Graphics are important. Polygon count is not. There is no real value in being able to see each individual eyelash, but I also don't think there's much benefit to making every game look like the original Lode Runner.
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)
Casual Conversation
1702 readers
427 users here now
Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.
RULES
- Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling
- Keep the conversation nice and light hearted
- Encourage conversation in your post
- Avoid controversial topics such as politics or societal debates
- Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate
- No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc.
- Respect privacy: Don’t ask for or share any personal information
Casual conversation communities:
Related discussion-focused communities
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Wouldn't it save data power? I would imagine that a game with the simpler visuals from the golden age of video games would cost a machine less bytes to perform.
It depends on a lot of factors. Minecraft, despite its signature simplistic artstyle, takes a surprising amount of CPU power to run - a lot more so if you run mods. Even a Minecraft server, which doesn't render graphics at all, takes a beefy machine and a lot of RAM.
It's as much about graphical fidelity as it is quality of code, and unfortunately, there are a lot of game studios that don't seem especially bothered about optimising their games. To the extent that you can fill, say, an Xbox's hard drive with only two or three AAA games.
All that said, you're right in that simpler graphics in general mean less work for the graphics card to do. Just that it's not the only factor.
Ghost Recon, Ravenfield, Battlebit etc are shooters with simple graphics. Ghost Recon was from constraints of its time (2001 release) but Ravenfield and Battlebit could be way more photorealistic (like Squad) but chose not to. And I like that. In shooters you want good visuals if you can but having consistent performance is a bigger deal than some other games. I don't care about frame rate stutters in a turn based game like X-Com for example.
Speaking of turn based, one of the graphically simplest games I've playes recently is Armored Commander II. It is very very basic graphically (think dwarf fortress or intellivision) and I shit you not it is more immersive than it has any right to. The graphics and display info gives you juuuust enough info to set your imagination into overdrive to fill in the rest.
When your Sherman is almost out of ammo, bogged down in a muddy field and taking fire from enemy tanks in a nearby farm the actual graphics don't really matter so much
I think I remember that one from one of the Jampack discs. Good times.
It's becoming ever more obvious as graphics improve that it doesn't really matter what the game looks like as long as the game is fun.
Companies better have a damn good reason to spend production resources on high end graphics given how little they matter compared with thematic harmony, creativity and originality.
At this point probably to look like they can compete with other games, which might explain the fact nobody complains indie games seem primitive.
"Function over form" is a mantra I live by. This is reflected in the software I use/make, as well as the games I play.
What software do you make?
Nothing noteworthy. Mostly just utility stuff that I use myself, or work related stuff. A typical example is a self-test script that I wrote in perl because I'm lazy, and somehow it became a company standard and made it's way into written procedures - It just checks various services and misc network stuff, and let's you know if there's something obviously wrong happening.
Photo realism with no artistic direction is pointless.
Say that in a flight simulator forum. ;)
I know it's mostly in jest but I can't help replying lol.
I am a Euro Truck Simulator 2 enjoyer. Simulators are kind of another beast but I think "be as close to real life" can be a considered an artistic direction. It's bad when a game isn't being a simulation but pushing polygon count for its sake.
We probably can consider simulators as edge cases I guess lol.
And people wonder why Wind Waker did so well compared to Twilight Princess.
As someone else pointed out, that is false.
What IS true is that Wind Waker seems to generally be remembered more fondly than Twilight Princess. Plus it aged much better.
I'm not saying it did better than Twilight Princess, just that they're comparable.
Twilight princess had double the global sales of WW though lol
Possibly because one was on a console that sold "okay", and the other was on one of the biggest-selling systems of all time
Not unlikely. Still means TP was better commercially than WW. I love them both
Too realistic graphics take me out of the game, are visually overwhelming, and make it hard to see certain important details.
If I have to pick up a quest item, I don't want it's stone texture blending into the dirt floor. I want it highlighted so I can see the damn thing is interactable.
Reading this, I realize I'm surprised more games don't have colourblind accommodation.
I'm on the same boat. Photorealism only gets you so far, and pixel-art like graphics have their own charm. .
That and it doesn't effect gameplay quality. A fun enough game retains its addictiveness no matter how real the visuals look.
i think stardew valley is itself proof that detailed graphics are not a requirement for good game play.
I care about art direction. Graphical capability can give digital artists more freedom especially for photorealistic styles. But few games actually make good use of such artistic freedom.
