The Case for Improved Graphical Fidelity

+
Thanks, man. I put forth that before we talk about anything, let's make the distinction between graphics and visual appeal.

Graphics are derived from image data computation, but game visuals and aesthetics don't necessarily need to be photorealistic in order to be visually appealing, i.e. a developer can afford to cut back on the graphical fidelity of the game if that is relevant to the aesthetics of the game.

And whether a game is 2D or 3D is not as important as how the environment is utilized.

That said, I have so much appreciation for the wide, expansive and interactive 3D environments in games, and I will always purchase those games because that hard work certainly should be enjoyed and appreciated. Of course I am not implying that games with 2D or smaller environments are not enjoyable or entertaining.
 
cmdrsilverbolt said:
... and I will always purchase those games because that hard work certainly should be enjoyed and appreciated. Of course I am not implying that games with 2D or smaller environments are not enjoyable or entertaining.

... And that there isn't hard work put into those kind of games as well.
 
Yeah.

What I don't like is that fans of old school work plainly overlook the hard work that goes into making a game photorealistic and/or pretty.

I think it's possible to have a photorealistic/pretty game, and still have great gameplay or storytelling.
 
It's more about art direction for me. I don't give a shit about Crysis,Warhammer,Guild Wars2 or other stuff like that because I don't dig the look of the characters while I'd gladly play something like Mount and Blade or VtMB Bloodlines even though they're old lookin their art direction is solid and suited to my tastes.
 
I don't think they're overlooking it. They're saying it isn't important, and that an undue emphasis on it detracts from the really important facets of a game. They're saying that exactly that undue emphasis is debasing the business of commercial c"RPG"s. It's a fair criticism and one that should be dealt with.

But games are art, contrary to one recently demised critic, and any student of art history will see that artists use the best technology available, except when there is a damn good reason they don't. Not having mastered the technology, or not being able to afford it, are not virtues, they're deficiencies. But creating a particular look and feel that suits the game and engages its audience is very much a facet of the game developer's art.

It's as valid to make a game in a retro look and feel such as pseudo-isometric with sprites as it is to make a movie in black and white on silver film stock. But there has to be a good reason for doing so. Appealing to a particular audience is one such good reason. Saving money or avoiding the need to master a technology is not, especially when the barrier to using perspective and 3D is as low as it is nowadays.
 
cmdrsilverbolt said:
Yeah.

What I don't like is that fans of old school work plainly overlook the hard work that goes into making a game photorealistic and/or pretty.

I think it's possible to have a photorealistic/pretty game, and still have great gameplay or storytelling.

Of course it's possible. It's also possible to create the perfect game in every single aspect, but that doesn't mean it's feasible or realistic considering time and money constraints.

Some of us (like me) defend the point that graphics are secondary to role-playing elements (notice how I am not talking about action games or anything else), because the game benefits more from those core elements than the technical aspect of its graphics. I'm not saying aesthetically the graphics are irrelevant; look at the Infinity engine games, they are all stunning even for today's standards. This reasoning leads us to choose gameplay over graphics, simply because developers have a limited amount of resources and it's difficult to have the best of both worlds.

Unlike what some people think, we do not expect every computer game to be like this, and we are not proposing cRPG's should look "outdated" for the sake of it. That is really such a wrong conclusion some have been defending. Of course we would love a serious cRPG with full-blown modern cutting edge graphics, but there are no major studios creating these games anymore and therefore the funds available for these games are very limited. Still these games are not "old looking", they simply chose an art style that fits their design concept. And hell, inXile is making their cRPG's in 3D.

Another thing is the 2D vs. 3D deal, which is totally nonsensical. It is all a design choice. Like arguing whether traditional hand drawn animation is better or worse than the newer 3D animation. Some camera angles, however, can affect the gameplay for better or for worse. For cRPG's (again) I am a fan of the isometric or tactical views (like the zoomed out camera on the PC version of DA:O) because it gives me control of the battlefield and helps me move my pieces accordingly. But this has nothing to do with whether the engine is 2D or 3D. The upcoming Wasteland 2, for example, is one such loved/hated "Kickstarter" cRPG and it is in full 3D. But this has nothing to do with graphical fidelity. I bring it up because in the other thread I said graphics were not a defining element of cRPG's and some people jumped complaining about future games switching to 2D because of us. Pffft!

I enjoy good and flashy graphics just like anyone else. Otherwise I wouldn't upgrade my computer every 3 or so years. But for some game genres, some elements are more important than how realistic their graphics look. Especially cRPG's, of which we barely have any nowadays. If I really had to choose, I would opt for good game mechanics (which go beyond just story) over advanced graphics. If I want a graphics fest, I'd play an action/adventure game like Batman: Arkham X or any modern shooter.

