Another article, if anyone is interested in reading it: http://www.truancyfactory.com/articles/graphicsMatter.html.

This article is a little shorter (< 2000 words). It was inspired by some of the conversations on these and other game boards which got me thinking about the role of graphics in game design. And it has pictures!

Not revelatory, perhaps, but interesting to some.

As always, I appreciate feedback, constructive or otherwise. I'm wrong-headed about a lot of things and won't learn unless you help me.

I think you're slightly off track. It took me no longer to get immersed in Daggerfall's blocky graphics at the time than it does in Skyrim's wispy vistas today. Quite well written otherwise though. Could be interesting to explore how immersion is affected by our expectation level of graphical fidelity.

The reason is because graphics are the hype -- it IS the game, in essence. Sure people care about gameplay, but you rarely hear from people, damn that story line was intense. You instead hear, and all too often, man those graphics are great!

Tons of development dollars are sunk into engine design, and for most games, it shows. In Skyrims case it is also true. The game world is massive and eye-pleasing. Yet, it lacks depth. Quests are repetitive and shallow. While both departments are separate from one another, the payroll for graphics is probably 10x higher, considering you need programmers, artists, etc.

There are, however, examples of good games that have both worlds...there are just harder to find, but good games in general are quite hard to find.

So, in short, no, there probably isn't a direct correlation, if we look at good games in general. But you always ask yourself, what if...

Pretty much agree with this. I assume that putting such a high focus on graphics means that you have to cut corners in other areas. Graphics are much less important to me than depth (NWN is still my favorite RPG after almost 10 years now). Skyrim is gorgeous, but I don't anticipate getting as many hours from it as other games. It will probably depend on what modders can do with the CK.

well that was pointless. i dont think anyone dismisses the role of graphics entirely, just hates how people are so easily impressed by them and how easily they are used as a selling point. video games are an interactive medium, and how things look are no where near as important as how they play... i dont care that good graphics sell well, f**king twilight sells well and i dont think many people call it a work of literary genius. the graphics of a game are just as important as the interactivity of a movie; it is not a critical part of what the medium has to offer and shouldnt be given the same level of importance at all.

and of course plenty of people here disagree with the notion that graphics dont detract from gameplay, because ill bet im not the only one who thinks TES games are getting prettier and shallower with each new installment.

the primary way to immerse someone is mental, not visual... in a video game at least. devs should be connecting us to the world by how we interact with it, not by how good it looks... thats what movies do. of course nicer graphics can help that and we shouldnt just stop developing graphical technology, but the realism in visuals is more than satisfactory now and its importance is greatly overblown, at least from an artistic viewpoint. i could get immersed into a visually non-existent rougelike in minutes, yet skyrim continues to pull me out of the experience with its repeating dialogue, shallow gameplay, and poor storytelling, so obviously the amazing visuals arent doing it for me.

I think that's an excellent area of investigation.

When Daggerfall was released, no doubt many gamers dove right into it. I also bet that fewer people played it, partially because those graphics made it more of a niche product. Video games were more subculture then than they are today in part because of the way they look (to outsiders). Could you release the same game today and win the same kind of popularity? Many people today won't play it because the graphics are too 'pixely'.

That's where the translation comes in: plenty of people have no problem diving right into foreign language films and reading subtitles, but it is such a hard sell for movie producers that they'd rather remake films than try to persuade the public that subtitles don't mean the movie is bad. I think indie games are in an anologous situation: there is a lot of "hype" and rhetoric about the virtues of gameplay over graphics because they have to counterbalance the built-in prejudice. I wrote the article because I was curious about that prejudice. What makes better graphics = better games in the eyes of the public? "Stimulation" doesn't quite cover it. I think the graphics perform a useful function beyond looking good.

I think the reason why graphics are so important is because of the service they perform. It's not enough to say: good graphics sell a game. You have to ask yourself: why do good graphics sell a game?

Developers are already starting to explore things other than graphics, but graphics are still going to be the go-to when it comes to selling games for AAA studios for a long time. Unlike most people, I don't think that's entirely unfounded. It's just unfortunate that the cost of producing those graphics comes out of other, equally important areas of design.

My question is really: why is it this way? If gameplay is so much more important than graphics (as everyone who plays games seems to think) then why do developers keep spending money on graphics, and why do people keep purchasing based on graphics? There has to be a reason for that. If I think about my own experience, I have to admit that having a realistically rendered environment is very important for my feeling of immersion. Not everyone is going to feel the same way, or have the same priorities, but graphics are more than the superficial end product. Realistic lighting, specularity, normal mapping, modeling, environmental effects, etc., provide more than mere stimulation: they make the experience more real. They are responsible for much of the immersion. That shouldn't be discounted.

