Graphics Don't Make Games

[SpoodBeest]

You read the title of this thread correctly. It is also one of my biggest pet peeves with gamers and in today's gaming in general. There seems to be some kind of misconception that a lot of delusional gamers have and that is if a game doesn't have good to great graphics then it's inferior to the game that has these superior graphics. When did this malarkey come about? This bothers me because many gamers overlook good games just because they don't have the greatest graphics in the world.

Like the Wii for instance. Now I know it's target is not hardcore gamers, but more towards family fun and entertainment but it does have it's share of completely kick ass games that make us Nintendo fans truly appreciate our favorite childhood company. Many of these newer gaming fans dismiss not only the console but it's entire library of games just because they aren't on the level of a 360 or PS3 which in the end they are the one who are missing out, but at the same time it's irritating to listen too. Many Nintendo haters actually use this as a knock on us and I guess that's probably why I would find this more annoying than others.

Many of today's games are also truly not as fun as some of the creative games of the past. I could turn on the old Super Nintendo and give it a go and have more fun than I would on any console. That may be my own personal bias but I truly don't have that much fun with current games. Other than Nintendo's occasional use of it the platforming genre has really taken a hit over the last era or so. And with all these shooting genres that don't interest me one bit, I have seemingly lost a lot of my interest in gaming that isn't the odd Nintendo one every now and then.

Assassin's Creed and GTA 4 both had amazing graphics, but in all honesty they are both quite boring when it comes to the actual game play. A thing which in my opinion graphics cannot compensate for. A game needs to have smooth controls, with a fun and interesting story, and it must also have intriguing stages. The graphics don't really matter that much in the long run but apparently something has changed that fact today. More and more gamers seem to think if they're game has these top notch graphics then it is ultimately kick ass. This is couldn't be further than the truth because when a game like Super Mario World is a better all around game than Battlefield: Good Company 2 than you know you're logic is flawed.

 

[Trill Co$by]

Great graphics do help make great games... Seriously, to the non-gamer, if they saw something played on 360 or PS3 without any HUD or anything, then on average, you'd hear people as if it was a move... especially if they didn't see the controller in your hand.

I mean stop and think here... Halo in itself is a movie if you just watch it.

Sure, gameplay may make a better game but think about it... if there isn't anything to catch the eye then it's just going to be what TNA is to WWE... just another game/company that is nothing to fear.

 

[Platypus Palsy]

I agree with you, graphics aren't the most important part of games. The Grand Theft Auto series is the perfect example. If you play San Andreas, there's hundreds of hours of fun inside the game, albeit the graphics are pretty bad. Then go play Grand Theft Auto IV, the graphics and physics are a lot better and more satisfying, but the content of the game is severely lacking.

A game like Crysis had amazing graphics, but it made it almost impossible for people to play the game unless they had the newest, top of the line PC or waited a few years and bought a PC and the game.

My favorite system, the SEGA Genesis, doesn't have the best graphics but it has some of my favorite games ever. The NES, SNES, and the N64 also don't have the best graphics, but have their fair share of the best games of all time. Many games nowadays are garbage, and try and fall back on their amazing graphics. If I wanted something amazing to look at, I'd watch a movie.

 

[Eck]

Spood you are completly right. But one thing I have to say. Personaly I love going back and playing the old games with bad graphics. But would you want to play a game with horrible graphics? I thought not. It turns you off of buying it. You can have the best game in gameing, but with horrible graphics no one would want to buy it. It's just the way your mind is wired. i love games with great graphics. Just look at Madden 11. it has great graphics and also great gameplay. That's what I call a lethal combo. But I agree with you that graphics don't make the game.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Anyone who says graphics are the most important aspect of a game knows absolutely nothing about games. Here is an example.

Random Gamer: "Look at those graphics, it's just like real life!"

Me: "This game is BORING. You like reality so much? Go play outside or something. Video games are meant to be an ESCAPE from reality."


This is the short version to a conversation I have had countless times. Seriously, this is why the NES and SNES did so well, while the more modern games have not earned even half as much acclaim. Just as the title states, graphics do NOT make games. So what exactly does? Gameplay mechanics that are user-friendly, characters that you will be able to relate to, and a story that you will remember forever. THAT is what makes a great game. Final Fantasy 7 had that. Ocarina of Time had that. That is why they are often looked upon as the undisputed all-time best games in the RPG and Action genres respectively. The graphics issue is a problem for many of us nostalgic gamers who liked the older stuff despite the outdated graphics because those games were FUN and had GREAT stories. I honestly hate realistic graphics. I prefer the cartoony style. Tales of Symphonia is the best example.