Maybe in the future we will have cRPG's at the forefront of computer gaming again, like they were 15 or so years ago. Then we can demand excellent graphics. But for now, they are a small segment.

Games have changed so rapidly that even someone like me (29 years old) has noticed a drastic change in my genre of choice, computer role-playing. Other games, like action/adventure, are better than ever I'd say. Some modern shooters (like Metro) also are more engaging than any of the 90's shooters I tried before. But if you guys had played cRPG's (and graphical adventures for that matter) at their prime, you'd also notice how low we've fallen. There's a reason why we like The Witcher; it's the closest we've got in the last few years.
 
GuyN said:
But games are art, contrary to one recently demised critic, and any student of art history will see that artists use the best technology available, except when there is a damn good reason they don't. Not having mastered the technology, or not being able to afford it, are not virtues, they're deficiencies. But creating a particular look and feel that suits the game and engages its audience is very much a facet of the game developer's art.

It's as valid to make a game in a retro look and feel such as pseudo-isometric with sprites as it is to make a movie in black and white on silver film stock. But there has to be a good reason for doing so. Appealing to a particular audience is one such good reason. Saving money or avoiding the need to master a technology is not, especially when the barrier to using perspective and 3D is as low as it is nowadays.

I completely agree. And it cannot stressed enough that not mastering the technology or not being able to afford it are not virtues. If the developer wants us to pay good money for a product, they can't expect to get away with minimal effort in game development; how about they get creative about how they want their game presented, instead of presenting it in a poor way.

I recently started playing the game Zineth- it's a simple, student-made game, but it's so fun to play, and has visual appeal.

I also worry that when we express the desire for art or creativity, we might lose out on the seriousness or realness which games with photorealistic visuals possess. I like games which are close to reality, and I feel that the photorealistic graphics have much to do with that.

GuyN said:
I don't think they're overlooking it. They're saying it isn't important, and that an undue emphasis on it detracts from the really important facets of a game.

I disagree that photorealism in video games is unimportant- I think graphics define the themes and atmosphere of a game, and sometimes one appreciates the realistic and closer-to-life themes and atmosphere.
 
Volsung said:
...but there are no major studios creating these games anymore and therefore the funds available for these games are very limited.

Are you serious? Look whose forum you're on?

It's a bad excuse that expecting a game with great graphics and storytelling etc. is a pipe-dream- plenty of developers have the money to do this, they either don't give a shit about making proper games, or they're poorly advised.

I don't buy the lack of money argument at all- it's not an excuse for major developers.

And regarding the isometric camera- that's exactly what I dislike about it, that it gives too much control.
 
Haha what the hell! Bloth made a thread and his op has about five words and he managed to start a conversation from that! Now that's some gangstah skills right there bro! :p

Unless I've missed something here >_>

Well anyways, I'm a guy who's gonna take a game with an amazing aesthetic style over graphical fidelity any time of any day! BioShock Infinite had an incredible aesthetic which more than made up for its pretty lacklustre graphical fidelity. But of course, nobody cares because graphical fidelity means jack shit. They still managed to create an absolutely gorgeous world. I think most people will agree that Crysis 3 isn't the prettiest game ever made because it's hiding that sweet engine under rusty, dogshit brown and gunmetal grey environments. It's a waste. Infinite is more visually pleasing than Crysis, agree? Okami, Bastion and PoP Sands of Time, those are some other games you can spend hours just looking at them and get a sense of gratification and joy :) While Gears of War and X-Men for the NES makes me want to bash my skull in with a crowbar.

You know, I think it's kinda depressing that this is still even discussed. The fact that gamers even put any weight into it just goes to show how near sighted some are. Because ask yourself this question: "in the future, when all the developers will have the optimal graphical resolution, the shiniest textures, the most dense polygon count etc etc etc available to them when creating their games, what the hell is supposed to differentiate the games from each other?"

Is photo-realism really what we're after? If yes, then why? Because photo-realism is inherently better than cell shaded games? I mean, yes, sure, the tools are getting better and better and that's great but that's all they are. Tools. If all the games look the same, then what's the point with having games as in plural. Might as well have a game. Obviously I'm omitting gampelay, story and all that to prove a point. The answer, obviously, is that developers choose how to express their story, how to visually engross people and how to engage the audience in the narrative through the art direction, use of colours, landscape, architecture, contrast etc in an effort to differentiate themselves, have a unique identity and in more advanced scenarios, try to match the aesthetics with the story you're trying to tell etc, and that's where the appeal lies! Not in the boring calculated numbers of how many pixels there are on screen. I mean who cares, it's how you use them that counts. The fact that you have a shiny engine that can do some pretty neat ligthing effects tells me nothing. What I want to see is how you use that tool to tell an engaging story or implement neat gameplay innovations or whatever.