But why are people easily impressed by them? Why are good graphics a good way to sell games if gameplay is so much more important? It might seem like a pointless question to you, but it isn't to me. To say that "the graphics of a game are just as important as the interactivity of a movie" just expresses your preference, it doesn't explain why they are so important to 'everyone else'. This is exactly the opinion that I'm curious about.

And to say that it isn't a critical part of the medium is just silly. Its absolutely essential. You might as well say that cinematography isn't a critical part of film-making. Everyone knows that the real important part is the script, and real film buffs ignore the cinematography and just read the script.

And I'm not claiming that other elements aren't important, and even more important in the long run. I don't dispute that. What I want to know is why people buy based on appearances if "everyone knows" that gameplay is more important? What are they expecting the graphics to give them? I think the usual answers are too dismissive and miss the real heart of the matter.

A good qustion indeed. You are absolutely correct that graphics sell, and I have no doubt that I am in the small minority that prefers depth of gameplay over graphics, and perhaps I have outgrown the direction the industry is going. It reminds me of back when I followed the Total War series, and there were so many issues with diplomacy and other gameplay matters, everyone would drool over the new screenies (and of course the resulting disappointment when the new games were released with the same problems). At the end of the day, I figure that I enjoyed the game just as much as those who purchased it did just by looking at screenshots and youtube videos lol. As long as future OS's continue to have XP compatibility, I'll just stick with my older games.

Graphics have immediate appeal and satisfaction which will attract people to a game, the gameplay and depth will dictate the longevity and long term enjoyment.

Foe example, Dragons Lair had amazing graphics for it's time and attracted a lot of people to the arcades, but in the long run people realised that it was in fact crap with very little gamplay to it. Just hit a button at the right time to move on to the next stage then figure out what button needs to be hit at what time to move on, that was pretty much it.

Good graphics can add a lot to a well made game but are not really neccessary in my opinion, I would just as happily play Angband or Dwarf Fortress.

I enjoyed the article, but I'm not certain I agree with your conclusions. I personally don't feel that hyper realistic graphics create more immersion than lesser graphics. Humans can watch a cartoon, knowing full well that it's not "real", but our emotional reactions will be just as "real" as if the events were actually happening. We get caught up in the story and are along for the ride.

The same thing happens when you read a book. Suspension of disbelief isn't predicated upon hyper realistic graphics. That's not to say graphics don't matter at all. If two games are almost indentical, except one has much better graphics, pretty much everyone will prefer the more attractive one. That doesn't make the prettier one "better" or more immersive though.

As for why that is. I think it's simply because we're absurdly visual creatures.

because no particular element is important to the majority of customers. graphics sell well because they appeal to a primal sense that "looks good= good". refined and deep gameplay make a good game , not a profitable one. commercial and artistic value are inherently isolated in some respects.

your second point just turns around my first one. its not a preference to say that graphics are just as important as the interactivity of a movie, its an acknowledgment that films are a visual medium so interactivity isnt all that critical. video games are an interactive medium, and thus interactivity is key to them where visuals are not. it is not the primary strength of video games to give us great visuals, so how can visuals be equally as important? the very existence of movies hinges on graphical representation, so of course cinematography is important; the existence of video games in no way hinges on graphical representation: their appeal is in interactivity, and plenty of great games were made with virtually no graphics at all (rougelikes). how can you possibly say it is critical? it is POPULAR, but that has nothing to do with the artistic merits of the medium. like many commercially biased products, the popularity of impressively visual games rarely hinges on quality, hence my twilight comparison.

your main question is why do people buy based on graphics when it is generally accepted that they dont matter? well, its not generally accepted. we nerds on this board generally accept it, but the majority of customers are not devoted fans of the medium or particularly concerned with the artistic quality of a game. the majority of customers in this medium and every other just want something to occupy time. something to look at for 5 hours. they arent exactly making an informed purchase... you can know the graphical quality of a game just by keeping your eyes open for 10 seconds when a commercial comes on, but figuring out the quality of the gameplay requires a demo or research and reviews. its simply easier to base your purchase on what you can immediately and effortlessly learn about it, a fact businessmen are very familiar with.

Well, on the forums you're likely in the majority. I love nice graphics, but when it comes right down to it I'm much more interested in the gameplay variety.

I happen to agree with your first statement. But what is the "immediate appeal and satisfaction"? It seems like a trivial question (I'm sure most people think it is) but I think it's much more important than it appears on the surface. There are plenty of people (especially on these forums) that aren't all that concerned about graphics, but most of the people on these forums are more game literate than the average person. The closer your interests align to games (the more of a game nerd you are) the less likely graphics are going to be as big a deal (unless you happen to be a technical artist yourself, in which case they can assume even greater importance).

Most people don't agree with my conclusions.