If I had the choice between a game starring a stick figure, with simple user-friendly gameplay, that had a story even more epic than Lord of the Rings.... or "Bob Goes To Walmart" with complex controls and real-life cinematic scenes that someone recorded on a camera on par with those used in Hollywood.... Give me the stick figure anyday! Seriously. The problem is that most people would rather have garbage like "Bob Goes To Walmart" due to it having such "REAL" graphics. WHO THE HELL CARES IF THE GRAPHICS ARE THAT GOOD???? The stick figure game may have outdated graphics, but anyone who plays it will be entertained for days and will build memories that will last forever.... Other than the Walmart game which would have maybe five minutes of impressive material, if that, all due to the developers putting far too much emphasis on the graphics.

In short, graphics DO NOT make games. In some cases, they ruin them. Long live the NES and SNES.

 

[Notorious718]

It really is a question of personal taste. For me, what I look for in a game is an engrossing plot that will keep me hooked onto the game or I look for a game that contains SOME sort of replay value. People have given Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker an incredibly hard time due to its "cartoony" graphics but all that aside, I personally enjoyed the game and was pulled in because I liked the dungeons and puzzle solving. Dagger also made a great point with Tales of Symphonia. It had cartoony graphics but was otherwise a great game with good controls and a good plot. Even the earliest Pokemon games on the original Gameboy had horrible graphics but they instantly became one of the most popular games ever.

A good game graphics make not. Hell, some of my favorite games were on the earliest game systems and those graphics obviously have nothing on the PS3 or 360 games. Personally, graphics merely serve as icing on the cake. If the game is good and has great graphics then that's awesome. But if I enjoy playing the game, good graphics or not, that's really all that matters to me.

 

[Davi323]

Graphics are not the most important...at least they shouldn't be, if you are a serious gamer. Gameplay should always be top priority in a game. No matter how good the graphics are, if the controls are shitty and the game simply isn't fun to play, its useless. The fun game will beat out the visually striking game every day of the week by me. Why do I have an NES emulator on my computer? Because I still enjoy playing Tetris, Tecmo Super Bowl, and those other NES classics because they are fun. Graphically they are shit. But I still play them over 20 years later, because they are still fun. A lot of Best Buy stores still sell the Starcraft Battlechest. Game came out in 1998. No computer game ever stays on the shelf that long...but Starcraft did (not talking about SC2, talking the original + Brood Wars). Why? Because it is a helluva lot of fun to play. Graphically, mediocre. It wasn't even cutting edge when it came out. But, it is fun to play.

Ultimately that is what counts....the fun factor. Nobody keeps replaying a game just because it looks great...but they do keep replaying it if it is fun.

 

[Wade's Public Transit Bomb]

I am glad you brought up Nintendo.

One thing that Nintendo has that I really really like is that Nintendo has staple game series that you know what you are going to get. When it comes to Mario, you know you are going to get an "easy" to play (damn you Super Mario Galaxy 2!) game that is surprisingly addictive. When it comes to Link, you know you are going to get a game that is surprisingly strategic in game play that has countless side quests and stuff to keep you involved in the game. For the Wii series (such as WiiSports), you know that it will be a fun game to play with a couple of friends.

It prolly has a lot to do with Nintendo not really having the technology to do the shoot-y or blood-y that a lot of hardcore gamers want to play. But I don't care, Mario is my kind of hero: Lovable, quiet, average in just about everything, but always does what is right.

 

[Dr. Stinger A. Zoidberg]

Youre exactly right, Spoodbeest. I think that some perfect examples of this, are some of the greatest classic games. I'm talking games like Frogger, Pacman, Super Mario, Space Invaders, and Donkey Kong. Those didnt have amazing graphics. Granted, with the exception of Frogger, they were all created in the 8 or 16-Bit era. Even for that time, there were still games that had better graphics than these games. Yet these games are some of the games that revolutionized the industry.

When you look at some of today's games, some of the worst ones have very good graphics. One that pops into my head instantly is "Dragonball Z: Infinite World." This game had pretty good graphics, but it was very bad. It was so bad, I still havent picked it up again.

So when you get down to it, you're right about all this, Spoodbeest. Its the games that make games, and not the graphics.

 

[The Raven's Epitaph]

I think it all depends on what you like really. When I play newly released Xbox 360 games, I'll judge the game when I've actually finished it. Most of the time when I'm playing, I'll say.. "hmm, the graphics could have been better here or there" - because it makes a game that bit better, but hear me out; my favourite games are all on the PS1, where graphics didn't matter. Yeah, they tried their best for that time period, but nobody knew any better. My favourites such as Alien Trilogy, Alundra, Crash Bandicoot etc. are all so incredible and intense that you don't even think about the graphics, you get fully embeded into the game.

Graphics help make games better, but that's not what makes a game what it is. It's the storyline, the plots, the characters and the gameplay. The graphics are just the cherry on top.