I love games but I really would like to know if I am or if I am not the only person who does not care for all these new games who put all their focus on ensuring the leaves in the trees look crispy and you can see molecules of water on them. Yes graphics are amazing but they are/should not be the end all be all, at least to me. Am I alone in this belief?
When it comes to mainstream games, do you guys prefer cutting edge graphics or do you prefer arcade style with a lot of depth and innovation and experience?
Moving to the Lounge.
I prefer my games to have a lot of depth and innovation, a rich playing experience, and crispy tree leaves I can examine with all their droplets and insect life. Oh, but not the arcade style. I had enough arcade style, so you can keep that part. Other than that, I'm saying that although you asked me "either or," it's a false dichotomy. I can have both... To an extent (I think your "molecules of water" is an exaggeration).
3 hours ago, CocoaColetto said:Am I alone in this belief?
Yes. You are the first person in the history of the internet to complain about graphics over gameplay. Congratulations. ?
OK, joking aside, plenty of people feel the same way. It's basically why we have indie games.
Depends on the trade off; with the lack of cutting edge or even 'modern' GFX polish be made for it in gameplay? If so then I def take gameplay over GFXs but let's not play, something visually stunning with smooth/cool animations can pull you in faster than something with a humble look to it.
It is a false dichotomy not only because a game can be good on both fronts, but also because actually cutting edge graphics can bring depth and innovation.
For example, sufficiently fluid animation of sufficiently realistic indoor scenes enabled the appearance of first person shooters, bridging the gap between 3D but somewhat iconic graphics at a slow pace (e.g. Eye of the Beholder) and visceral realtime interaction with "virtual reality" (e.g. Doom).
I don't need cutting edge hyperrealist graphics, but if the graphics don't look polished it kinda turns me off. Thus I might never experience the game's depth and innovative gameplay.
I think what you're talking about isn't realism, but polish. Good graphics, as subjective as the statement, should provide the viewer pleasure - meaning the visual aspects of the game read well, are coherent, and generally responsive (as is the point of interaction in the first place). Whether the world is made of blocks, or optimized photogrammetry scans, is really an artistic choice, but not one that defines whether a game looks good or not.
So to answer, I like my game looking polished, and having depth. Whether the graphics are entirely pixelated, or leaning towards hyper realism is not a question that is ever on my mind.
I like being impressed by graphics in games, but there are many ways to do so:
Good pixel art (Fez)
Just unique art direction (Inside)
Cutting edge graphics using photogrammetry (Book of the dead demo)
etc.
It's interesting that pixel art can achieve the same Wow!-effect for me than cutting edge tech, even i spend all my time just on the latter thing and being a fan of photorealism.
1 minute ago, JoeJ said:I like being impressed by graphics in games, but there are many ways to do so:
Good pixel art (Fez)
Just unique art direction (Inside)
Cutting edge graphics using photogrammetry (Book of the dead demo)
etc.
It's interesting that pixel art can achieve the same Wow!-effect for me than cutting edge tech, even i spend all my time just on the latter thing and being a fan of photorealism.
I think that WOW! effect comes from attaining the sublime in terms of graphics. When different visual stimuli work coherently and elevate one another, you get a moment where you instantaneously know that you want to dive in and see what the game is about (I'm referring to looking at a screenshot of a game, and being WOW-ed).
Author
18 minutes ago, Ubersoldat42 said:I think what you're talking about isn't realism, but polish. Good graphics, as subjective as the statement, should provide the viewer pleasure - meaning the visual aspects of the game read well, are coherent, and generally responsive (as is the point of interaction in the first place). Whether the world is made of blocks, or optimized photogrammetry scans, is really an artistic choice, but not one that defines whether a game looks good or not.
So to answer, I like my game looking polished, and having depth. Whether the graphics are entirely pixelated, or leaning towards hyper realism is not a question that is ever on my mind.
Yes! A polished game with more focus on the fun and activity aspect. For instance, I love racing games, I bought forza horizon 3 because I loved the cutting edge graphics and so many cars and realism yet I played it 2 times and havent touched it since. Midnight Club LA was “polished” yet the graphics were NOWHERE near as advanced as forza nor did it have near as many cars..... yet I couldnt get enough. Sold it and rebought it a billion times. Same thing goes for other genres of games I played. But maybe its just me.
4 minutes ago, Ubersoldat42 said:I think that WOW! effect comes from attaining the sublime in terms of graphics. When different visual stimuli work coherently and elevate one another, you get a moment where you instantaneously know that you want to dive in and see what the game is about (I'm referring to looking at a screenshot of a game, and being WOW-ed).
Sure, but theres a such thing as diving in and then basically never touching it again because despite the WOW realistic graphics, thats basically all it had. I loved a good polished game with immersive and eye-candy graphics as well. It’s just when basically all the work went into cutting edge graphics you can tell the devs were too tired to really put work and understanding into all the other important aspects, if that makes sense!
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
