Graphics aren't all that [Debate][TL;DR n/a] -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

SimonS.

[11PzG] SimonS

50 XP

10th August 2003

0 Uploads

568 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

Ever since I read a reasonably lengthy post on the Red orchestra forums about 'Next gen' graphics and their physiological downfalls, I've never thought the same about graphics again.

Been meaning to post this for a while so details may be a bit sketchy and scattered, but I want to get it off my to-do list, this thread that is...

This guy's reply explained about how newer games don't feel immersive. Sure new games have 'immersion' due to Scripted scenes and fancy fx, but what goods bump mapped alien goons if you're a nameless marine, on a generic off world planet, with not much background information, relations with other characters and plot holes (Not relating to any games in particular). When you can be in a world with totally innovative features, built relations with NPCs, you know where you are/what you're doing and you know lots of information about certain things such as Aliens, why they're there, what species they are etc (Relating back to Sci-fi genre just for comparison reasons) But this immersive game doesn't have all the shiny graphics and high poly models and directx10 powered sli compatible whatnots.

[COLOR=red]In my Opinion* [/COLOR] I'd rather be in the immersive game. I love reading about how things happen in the game world, which is why I LOVE the Half life Universe. It's been pretty much shredded to the bone in terms of In-universe information, Each monster, character and location probably has it's own wiki, or if not a large chunk of information on various sites. I think I’ve spent more hours reading about HL than I have playing that sci fi game with the portals and the Indians

[COLOR=red]/In my Opinion [/COLOR]

The guy also mentioned about how you used your imagination more while playing games with lesser graphics, then today’s 'next gen' graphic games. I instantly agreed with him. I always wondered why I liked lesser graphic games than all this next gen stuff. Because what wasn't there on screen. I could think of in my mind, sub-consciously.

I'll use Source-Gold and Source Engine as a comparison because it pretty much shows what I mean / am trying to say.

Take a look at this for instance (grabbed from its wiki)

counterstrikecomparisonbj9.jpg

When you play CS 1.6, your brain sees the onscreen image, the map tries to represent a desert environment (which it is pertinently) but; with gold-source, you don't have them high res textures, nice models and nice 3d skyboxes and glorious physics. The guns you grasp don't have their shiny UV maps and wooded effects; they just look like a funny replica. The maps you play aren't like their real life counter parts; This is where the brain comes in; I'll try to explain this with examples (CS/CSS):

When you Die CS 1.6: A pre-made animation and a death sound That man is dead, poor guy, grrr I died, I wonder what rag dolls would be like in this game, why am I floating in the air, shouldn't I be on the floor

CSS: Ragdoll deaths Wow ragdolls, well good. Looka that wow. Ha did you see that guy fly from that nade (no).

Difference with CS 1.6 (IMO at least) you have more room for 'what ifs' and 'wouldn't it be good ifs'. You use your mind for what simply isn't there.

Which is why I always say games should always have a form of 'lesser graphics' in them, so game devs (or games themselves) can have that brain control over players. I also believe that this could be the reason why there are still some loyal players to older games which have newer variants (CS, Delta force, DoD etc) and Also asside from Gameplay issues and bugs.

I've been experimenting and going back to older games, and the results have been good, in terms of what I’m trying to find answers for.

[COLOR=coral]Experimenting this theory in game Series[/COLOR]

[/b]The first series of games I've experimented with Is the WWF/WWE Smackdown Series on PS1/2/360. I've got a friend to aid me for the fun factor, but I've also tried Alone.

The WWE Game line started off great, Most people (My age group) had Either Smackdown 1 or 2, It was fast paced and great fun. A great game to fire up and blast away. I loaded up my PS1 and shoved in SD2, me and my friend blasted away and had great fun. Everything looks like ass , If anyone remembers the First 2 smackdown games had no entrances , only wrestlers 'walking' and their video behind them. That's where you brain work comes into play again, you might not think you are picturing The rock walking down to the ring, but you are. I found myself using my mind to make up for it's physical short comings, but the fun factor was there.

Now we Fire up the latest Game, Smackdown vs Raw 2007. Comparing these 2 games is not even worth it, the only thing holding them together is the fact that they're wrestling. You've got you snazzy graphics and all that like your next gen game would have. Entrances, Real wrestler voice overs in season mode, High res textures, Improved match mechanics, interaction hotspots and Reversal systems;

Yes this stuff is great, but when it boils down to all out fun, it's kind of not there. You've got that TV feeling yeah but, when you cursing at the tv, then it's not that great in theory is it? The new game has roughly 30 or so different button combinations to totally control your wrestler. The PS1 games had roughly 10, give or take. If they Re-made the old games and kept the simple control scheme and took out the 'realism' factors. I really wonder how it would pan out. Fun wise.