I don't understand some people who say that they play games for the graphical fidelity. Why buy the game then? Look at a let's play on youtube? Save those hard earned cash for something else. If the game itself isn't interesting at all to you beyond the fact that it looks "nice", then the interest seems a bit misguided. That's like saying that Star Wars Episode 1 is the greatest movie ever made, with the most enthralling action scenes and most innovative use of visuals because it used so much CGI and obviously the more CGI the better since it's a visual medium. Yet it didn't use the CGI in order to tell a good story, Lucas used a story to tell CGI. See what I'm saying here? If those visuals don't mean anything in the context of what it's trying to present, it's pointless. It's the reason why Citizen Kane skull fucks Episode 1. Orson Welles knew how to use imagery to tell a story, how fancy his tools were are irrelevant. It's how he used them that counts.

Btw those prequel movies are so fucking offensively shit, I'm not even gonna start. I've studied a year of film science at my university but let me tell you this, you don't need to be Einstein to figure out why they suck. In case you're interested, Red Letter Media can explain it all for you., better than I ever could! Oh shit, I went on another tangent! That's what passion will do to you...

Anyway, being stuck in this prehistoric mindset of wanting more polygons on screen and extravagant lighting effects is ubiquitous, all games will eventually have these features and today we can pretty much just create illusions or mask inferior engines with clever level design. And once we reach that point, where all games have the same hardware requirements, technical optimization and graphical fidelity potential, we need to look for deeper reasons of why some games are visually more pleasing than others. Other than "hurr hurr, my game is prettier because it's 1080p"...
 
FoggyFishburne said:
Is photo-realism really what we're after? If yes, then why?

I don't understand some people who say that they play games for the graphical fidelity. Why buy the game then?

Anyway, being stuck in this prehistoric mindset of wanting more polygons on screen and extravagant lighting effects is ubiquitous, all games will eventually have these features and today we can pretty much just create illusions or mask inferior engines with clever level design.

Let's drop the attitude of sticking to extremes- it's very easy to find arguments against the extremes, but it's ultimately a fruitless effort since no one is taking an extreme stance here.

For emphasis, I am going to use capital letters (don't be shocked, now- I am not "yelling"):

NO ONE IS SAYING ALL GAMES SHOULD HAVE PHOTOREALISTIC GRAPHICS,

NO ONE IS SAYING GRAPHICAL FIDELITY IS THE BE-ALL AND END-ALL OF GAMES,

PEOPLE WHO LIKE DIFFERENT KINDS OF GAMES THAN YOU ARE NOT INFERIOR IN INTELLIGENCE OR OTHER TRAITS THAN YOU.

There. Now I hope no else makes your points again because the thread up to this point was not about them.

Now let's get some stuff straight.

Photorealism is a style in which the environment is visually indistinguishable from reality, but a lot games with cell-shading, or non-photorealistic rendering, can have visuals which are close-to-real-life pictures.

Such games include Bioshock games, Dishonored, TW games and so on. Artists would describe the style of such games as photorealistic, but their parameters are different from graphic designers.

Games which are photorealistic by graphic designer standards include Call of Duty, Battlefield, Resident Evil 5 or 6 and...um, I don't think there are many which can go into this category. The new Tomb Raider? Maybe.

And we should note that photorealism is unrelated to a game having high graphical fidelity.

Really, it's relatively harder to have photorealistic graphics than it is to have cell-shaded artwork- with the artwork you can expect the player to suspend disbelief longer, and be more lenient with visuals which seem off.

We actually haven't even gotten to that point where we have truly photorealistic graphics, and people are sounding the alarm against graphics before there needs to be one.

But here's an important point: the visuals of a game are not just there for show.

A game's visuals define it atmosphere, and are related to its themes, or at least that's how they should be used. That's why having photorealistic visuals is just as valid as not having them.

We shouldn't impose our own standards on developers, who have their own vision and should be allowed to show it to us. If that vision includes photorealism or high graphical fidelity, then more power to them.

I also hate the attitude that players believe graphics are just there for superficial reasons. I jokingly think whoever started this was probably a bitter developer who couldn't make a game with improved graphical fidelity for whatever reason.

It's inaccurate to believe that games with high graphical fidelity are inherently poorer in gameplay than their less-improved competitors. For example, the high-scoring (96-85) games on Metacritic are composed of both games with high graphical fidelity and those with relatively less.

