OXM UK: Pete Hines insists that strong visuals are good both for "immersion" and marketing.
He has a lot of good points about graphics. It really is a great marketing tool, and gameplay and story being equal, everyone would prefer better graphics to not. The trinity of any good game: 1. Gameplay (is it fun?) 2. Graphics 3. Story
I think its a little give and take of everything. If the game has poor gameplay it had better have a excellent story. If the story is lacking then it had better have really fun gameplay. But with graphics alone it can't really save a game. There has to be some good elements of story and/or gameplay. Otherwise the graphics don't mean anything. I'd say graphics are low on the list of priorities, but I always wish for better graphics. Everyone does.
100% agreed on Bethesda! Otherwise people will still play PS2. This gen gave importance to graphics such as U2 /GT5 /GOW3 / KZ3 ...etc
@VSR A lot of people still play PS2. I still like good graphics though, it pushes the industry forward as oppossed to doing same old unreal engine graphics.
So bethesda basically is saying that xbox fangirls are lying? Oh oh...... I agree with the trinity that teething posted. except I would tie story and gfx.
I actually prefer: 1. Story 2. Gameplay 3. Graphics That doesn't mean to say I don't like good graphics. That is part of the reason why you are first wowed by a game, if it looks bad, you most likely won't want to buy it.
I actually prefer: 1. gameplay 2. story 3. art direction 4. graphics I spend the most time during game play, so I demand a pleasurable experience. For story, I could read a book or watch a movie, but it's nice in a game. Graphics? Never stopped me from playing Nintendo DS games and PS2 games this generation, so why care now? Graphics certainly adds, but is rarely if ever a detractor.
Gamingdroid - you nailed it. I think art direction trumps graphics everytime. My question is, where are all the games with unique art direction this gen? Many people disgaree with me, but I think consistently choosing photo-realism as a template for art direction is a bad idea; yet it seems that's exactly what most developers are doing right now. To me, it seems like gamers have a choice between photo-realism and anime art direction right now (especially in RPGs). I hope developers realize that they are limited only by their creativity when it comes to art direction. Bring on the next Okami or Ico...I think we're ready for it! Still, there are some games that give me hope (e.g. Limbo, Journey, Last Guardian, and a few others)
@vsr I still play PS1/PS2/GC/SNES/NES/etc. games. graphics are low on the priority list. I'm replaying Xenogears right now and after that I'm going to replay Parasite Eve. I plan on playing Okami(PS2) as well as Fatal frame 1 & 2. I also feel that if you go back and play many of the gems of previous generations you'll find level design to be mostly better they're generally more fun, more open, and more interesting. As others have said good graphics aren't so much important as good art direction. I also feel that more realistic graphics can also be more limiting. as with more realistic graphics I expect many other things to be more realistic and am more critical of inconsistencies between my expectations and the actual game. I'm not saying good graphics are bad (I like pretty things), but that there are far more important things to focus on. Hell I've had more fun playing minecraft than I have had playing most "AAA games." so really I'd say game play, level design, story, and art direction are all more important than graphics.
Touché my friend... touché...
Just because graphics matter doesn't mean all games need it. Graphics play a major role in most first person shooters and not to mention games with a heavy emphasis on acting performance such as Heavy Rain, Uncharted 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4 because these games need graphics to create immersion. So goes for Elder Scrolls. Don't tell me you'll go back to daggerfall after skyrim. Some games age and some games don't. Minecraft, Tetris and I think LittleBigPlanet as well won't age as fast as graphically dependent games such as the ones mentioned earlier.
graphics are what makes console generations to happen only 360 fanboys say that that graphics don't matter, same as they do with exclusives, and every other area where the 360 sucks but of course graphics were paramount for the 360 fanboys in 2006 when the first Gears came out, then uncharted/killzone/metal gear/god of war happened so graphics stopped being important
i hate repeating myself but: Touché my friend... touché...
I'd stick story in front of graphics.
Depends on the game I think. Graphics do matter, but art style matters as much or even more and can compensate for weaker graphics.
i mean graphics matter of course. im in the minority though when i can honestly say i dont care or they dont matter to me. immersion or not, i just want to play a good game. great visuals are a plus but have never or will never be a reason i purchase a game or want to play a game. its a big deal for 99% of gamers and is a great way to market and sell a game but at the end of the day i could care less. i can appreciate great outstanding visual masterpieces but it has no connection or selling point for me other than just looking good. once i realize that a game is well made, fun, has great content, and technically strong, thats when i take a moment to appreciate the great job the visuals do to elevate the experience. its never the other way around. gameplay first then graphics second. if the first part isn't there then the rest of the game falls through. i have no doubt skyrim will be a great game as thats not directed towards the game itself. im just saying that you can have great visuals all day but if i have nothing to play then looking pretty can only go so far.
I like good graphics, but gameplay and story is a must for me, graphics are just the cherry on top really...