[end of smackdown]

Gonna cut this short now that I've said what I've wanted to say, The smackdown playtesting comparisons could be stretched and compared to other games with similar situations I guess, if you understand what I'm trying to say.

[COLOR=red]In my Opinion [/COLOR]

Imo, I just like older graphics than new ones. I like using my imagination while playing a game, rather than having my imagination lay dormant while I'm playing this almost photo-real game. You just don't and CAN'T get that same 'feeel' as you would with an old game, than you would with a newer one.

[COLOR=red]/In my Opinion [/COLOR]

Perhaps I'm wrong and maybe you can argue my points and even share your feelings about this debate.

*most likely biased imos so ignore

Universal thread : Will be posted on Different forums




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#2 11 years ago

Interesting. If I read this correctly, you prefers non-extensive older graphics (which suck but let you imagine things more) to badly done, more elaborate graphics.

Unless I'm cracking smoke (feel free to correct my reading comprehension) you're not making allowance for _well done_ elaborate graphics. This is one reason why I thought MoH online was so comical (the guys all run like they have a load in their pants), but why CoD (yes, I really prefer WWII games, and spend my time with what I know I'll like) was so awesomely immersive. I'm dying to give BIA: Hell's Highway a crack for just that same reason -- it is _so_ lifelike.

I also read a discussion about early development decisions within Half-Life 2 (gameplay-wise slightly disappointing to the awesome surprises in HL, which actually were mainly cool then because they were so new, but graphically incredible.) According to one of the lead developers, a conscious decision was taken to scale down character realism to avoid what is known as the "Uncanny Valley" effect, after Masahiro Mori, who postulated that as a nonhuman entity (i.e. a game character) got _too_ lifelike, people started being weirded out by it rather than identifying with it.

On the other end of the scale is a game like Netrek, which for a long time was the only real widely played Internet-based game. It is, IMHO, the most mature and balanced multiplayer computer game in the world, and after 18 years (client-server version; the game has been around in various forms for almost 27 years) people are still playing it because it's so mature. It's a top-down 2D vaguely Star Trek-based team game, without many frills (any graphics are just window dressing), but people love it because the gameplay is so paramount.

Good thread, though.

That said, here's the most random Half-Life 2 video ever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFhdU9Wj1dA




stylie

Mas stylie por favor...

50 XP

13th April 2005

0 Uploads

5,004 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago

I dont know I may have to disagree. I feel like you made this in msword, cut and pasted it, but you gave us page 2 and forgot page 1. I think though you may be comparing apples to oranges. It could be that you just arent where you were the first time you played "Smack Down". Back in those days it felt new. I can remember being about 7 years old and seeing the Atari 2600 at my buddies house. Pretty much every new gane was the pwn until the next one came out. I cant tell you how many hours Ive played it and thought this was incredible, now? I could never give a rat's ass about frogger.I might play a flash-based frogger for about 20 seconds and move on, yet the graphics are a million times better then the 2600's. That said, as you age your tastes do too. How could graphically superior games be bad?!? The GAME ITSELF could be bad. But saying that you cant have good graphix, i dunno... Maybe you need a 2600 and be forced to play it for 9 years and you will feel differently!!! But dont take this as criticism, just another opinion. BTW, I dont know if you are old enough to remember the fighting game craze? Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Tekken... These games were unbeleivable to me and I couldnt get enough, now... meh. They can get as graphically crazy as possible, I just dont like them anymore.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago

Actually, context is everything -- a lot of the early games would be very cool on, say, a cell phone now.

Some of the simpler stuff would also be cool on things like a DS or such, playing against other people, where the lackadaisical graphics don't matter so much (anyway, most portable game platforms these days give you pretty insane graphics compared to the original. Not nearly as awesome as, say, HL2 with all the environmental toys they use, but still.)




Coca-Cola

[130.Pz.]A.Aussen

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

2,816 Posts

0 Threads

#5 11 years ago

SimonS.;3410772[COLOR=red][/COLOR]The guy also mentioned about how you used your imagination more while playing games with lesser graphics, then today’s 'next gen' graphic games.[/quote]

Hehheh yeah but you use your imagination a lot more while reading a book too! Games are purely visual therefore they shouldn't be completely compromised by terrible graphics throughout the game. You could drop the graphics to somehow enhance the game when needed but it's much better to have a better gear to shift into when you need it to make your game that much more powerful.