The statements about hyper-realism don't apply to all games equally, obviously, and there are different kinds of immersion. Chess doesn't have great graphics, but many people find it very immersive. But how many triple-A games do go for hyper-realism? Why do so many of the biggest studios and publishers pursue technical perfection when it comes to graphics? If they really didn't matter, if they were irrelevant, as frotality claims, they would simply not assume any importance whatsoever in the industry. Developers would be no more likely to pursue them than any other aspect of game design. There would be as many, to borrow your example, AAA cartoon-style games as there are hyper-realistic games. Or minimalist games. Or games with just plain bad graphics. There would be no reason to prefer one style over another. There are games like this, but in your average top 10 list I'm not seeing equal distributions.

Graphics IMO are just for the newer players that are used to everything being perfect and shiny. I think it is quite silly if a person can not immerse themselves into a game because of graphics. To me it shows the lack of imagination of alot of people today. I do not need graphics to enjoy a great game. I like them but they are only there to enhance the visuals, not the storylines. I could go back and play Morrowind right now and think nothing of it. Which I plan on doing after this character in Skyrim.

I agree with your first statement entirely. That primal sense of "looks good = good" is the topic under investigation. I'm not arguing with your conclusions about gameplay because I agree with them. But I think your characterization of games is unnecessarily narrow. Interactivity may be the defining element of video games, but it is far from being the only important element. A medium is not defined by what is unique to it. If it was, writing would be irrelevant in movies but critics are allowed to judge a movie based on the quality of its script. You could easily argue that the way a game looks or sounds is as important to many people as the way it plays. If you don't believe me, go hang out in a survival horror forum. Most of those games have terrible gameplay and depend exclusively on visual, sound, and narrative to achieve their affect. Are these not real games because all of their key elements are borrowed from other genres?

The whole reason I wrote the article is because I wanted to better understand why graphics have such broad appeal, why they are pursued so industriously by developers, why business men put good graphics at the top of their list and I wasn't satisfied with the intellectually sterile response "because graphics sell". That doesn't answer the question, it just restates it. What do people "get" from graphics? They must get something. I think that something is immersion. It might only be one type of immersion, but it's a valid one.

Technically, I put art and style over graphics per se. A good design team can do something more impressive with inferior technology than an average team with great tech.

That is, unless you absolutely must have utter realism (or are shooting for it). Then art doesn't really matter.

i never said that...

i said that graphics cant be called as important as other elements because visuals are the strength of movies and not games. obviously you need some way to visually represent what you are doing, and the nicer it looks the better, but their importance to overall quality is overblown because it is simply a means to an end to represent what action you are doing, and it is that action that is the critical element.



i think you misunderstand me. im not saying the visual representation of a game is unimportant, but that graphics for their own sake with no consideration to how it conveys the gameplay is unimportant. games can surely have impressive and expertly crafted visuals, and those visuals can be tied into the gameplay in such a way that they become a major element worthy of critical praise, but that isnt graphics, that just appreciation for general artistry and cleverness in how you USE grpahics, not so much the technical aspect that is often touted as a selling point.

which leads to the issue of survival horror you brought up. i think this is were the misunderstanding arises: yes, those kinds of games hinge on the atmosphere generated by other elements, but in something like silent hill 2 it only works because it is interactive, because the game makes you go through the bloody door of your own action and because the crappy combat makes the monsters actually terrifying to face. horror has always been a bit of a special case; many people would argue that less impressive, fake-looking physical special effects make for a far better horror movie than CGI because they add to the atmosphere of wrongness horror tries to convey; they are gritty and alien, which strikes a cord that perfectly animated blood sprays cannot. in this instance you have a good point, and i think i really could have worded myself better. a game can use its visuals in a way more impressive than a movie, but that is the use of visuals which is aesthetic, while graphics are the mere existence of purely technical impression, like LOD, specualr maps, etc. i tend to view them separately and failed to mention that.... oops.

my point is that graphics WITHOUT consideration to how they convey the gameplay are superficial. in something like horror the gameplay may seem like a simple and small element compared to the thick atmosphere and creepy audio, but the gameplay is the only reason those work in the first place. its the only reason you are playing a horror game and not watching a horror movie... you get to experience those elements yourself.

from what i understand of advertising and people who tell me they are so impressed with graphics, they seem to really be impressed by the technological aspect, not really considering how exactly it all ties into the gameplay and whether it works for that particular game. if i may move away from arguing the importance of graphics, id like to get into your question of WHY exactly graphics sell... is that alright?

personally, i think it has more to do with the ease of judging something visually. we dont really have to "get" something from graphics, they are just one of the easiest ways to judge something, which is why visually impressive things sell so well; they make a good first impression. our brain makes judgements based on appearance before we even consciously think about it; its just an exploitation of how humans get information from the world. visuals are important to us because they are the simplest, easiest, most direct way to judge something.

I'm not even sure one could say visuals are the strengths of movies either. There are movies with just people arguing in one room (say, a Jury) that end up being compelling. At least I think so.