My favourite 3D game graphics is Super Mario Galaxy. Other than that I mostly prefer game graphics from 16-bit consoles.
I'm with you. I think "peak graphics" for me was around XBox 360. I'd much rather have resources used for better gameplay, larger worlds, more expansive story, etc. Also, just less resource usage in general; I stopped PC gaming forever ago because I got sick of chasing the GPU dragon.
Not sure I'd want to go all the way back to 8-bit, but somewhere between there and XB360 would be fine. That said, I do like seeing new "retro" games that are 8-bit era appropriate.
Somewhere between 8-bit and XB360 would be PS1.
I dislike PS1 graphics. Too many games use 3D graphics for no reason, and they used dark and muted colours to be "realistic".
N64 games are usually more colourful and more pleasing, even though they lack texture.
XB360 had enough power to finally show 3D without feeling "trying too hard".
I meant it as more of a range than a hard point on a line, lol.
But yeah, PS1 games are pretty rough to look at.
Wait, was Pokémon Red/Blue 8-bit or 16-bit? You got me second-guessing now.
8-bit. They were released for the original Gameboy.
You should play Nethack
I can attest to how neat Nethack is.
Speaking as a story-heavy RPG enthusiast, so my focus is more on story-telling and exploration. I don't think it's the graphics that's holding back the exploration potential, but rather the complexity of actually creating huge game worlds. You tend to end up with either a procedural generated world without a lot of cohesion, or one that's a mile wide but an inch deep in interactivity.
Just look at Baldur's Gate 3. It's a hugely complex and reactive game world, but it's locations and the way you are allowed to explore them are reduced to three linear chapters. Even if you switched to, say Baldur's Gate 2 era graphics, it would still not be possible to create a game in a single huge explorable world with the same level of complexity and story telling.
Though I'm definitely with you on scaling down the graphics in exchange for richer and more interactive worlds, I do think there's a hard limit on how much better those worlds would get.
Don't forget though there's more than one way to make interactivity. The original Legend of Zelda was the 8-bit equivalent of Breath of the Wild and offered a lot of intrigue in each stage when it came to where to go next by having the right cause and effect system.
A game can only give you so many hours before it becomes boring. Sandbox games aside, most are done after 100 to 200 hours. More content wouldn't really revive them as you already know the gameplay loop.
Graphics isn't as important as art style, however I'd rather play a game with realistic graphics but lack of distinguishing art direction, than one with art direction but overall being too basic with their graphics. Graphics is a huge part of immersion to me.
I play a lot of indie games with poor graphics. Best example Minecraft, but when I can install higher resolution textures, realistic lighting and animated foliage, it is eye candy. I can just stand there and look at the beautiful world and relax. I do need zero gameplay at this point and am still entertained.
Gameplay is overrated, give me pretty graphics. Be it realistic or not.
TIL Minecraft is considered an Indie game. I thought it was a company one.
Microsoft bought Mojang after a few years.
Ah, that's where the confusion comes from then.
I want a Fun game. Art (graphics) can help and be supplementary towards making a game fun, but it is not the end all be all. Some fun games I've played use intentionally shitty graphics to add to it, other games are so unfun because all they do is try to wow you with the images.
I've found lately the indie Dev sphere has been more focused on fun games and AAA studios have more focused on graphics alone. I think this mostly happened because early on when (video) games where becoming popularized hardware was increasing at such a rapid pace and graphics genuinely could be made better, not necessarily as just a stylistic choice. You could show off the new hardware capabilities with good story for more appeal. This also made them lazier over the years as those big hardware and software leap allowed them to focus on the consumer draw utilizing showcase imagry over story. As hardware advances slowed and graphic leaps became smaller the gains just aren't there. And you've left many consumers with nostalgia over the fight for when graphic improvements meant something, in a time when good story/gameplay was also pretty necessary.
Some fun games I’ve played use intentionally shitty graphics to add to it
If it adds to the experience, wouldn't the graphics then be good?
The graphics are good in the artistic sense, but not in terms of what's considered conventionally good graphics. Zelda BotW would be conventionally good graphics, as that's what would make most people think of it as visually appealing and therefore enjoyable. Undertale, a great example, does not.have conventionally good graphics but the total theme and portrayal makes the non-cenventional good.
Most of what I was speaking to was the use of conventionally good graphics at the expense of story or enjoyment factor of the game/gameplay itself