And here's my earnest request to anyone reading this:

Stop measuring games by how much you personally enjoy them. It makes sense to complain about them from that perspective, but it does not reflect on the inherent playability or entertainment value of a game if you (the special snowflake) didn't enjoy it.

I think everyone enjoys games with high graphical fidelity, but I agree that many such games could do better.

There was a trend in which gameplay was minimized for graphics, and the most prominent example I can think of in RPGs is the Final Fantasy games, X and onwards (but I don't know if this is a good example).

I honestly believe that the industry is on the right track now- every game I've played till now has had enjoyable gameplay, and looks beautiful. But you tell me.

If you look for faults in anything, you'll find them. And plenty of people found faults in the old school games when they were first released. So yeah, people are always going to bitch.

Oh, and one more thing:

I don't understand the argument that anyone who likes high graphical fidelity is stupid. Is this really a valid argument here? It must be because I keep seeing it over and over, and I don't know whether to ignore or pity the person who says it.

This argument is as absurd as saying that people who prefer Broadway over the opera are stupid.

Basically this argument gives off an air of an ignorant, shallow stance, which is being made to prove one's own self-affirmed superiority.

We all enjoy different things, and if I got around to judging people on all the things they don't enjoy, and which I do because of my "discriminating taste", I will think everyone is inferior to me. But I would be a loser if I did that.

But on topic:

My desire is that developers should make games however it makes sense for their game, including making the game artsy or photorealistic if needed.

Personally, I would like to play a seriously photorealistic game that's not a shooter. A photorealistic RPG, perhaps.

Well, that's it. Have a great weekend, everyone.
 
Are graphics a prerequisite? Of course not. Do they advance the medium? Yes, they do.

-they improve immersion in the same way advanced CGI does for movies. I doubt Jurassic Park would have been a hit with audiences using Ray Harryhousen animation techniques.

-graphics are married to art design. If you want to push the visual/artistic boundaries in games, graphical fidelity needs to improve to allow that.

- If we are to assume advances in graphical fidelity are detrimental to games, then we might as well tell artists to quit striving for realism. It's hurting their artistic vision.

-the only valid argument is: they are too expensive and not worth the financial resources. This may be true, but as the medium evolves, I suspect gamers won't be content to see regression in this area. They want to see every aspect move forward. Having some retro titles and low-graphics indie titles around is great, but neither really drive the industry.
 
 
slimgrin said:
Are graphics a prerequisite? Of course not. Do they advance the medium? Yes, they do.

-they improve immersion in the same way advanced CGI does for movies. I doubt Jurassic Park would have been a hit with audiences using Ray Harryhousen animation techniques.

-graphics are married to art design. If you want to push the visual/artistic boundaries in games, graphical fidelity needs to improve to allow that.

- If we are to assume advances in graphical fidelity are detrimental to games, then we might as well tell artists to quit striving for realism. It's hurting their artistic vision.

-the only valid argument is: they are too expensive and not worth the financial resources. This may be true, but as the medium evolves, I suspect gamers won't be content to see regression in this area. They want to see every aspect move forward. Having some retro titles and low-graphics indie titles around is great, but neither really drive the industry.

I agree with you, and I also think graphics reflect much of an artists vision. Years ago I am sure artists felt frustrated when their creative minds had to be constrained by the blocky, hideous first and second generation of polygonal 3D graphics. Thankfully we got over that and we do not have to look back.

However, I would like to bring forward the case of computer role-playing games. This is a dead genre, because nobody makes it anymore except independent enthusiasts. This genre diluted into many other game genres, like action primarily. What is presented as an "RPG" nowadays is a twisted shadow of the games we used to have, but with great graphics. Sometimes with good stories, yes. While other genres are consolidated and keep a strong fanbase, like the third-person action/adventure and the first person shooters, computer RPG's disappeared and a new hybrid thing was born.

So while all of us like cool, modern and advanced graphics, many times cutting edge visuals aren't necessary for a game that is both creative and aesthetically appealing. Look at all those new indies coming out, some in 2D, with a creative and refreshing visual design. Nowadays it is not necessary to use photorealistic or super advanced graphics to realize an artists vision. So back to the case of computer RPG's, if a company like inXile wants to bring back the gameplay that we all loved and lost but wants to concentrate on the writing and design instead of creating a massive, powerful graphics engine, I'm all for it. In a way, sometimes we need to look back to the things we lost (in this game genre) and make temporary compromises in order to advance.

