, with two different art styles.

You remind me of my friend; he plays all these old games like Pokemon and Dragon Quest and gets so annoyed when I either don't know he's talking about or comment on how the graphics are crap.

Personally, I couldn't enjoy a game that I wouldn't enjoy staring at for hours. Take Doom for instance; I'm sure it was fun for people back in the day, but now that technology has advanced, I see no reason not to advance with it.

I'm guessing you're in your late twenties/early thirties? Then it would make sense for you to like old games since you grew up with them. (Don't be offended if I'm off, by the way, I'm just basing your age on what little I know of you.)

I never grew up with those games, I am 17.

And it's not a question of advancement. Many older games are far better than games released today - ALSO in terms of graphics - ART DESIGN.

;)

I just can't do that, I base my opinions on what I've experienced earlier, like previously mentioned. I grew up with games with a lot better graphics than TA (so did you, I suppose), and I'll for that reason never be able to appreciate them. No matter what "feeling" the game is trying to create.

Many, yes. Most, no.

Um...
I think TA has great graphics - I have not seen a game with "better" graphics, simply because the graphics of TA fit perfectly into the game.

For those who wonder, this is how TA looks like:

http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1...IGSHOT_002.png

I don't know, I think that game would look awesome in better graphics (by just looking at that screenshot, really).

Define "better".

What looks bad on that screenshot? I think everything look really sharp, informative (easy to see the units/terrain etc), and gives the feeling of a great battle. :D

I don't think graphics matter this much these days, back in the day, it was about being less crappy so you could actually recognize what you're looking at. Now it's more about shadows and lightning and such, "omg this has 9000 more polygons!!" effect is kinda dumbed down, because almost any game nowadays has great graphics. I really enjoyed Borderlands graphics btw, I'm on the same boat with Eltu. The thing is, amazingly realistic graphics CAN have effect on how immersive the game is, while older games have to make up to it by other qualities (such as awesome story, gameplay etc), I think that's why only exceptionally good old games are playable today. Think MGS! Eltu did you get MGS yet? :glol:

I'm purchasing MGS as we speak! :D

As a side note. Interaction with enviroment is very important (physics...). I think, that it's the field where Crysis was excellent. I want to see more games using cryengine3.

awesome! :D don't forget to write down how you liked it, can't tell you whether to save the girl or not, both options are great for you! ;)

agree with what OP said, different graphics suite different game types. And I've never had a problem with graphics of the games I've played in the past.

I think to find a game rendered "unplayable" because it doesn't look pretty (by today's standards) illustrates a pretty shallow gamer. Also, when speaking of artistic direction, it really depends on the genre and feel of the game. For example, whilst I would say that the FPS Doom has dated and less attractive graphics in comparison to the FPS Modern Warfare 2, I'd also say that the 90s Lucas Arts Adventure Game "The Curse of Monkey Island" is much more visually appealing than its modern sequels due to its beautiful hand-drawn art.

The Curse of Monkey Island (1997):
http://comenzarjuego.com/wp-content/...key-island.jpg

Tales of Monkey Island (2009):
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/arti...26545_640w.jpg

More advanced technology doesn't necessarily mean a better-looking game.

Also, graphics should go hand-in-hand with gameplay and/or story. Crysis may be one of the best-looking games to hit the shelves in years, but it still plays like sh*t. Whereas some older games are about as visually appealing as dust but can have me hooked on gameplay alone. That being said, a lot of recent games do manage to balance aesthetic appeal with gameplay/story and a fair amount of my favourite games are relatively recent ones with pretty high-end graphics. For example: Mass Effect 2, Portal, Just Cause 2...

Personally, I do enjoy sparkly, glossy high-end graphics that make my processor squeal with pain - but I'd never settle for aesthetic appeal at the expense of actual gameplay. Just like I'd never let a game's lack of exterior beauty compromise my enjoyment of its genuinely entertaining gameplay.

I think graphics has nothing to do with gameplay so I think its wrong to judge a game just because the graphics dont suit your standards. A good game is good, "bad" graphics or not.

Bump. Sorry Eltu but I have to disagree, a lot. TA's Supreme Commander is soo much better with better graphics.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/15/...1411454020.png
http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/819...1411455920.png
http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/3...0418270420.png
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/966...1411095220.png

But that doesn't mean games with "bad" graphics are horrible. I have FFVII and IX and they're for the PS1.

Dreaming of Pandora is right :P

I DO overall like games with good quality graphics (not even going to say 'good' graphics... things like Nethack or Dwarf Fortress have excellent graphics, which aren't high quality 3D ones)... but sometimes, graphics can be good if they actually fit the game's style, which doesn't necessarily mean they have to be high quality.

tl;dr: I like both types :)

I think I've ranted about this particular subject too much, and now I don't have anything left to say. For example, they've yet to make worthy successor to X-COM 1, which came out in 1994. It demonstrates the fact, that while graphics have improved, they are completely irrelevant, if the gameplay isn't done properly.

Crysis was good for the foliage moving around and the trees breaking, but I really enjoyed Bad Company (or BC2), which I believe had somewhere around 90% of it's environment being destructible. One of my favorite games in a while.

You are missing my point - SupCom does NOT have better graphics - BOTH TA and SupCom has great graphics, that fit into the respective games. The reason for you liking SupCom more, is most likely because SupCom's graphics style fits YOU better. But that doesn't make the graphics itself better or worse.

I agree with you, even though I wouldn't say that graphics has improved. The graphic style has changed, that is all. If it's improved or not has to do with the individual games.

Oh okay I see where you're coming from now. Yeah I agree there. :)

Oh and... when I get my desktop computer working again, we could play some SupCom matches - that would be epic. :D

*giggles with excitment* yay! :D

I was more or less talking about the possibility and raw processing power to make different kind of graphics. We are not talking about art or preference here, since that's subjective. You can't argue against the fact that graphics have improved on a technical level, but it's another matter alltogether as to how one uses the technology available.