Wouldn't you be pissed if there was no Cherry on top of your sundae?
Dude...Dont joke about things like that!
I wholeheartedly agree with your statement. Graphics are important, of course, but without good gameplay and story, the game, regardless of graphics, usually isn't very good. Just look at Final Fantasy XIV.
graphics are the least important part of making a game. Gameplay being the most important. But I wouldnt expect bethesda to understand since they reuse the same broken single player action gameplay in every game
thank you graphics are important too
Yup, gameplay and graphics are need. They each have there own. With just this statement I might just forgive bethesda for somethings they have done.
Or is an Xbox only owner.
wow, what a dooshbag....is your name ironic? I think so...
I guess graphics are all that matter to you, hence the Killzone avatar.
Or is a PS3 only owner, and should get a PC.
So what you're saying 'Troll_Police' is that MAG and Mod Nation Racers must both really suck because graphics matters?
Nah, I really couldn't care less about the graphics as long as the core experience is fun. I'm still playing Minecraft at the moment.
Thats true imo. Notice that whenever a game comes out that has good gameplay but bad graphics then people don't want to buy it. Graphics definitely matter to people and whoever says they dont are flat-out lying.
I think clicking on any "comparison" thread will show you just how important graphics are to the majority.
This is true; the most recent subjects are Crysis 2 and Homefront, one of which is on the front page.
Of course graphics matter, but more and more I'm finding myself becoming sick and tired of them being the central focus over gameplay. As far as I'm concerned KZ3, Halo Reach and Crysis 2 are FPS with interchangeable, largely weak, story lines.
you haven't played crysis 2 SP....
Story does not really matter for me because just look at Bayonetta for example it had an awful story but is one of the best hack n slash games ive ever played.
what better to catch the eye of a casual gamer and his fat wallet
Graphics are good and all, but theres not the be all end all. As for immersion... MGS on the psone for example isn't exactly aged very well, but its still just as immersing played today. And I think the same could be said about allot of old games from the 32/64 bit era. (The graphics which haven't aged particularly well, more so than say the 16bit era, in my opinion.)
Really Bethesda? What next? "Bethesda: bug testing is vital for a good game"
of course graphics help.the ones who were downplaying it were the ones who were no longer leading in that regard.the ones who cling to multiplatform games as a measure of system power. graphics help create immersion and pushes the illusion.when you have gone from this http://www.youtube.com/watc... to this http://www.youtube.com/watc... or this http://www.youtube.com/watc... to this http://www.youtube.com/watc... it definitely helps on the immersion as long as the gameplay and fun factor are present.those who downplay graphics shouldn't have upgraded to this GEN.
(And I only say this because we obviously know who he's talkin about).I've seen Xbox fanboys go from "wow look at gears" to, till the release of killzone and then it was "graphics don't matter", to "Haha COD looks better on 360" to, "So what FFXIII looks better on PS3, it's only some pixels" to "Socom looks horrble" and alot of these hypocritical comments came from the same people over and over.
they matter, they're just not the only thing that matters.
No one says that graphics dont matter, graphics shouldnt be the primary focus though, they should be viewed as a way of enhancing the gameplay and increasing a persons involvement in a game. Graphics matter but only if the gameplay is there in teh first place. gameplay = cake Graphics = icing Together they make for a delicious treat.
Graphics aren't everything, most of the console games now days have decent to good graphics anyway, so it's not really an issue. There are different graphical styles, like say a Mass Effect style compared to a Mad World style. Both are amazing in their own way. I'm more of a story driven kind of gamer, solid story means I'll get immersed and lost in the story itself. Also I like to have fun gaming, so it's all good as long as I'm having a good time. Like personally I find it impossible to go back and play anything from the PS1 era because everything is so blocky, I do however enjoy the Genesis and SNES games.
We all know graphics aren't everything. The get you more immersed in a game though.
The best graphics in the world aren't going to do much for me if the story isn't solid, along with believable voice acting and likable characters.
Games like God of War III, Uncharted 2: Among the Thieves and Killzone 3, Gears of War III have certainly good graphics, but lack of gameplay. Totally unfunny and boring. So they'are only okay, but not "good". Graphics are less important than good gameplay-mechanics, but also important. Many developers should contentrate more on new gameplay-options, mechanics, ideas... to bring the factor "Gameplay" forward and not only graphics, when I want to see only good graphics, I go to the cinema or buy a big TV and look only media like films. Many games out there should have good gameplay, so they have the "funfactor" too and not only "the best graphics", this graphiccompetion between developers is getting on my nervs, most videogames of today looks even better than the most films out there, effects and so on. I don't need better graphics anymore, it's time to bring more gameplay and other aspects like good art designs to videogames.
Those games lack gameplay? seriously? i know its just one person's opinion but wow. So i guess all of the great scores those games pulled in (not including Gears 3 since its not out yet but the first 2 can be included) only got the great reviews they did because of graphics... thats a huge fallacy
The best examples of good videogames are Shadow of the Colossus and Demon's Souls, these games don't even need the best graphics to impress me more than all other videogames, they have one thing called "soul".