As for games, I agree for the most part. I don't disregard graphics, but essentially games are about something else. Pattern recognition, if anything. And the learning process and figuring out of said "pattern". Every good gameplay mechanic has a pattern to it, and the more concealed or varied and hard to figure out, the more the player keeps wanting to push themselves to play and recognize it - and then beat the level or opponent or what have you. You can achieve gameplay with little black and white blocks. You can achieve it with nothing but a simple stickman trying to cross a gap on a platform.

Graphics however do add a lot of atmosphere. Sometimes enhances the gameplay. But if we disregard the first, and just build a game without any good patterns or patterns that are too easily figured out, then the game will svck, no matter how pretty.

It's really just subjective. In my opinion gameplay/interactivity is the only really important element. I also play some extremely complex TBS games that take months just to get a very basic understanding of, so it really depends on what your experiences are to compare. I also have recently enjoyed a Roguelike game which uses ASCII symbols for graphics.

Why do graphics have such a broad appeal? I think it's pretty obvious. After all, we're the same society that created Milli Vanili lol. (I wonder what the actual singers "looked like") I never really cared why anything was popular or trendy though.

Graphics help me get immersed in the game world. The more immersed the better the game.

This also bring out the bad side of things. Other things can be lacking but it goes right over your head.

Skyrim is a good example of this. I love this game, but theres more that it could be, but it's soooooo hard not to get immersed in that world.

Well, those are very good points. I don't have any problem with any of them, except that I think that we do "get" something from graphics.

In the case of hyper-realistic games that something is an added feeling of immersion in the game world, and when we look at those ads or watch those trailers we feel those graphics svcking us into the game. That doesn't mean the game will be any good, or that graphics are as important as other elements, just that they are an element of game design and can't be discounted as mere "packaging". They are the most immediate way to build immersion for most people.

Building immersion by improving graphics isn't a bad design strategy on its own, it just has to be supported by other elements or the game will feel very shallow. You don't need realistic graphics for many different types of games, of course, but for those games that depend on the player's exploration of virtual environments good graphics are a key design element. If you're playing this type of game (eg. Skyrim) you can't discount graphics out of hand and say that they should have spent their resources working on some other aspect of the game without considering the cost of that decision as well. Those environments are integral to the design, and if they don't capture your attention and hold it, the game as a whole will suffer.

I think Blizzard has proven that graphics don't matter that much, as far as svcking people in (I'm not necessarily talking about WoW either.. just that they tend to take a stylized approach in general. A distinctive art style helps them achieve and convey a lot with very little. And they get to offer these games on older platforms to boot, since the requirements don't need the latest and greatest. Speaking strictly from a marketing perspective, this is probably the "better model", if you wanted to cash in).

Then again Minecraft
/shrug

you are right. i was speaking from a sales perspective i suppose... once youve bought the game it doesnt matter if graphics is all it has because youve already given them your money. when the style of the game calls for realistic visuals then of course good graphics are an important element, but this point:

"They are the most immediate way to build immersion for most people"

is what i am talking about. Visuals are an easy and quick way to get into something, which is why they are used as selling points. Of course you cant discount the whole element just because it is the simplest way to draw attention, if anything it makes it all the more important to consider, but the usage of graphics in modern games as a selling point i just kind of equate to jingling car keys over a kitten. there is quite a difference in making noise and making music.

i dont know, i grew up playing adventure games that already had photo-realistic if static environments. visuals just dont impress me that much even when they are well-designed. nobody i know can understand why i didnt like avatar .

Yeah, no disagreement.

Games are broad enough to appeal to different players for different reasons. I will gladly put up with crappy gameplay if the art direction is really good or the narrative is superlative. (I am a fan of survival horror games, after all.) Gameplay doesn't have to be at the heart of every game, though every game will benefit from having good gameplay. I know that will sound like heresy, but different people like different things. Some people enjoy solving puzzles, some people enjoy games that test their reflexes, some people enjoy games with good narrative, some people enjoy games with good art direction. Look at what happened to Silent Hill Homecoming: improving the gameplay did nothing for the game. The fans are much more interested in the characters and the narrative than the gameplay. The same can be said for Dead Space. The gameplay is fine, but that doesn't make it better than other games in the genre that had superior artistic direction and worse gameplay. Gameplay is not always the most important element, though it usually is.

me too..

if you're talking about Myst or something. Heh.

..actually, I like a lot of adventure games like that, but were more hand drawn or cartoony. like the lucas arts games (full throttle, monkey island). sierra had some good ones.. king's quest and space quest. some modern games still don't hold up to the charm to the visuals in these games.. crappy graphics, but great visuals, because they had the attention of good artists. many modern games have good artists too (take bioshock, for example), but i bet they could still achieve a good game without the technology.