Now I know what you're all going to say and I am playing with fire here. The Witcher is a modern RPG with awesome graphics and excellent gameplay and design. True. But The Witcher also incorporates elements from other styles, like action style combat. Don't get me wrong, I love The Witcher, it is one of my favorite sagas ever and I constantly praise its writing, dynamic story telling and choice and consequence. But some of us still miss the style we grew up with, where even combat was decision oriented and everything had to do with role-playing, as close to tabletop as it could get on a computer. This is what was back then called computer RPG's and that's what I mean when I use that name.

This whole thread originated due to an argument over the "awfulness" of Project Eternity, which uses prerendered backgrounds with animated characters on it. In a way it is a tribute to the old Infinty Engine games, so I don't mind. But it is also a very particular art style that looks quite beautiful to me and not only I don't mind it, but I enjoy it. It simply looks good. It may not push the graphics forward in cRPG's, but if anyone has read their development updates you would know Obsidian is working hard on redefining many core elements of computer role-playing. Maybe not the graphics, but Project Eternity IS helping advance a newly resurrected genre. And for some of us, these mechanics are equally or even more important than using ultra modern graphics. The point here is that the technology they are using is sufficient for their artists to fully realize their vision, while the team concentrates on bringing back elaborate game mechanics, refining them and creating a whole new thing. Maybe in a few iterations we will also get the whole package with an awesome looking 3D engine.

On the other hand, inXile's Wasteland 2 IS 3D and looks quite good for modern standards, but I'm sure many people will still complain.
 
A game's visuals define it atmosphere, and are related to its themes

You 100% correct silver.

But some of us still miss the style we grew up with, where even combat was decision oriented and everything had to do with role-playing, as close to tabletop as it could get on a computer.

Maybe not the graphics, but Project Eternity IS helping advance a newly resurrected genre. And for some of us, these mechanics are equally or even more important than using ultra modern graphics.

Absolutely. Now feel free to read along and let me take you on a journey...



As you get older, folks start to wonder about the mental wellness of a boy running around fighting invisible orcs. Luckily there was more than one warrior withing walking distance so we formed a merry band and set off to roll some dice 'round the table. As we all know, with age come responsibility which means meeting to play is a right hassle for everyone. I needed an outlet! I needed to immerse myself in an interactive world!

I'm willing to bet there are several similar tales. The cRPG was a blessed gift from the gods themselves. Deep role-playing value, superb narrative, and loads of fun. Sure, tabletop is fun and freaking great, but here there is less chance of silliness and we can get more...serious :D/>

Ok back to graphics. The atmosphere modern cRPGs try to goes back much further than 1995 and is even more ambitious. The style says it all. Its recreating the holy grail (but with better graphics of course ;) ), tabletop. Tactical combat with deep, genuine companions, side quests that hardly feel optional.

I don't understand the argument that anyone who likes high graphical fidelity is stupid. Is this really a valid argument here? It must be because I keep seeing it over and over, and I don't know whether to ignore or pity the person who says it.

I think this argument was born when old games were given insults and scorned for there looks. Unfortunately, its grown into something nasty.
 
I don't understand the argument that anyone who likes high graphical fidelity is stupid. Is this really a valid argument here? It must be because I keep seeing it over and over, and I don't know whether to ignore or pity the person who says it.

Well to me it's like graphics aren't really what's unique about games. Movies and other media could have great graphics but games have something that only it can do so why concentrate so much on graphics.

People like what you said probably think of people who don't wanna play games with bad graphics aren't really true gamers and therefore stupid. I wouldn't call them stupid but I'd just say they're missing out.
 
guipit said:
Well to me it's like graphics aren't really what's unique about games. Movies and other media could have great graphics but games have something that only it can do so why concentrate so much on graphics.




Because it's still a visual medium.
 
slimgrin said:
[/size]


Because it's still a visual medium.

exactly but right now most games are all about the video rather than the game. Graphics as well as storytelling are important yeah but I think those things evolve on their own with other media while game design is evolving slowly because people are too concerned with graphics.
 
Let me paraphrase you Sir guipit:

Graphics as well as storytelling are important yeah but I think those things evolve on their own with other media while game design is evolving slowly because Publishers are too concerned with graphics.

Correct me if I'm belching idiocy, but isn't this a big part of Kickstarters "being" in the first place?

hmmm....I might retract my comment. How exactly does graphic quality affect writing? It seems weird to "buy" a good story. I suppose it could shorten things as I imagine with great graphics comes greater disk space and higher prices. I imagine Publishers cracking there whips, making writers spew what is commanded of them. Maybe I'm wrong and stupid, but I'll keep the comment. Balls to the wall dumb or nothing. I am, afterall, an integral part of society.

 
Top Bottom