Original post by AaronA
And on a final note, graphics kill imagination.
Look, it obviously takes more than pretty graphics to make a quality gaming experience, but why do so many people seem to hate "modern" graphics in games? A lot of things need to come together to make a good game, why shouldn't graphics be one of those things? There is nothing about the field of graphics that makes it inherently opposed to good game play; there is no need to make a one or the other choice. Games should be about the whole experience, and certainly graphics can improve the experience of playing a game.
As far as I can tell, a lot of people (and most of these are would-be "designers") are so staunchly opposed to having modern graphics in a game simply to be elitist. So many more casual gamers and even gaming media focus so heavily on graphics that some people have to denounce them completely just to seem "more informed". And I think it's bullshit.
Games are not made with the intent of putting graphics in place of the overall experience. No one sets out to make a game thinking "this game will have terrible game play mechanics, but damn, will it ever look pretty". Sure, there are games that turn out like that, but there have always been shitty games. Are you trying to say that without modern graphics, all games would be masterpieces? It would seem, then, that every 8-bit or text based or whatever you consider below the bar of "graphically modern" game must have been a masterwork. And that is not, by any stretch, true.
So what if games today look better than they did 10 years ago? Isn't that the whole point? If the technology is available, why wouldn't you use it? Why purposefully rob the end user of a more rich overall experience?
And concerning the quote I started off with, lets take a look at some modern (and therefor, apparently imagination-ly challenged) games. How well would Shadow of the Colossus worked without "modern graphics"? Could you have inspired the same sense of wonder and awe with towering Colossi models made up of 200 polygons? Or as 8-bit sprites? Could the player have become as attached to his animal companion if there wasn't a modern animation system driving it and making it look alive? Could you feel the same sense of loneliness and emptiness without such an expansive, bleak terrain?
Or take a look at Okami. Mind-numbingly simple combat system. Very heavily Zelda-esque quests and over all game play, yet still lauded as a brilliant experience, because the game looked brilliant. Sure, there were the gimmicky painting elements, but would the game have been such an achievement if you weren't playing a living water color painting?
So, I guess the point I want to make is that graphics don't ruin games. Poor designs and/or implementations ruin games. You wouldn't want to make a game with purposely sub-par artificial intelligence or physics, but why is it magically okay to scorn graphics?