While I agree that both games listed have soul, I would argue that neither SOTC or Demon's Souls are bad looking games at all.I only say that because I played SOTC about a week ago for 500th time and it still looked alright....not the best...nowhere near the worst
Of course it matters w all want nice looking games. My point is even a game like homefront is good enough in the graphics department to enjoy it. Uncharted 2 was no more enjoyable than mass effect 2 even though it may look better. The games people use in arguments of graphics may be better looking but the difference is really very small. It is a combination of all factors and overall polish. Demons souls wasnt the best looking game but to me it was the best overall game so yes it matters, no its not the deciding factor.
My take on the whole issue is they spend too much time trying to make graphics look better rather then trying to improve gameplay and making it longer. Graphics are important but let's face it they don't make the game. I can still go back and enjoy playing games from 10 years ago. I might think to my self "Wow these graphics are bad." but I don't stop playing cause the graphics are horrible. I play because the gameplay is fun. When it comes to graphic, most games these days are visually stunning. I can name at least ten games (excluding Crysis and Uncharted 2) that looks amazing. Most people are so busy compare games to the two I named above that they can't even see the artistic directions other games have.
Graphics are important to ALL gamers, regardless of their choice of console. How many gamers upgraded to HDTV once this generation was underway? I'm willing to bet most of them - and the ones still playing on SDTV want to or plan to. Why go to that expense if graphics dont matter?. Not saying a game should only be about the graphics but it's certainly one of the most important factors. Besides, given that most of our information on the world around us is processed through the visual system - doesnt that tell it's own story? Its good that some of the better developers also understand the importance of a game's audio component. Result = an immersive experience.
He is not saying graphics makes a game better. He is saying graphics is what make people interested in the game. That is true too, because if Skyrim looked like oblivion than it would not get as much interest as it is getting. If you don't believe me, what is the first thing people say when they see a new game? It Looks Great!!! and if you don't say that then you are in the minority.
Graphics factor very little in my purchasing decisions. I have more fun playing games on my PS2 than a lot of the graphical behemoths of this gen. As long as a game has an interesting story and decent gameplay I'll give it a shot. This guy from Bethesda can believe whatever he wants but some people aren't graphic whores.
I think what he's trying to say is that the 'ART' of the game is what matters. Take a look a game like 'Super Meat Boy', it may not be the best looking game around but it caught my attention with its unique artstyle.
The thing with new IP or sequel's is we never know the story or how it's going to play when we see it for the first time. They show a trailer and if it looks good it gets a lot of attention and if don't people won't care what the story is or how it plays because we're not interested in it anymore after that first trailer.
i really dont care about graphics , im still playing my retros
When i get my NGP i will probably download all the Final Fantasys into it. I mean sure the games are visually outdated but they still are great games.
I dont give that much about graphics or power, I wont say lies: Games de look much better in HD. The problem, at least to me, is that graphics usually mean realistics graphics. Take, for example, hits like GOW, COD or gears: Grays, browns, red. Boring. All the same, I'm not saying they're not great games, but why always the same? I love the Wii because of its limitations, games with great art like Krby or madworld or Muramasa are being made, and thats what I search in graphics: something lively, unique, funny, not this "hardcore games" of these days. Would those -wii- games look much better in HD? Of course yes. But, the developers would make the effort if the wii were a giant dinosaur of power? I dont think so. PD: Looking for Child of Eden, that games looks awesome.
Graphics Matter sure but gameplay is the most important aspect of a game. Whats fantastic are titles like Uncharted 2 which combine great graphics with great gameplay.
My priorities are generally; Gameplay>Story>Art Style>Frame Rate>Controls>Graphics Although I'd probs still play through a pretty rubbish game with an exceptional story. edit: frame rate, art and graphics are sorta part a whole but by graphics I mean poly counts and effects.
It's all about originality. Ex. Killzone 3 looks great but is generic as hell. While Deadly Premonition is ugly and plays horribly is still one of the more unique games this gen.
this company should be the last to talk about graphics
Hes right..they are lying unless the game is Socom..socom could have 8bit graphics and play like socom and it would sell..lmao
I think the article writer is spot on the money when he talks about how graphics, these days, is generally the factor that sells most games. Many people will argue that their personal preference isn't towards the graphics side of the spectrum, but more towards the gameplay/storyline side, myself included. However, alot of people will buy a game for graphics, Look at Crysis 1. This is only my opinion, but I feel the Industry is really failing to provide a flow of new and exciting innovative gameplay styles and narratives and instead, falling back on a game's graphics. I hope Skyrim really focuses on Storyline because the Lore surrounding Morrowind is what really immersed me, Oblivion didn't seem to have that same spark. All that said, I won't say no to some killer graphics in Skyrim.