Although, I do love to read about the game and that's why I like FH so much ,apart from the realistic, because each map is based on a real battle and I love to, in a sense, recreate it. I don't think that having worse graphics has anything to do with story telling

[quote=SimonS.;3410772] When you Die CS 1.6: A pre-made animation and a death sound That man is dead, poor guy, grrr I died, I wonder what rag dolls would be like in this game, why am I floating in the air, shouldn't I be on the floor

CSS: Ragdoll deaths Wow ragdolls, well good. Looka that wow. Ha did you see that guy fly from that nade (no).

Difference with CS 1.6 (IMO at least) you have more room for 'what ifs' and 'wouldn't it be good ifs'. You use your mind for what simply isn't there.

It's called evolution. The reason as you state that people changed the crappy death animations from 1.6 is beacuse someone did say "what if" we no longer had to see these shitty death animations. However, do you think that the what ifs are just going to stop if it's not completely lifelike or exactly what some imaginative developper will think of; NO! The gaming world has not become a desert of dry ideas and they will still flow so they can be gathered by developpers to interpret.




Lupin

[¹2ACR]

50 XP

26th July 2004

0 Uploads

1,259 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago

A lot of modern games coming out recently actually look less realistic than their predecessors. To me, BF1942/FH looks far far more real life than say, Just cause

Spoiler: Show
73578sb5.jpg

Maybe it's just me, but when I go outside I don't see every single thing glow like theres spotlights everywhere. And there are also recent graphics "advancements" that are supposed to make the game more realistic looking but dont. Bloom, certain shaders (phong can look really bad in HL2/Gmod10) etc etc. However, I do infact enjoy "decent" graphics when choosing to play a game. If the graphics are any lower than C64 (for pixels) and say, Half life 1 (for 3d) I just wouldn't bother playing it (unless I have played it before, or its really really good) because I have been accustomed to a certain standard of graphics. Blah blah I could go on but I just got up (4 pm :lol:).

Oh and by the way, about death animations and ragdolls. Sometimes ragdolls just cant do the job alone and honestly I would prefer a mix of animation/ragdoll. Take HL1 source for example. They removed all the death animations and replaced them with ragdolls. Half the time you dont even know if the enemy is dead because it isnt completely slumped over etc etc.




stylie

Mas stylie por favor...

50 XP

13th April 2005

0 Uploads

5,004 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago

BTW, got all sauced with a buddy of mine last night (Yaaay Im on vacation doing nothing) And we had a blast playing... 601582.jpg F Gran Turismo! They dont have cool weapons...




SUTTO

=2AIF= SUTTO

50 XP

10th May 2006

0 Uploads

122 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago

I my self would pick great gameplay over graphics any day, it just seems like alot of gaming developers are worrying to much about special affects and not on the fun-ness of the game i mean look at mariobrothers there crapy graphics now but still an awesome game and still fun. I also hate it when there are to many graphical affects on games as it is really anoying for your eye's PS:: simonS did you ever go on the GTAgaming forums??




9thDogbert

Dirty Inc.

50 XP

15th January 2005

0 Uploads

199 Posts

0 Threads

#9 11 years ago

I'd agree that I would rather play a game with decent graphics and great gameplay over some graphiclly steroid pumped game.

Games like WW2 Online, amazing gameplay and very realistic but the grahpics are pretty bad.

Though at the same time..I dont want less just so I can use my imagination. I read books for that, when it comes to games..show it all.




Fuzzy Bunny

Luke, I am your mother.

50 XP

2nd May 2005

0 Uploads

6,274 Posts

0 Threads

#10 11 years ago

That's kinda my point -- imagine a game like WWIIOL with really good graphics. Not just really feature-rich graphics, but really _good_ ones.

I don't know where this whole "graphics _OR_ gameplay" thing came from. To mention CoD again, for the time, its graphics were really good and immersive. Same for Deus Ex, Half Life and other classics. Same for Quake, even.

I think a lot of people are making a fallacious equation between "high tech graphics" and "good graphics". This Simon crossposter guy is perfectly right in saying that "high tech" does not automatically mean "good". Have you guys ever played Half Life 2: Lost Coast? It's basically a demo level where Valve shows off all the cool crap they can do with HDR (Gabe Newell talks you through the level, it's really cool, like the DVD commentary track in Basic Instinct, with Paul Verhoewen sitting in his easy chair saying things like "und now zey are havink sex")




  • 1
  • 2