Graphics graphics graphics!

[Guest KoR Fungus]

This will probably be pretty ranty, so be warned hehe...

 

After spending years in high school being told that PS1 was vastly inferior to N64 because it had worse graphics, spending years in college being told that PS2 is worse than X-Box because it has worse graphics, being told that TK3 is worse than SC because it has worse graphics, that TTT is worse than DOA3 because it has worse graphics, being told that FF7 sucks because the character's hands are blocky, being told that consoles suck because computers have faster graphics chips, etc etc etc, I think I've finally snapped and have to go on a rant against graphics.  What is so damn important about graphics?!  Why does it seem like half of all gamers and three quarters of the media care more about graphics than everything else combined?  Why are they more important than sound, or than music, or than control, or than depth, or than innovation, or than any of the other aspects of a game?  Why does it seem like most people would rather play a shallow, worthless, derivative game that looks pretty than a long, deep, involved game that doesn't?  How can anyone justify the purchase of a game, or worse, a system, by how pretty the graphics are?  What difference does it make?

 

Those have been general questions that I've had and that have gotten me into arguments with a lot of people in the past, but it's even worse now.  Back in the N64/PS1 days, there was actually some substantial difference between the systems graphics. The PS1 had much better textures, the N64 had much better graphical effects, that allowed for much rounder, smoother polygons.  Visible differences.  Something to debate.  Something stupid to debate, since graphics almost never affect gameplay *at all*, but something to debate nonetheless.

 

Now, the stupidity of graphics has been taken to a whole new level.  The X-Box/PS2/NGC graphics debate, and the whole idea that it actually *matters*, is one of the most frustratingly idiotic things I've ever encountered.  It boggles my mind that people actually justify buying one of these systems not by what games are on them, or what games are coming out, or by third party support, or by the reputation of the company that is making them, but by freaking GRAPHICS.  I get an intense bloodlest every time I hear someone say that X-Box is better because it has better graphics or read a magazine or newspaper that says that a game (in particular DOA3 recently, it was GT3 a few months ago) is the best ever with no justification other than it's graphics.  What freaking difference does it make?  Not only is it the case that graphics still don't, and never will, affect gameplay in any way, but now the games also all *look the same*!  Every system pushes zillions of texture mapped polygons, easily enough so that figures and enviornments have polygons that can't be seen.  Every system is easily powerful enough to render large, elaborate enviornments in which large numbers of polygonal characters can interact.  Any game that developers can think of can be made on any system.  The only difference is in lighting effects and other minor, irrelevant shit like that.  And seriously, who the fuck cares?  You notice a lighting effect once, and then you get involved in the game and it doesn't matter.  If the lighting effect does continue to hold your attention, then the game sucks and isn't drawing you in enough to make you focus on the gameplay.

 

The sad thing is, as long as there's graphics whores, there's going to be new hardware!  Woohoo!  PS3!  GC2!  X-Box 2!  Then we can pay $300 more dollars for new hardware that produces games that look exactly the same, except with MORE LIGHTING EFFECTS!  WOW!  I'm salivating over the possibilities!  And the developers buy into this shit too, as seen by the DOA3 developer who had the audacity to claim that he did DOA3 on X-Box instead of PS2 because PS2 couldn't handle it.  Well, that would be true, except that DOA3 is just DOA2 with more flash, a couple more characters and tweaked balance, and DOA2 was done on the DC.  And it's not just DOA3!  Every X-Box game could be done on the DC!  Every game on every next-gen system could be done on the DC!  I could count on both hands the number of games that couldn't be done on the PS1!  But no, we have to pay for a new generation of hardware every four years to play games with the same level of sophistication but with nicer graphics.  Sigh.

 

Wow that was longer and rantier than I thought it would be.  Yeah, anyway, reply, flame, whatever.

[Guest J*ingus]

Just curious, which would be the >10 games that couldn't be done on PS1?  

 

But yeah, I agree with you to an extent.  Personally if two versions of a game on two systems are mostly identical, except for the graphics (think every game they made for both the Genesis and SNES), I'll go with the better-looking one.  But other than that, damn, who cares?  I personally liked the PS1 a LOT more than the N64, just because I hated the 64's damn bulky three-handed controller.  Plus, the 64 didn't have nearly as good third-party support as Sony did.  

 

Now, for the PS2-Gamecube-Xbox argument: let's just say that I trust Sony more than I trust Nintendo or Microsoft.  The first company has never screwed me over on anything, but Nintendo has made mistakes, and don't EVEN get me started on Gates and his monopolistic monolith.  Plus, PS2 simply has more game franchises that I like: Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, and so on.  So what they're "graphically inferior" to the fifty-billion polygon racing games over on the Xbox that I just don't want to play?

[Guest fazzle]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

 

All(or at least 90%) problems in video gaming today started when the PSX was launched, and went "mainstream."

[Guest Judas14]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

 

All(or at least 90%) problems in video gaming today started when the PSX was launched, and went "mainstream."

Please explain that statement and back it up with evidence because if it wasn't for PSX debuting and going mainstream, video games would still be treated as a kids only medium...

[Guest fazzle]

Ok, well, when the PSX came out and went mainstream, it looked so "cool" that people who would never have a damn thing to do with video games bought one.  These would also normally be the spoiled idiots who want everything their way.  Therefore, they don't like actually LOSING in video games.  After the sales of actual, difficult games that required skill started looking pale in comparison to brainless games, the game companies did what ANY company who wants to make money did.  They stopped making them, so they could make more money.

 

And, of course, certain companies didn't want to alienate longtime hardcore gamers, but still wanted to get the new gamers money.  So they made games longer in an attempt to make them seem harder.  But, guess what, they aren't, they're just tedious as all fucking hell now.

 

And on that same theory, you can add in why all the media cares about is graphics.  The mainstream gamers came in during the point where everything became about "Newer!  Faster!  Prettier!  Shinier!  Gorier!" and that's what they've been programmed to think is the #1 priority.  Plus, obviously, it's easier to show off graphics to anyone, but you actually have to sit down and explain gameplay.

 

And speaking of "Gorier" that brings me to my next bitch.  Mainstream gamers created the First Person Shooter craze.  It all goes back to the "mindless simple games" arguement.  It doesn't get any more simplistic than a FPS.  Now, I really don't give a shit if they play FPSs, that's their own business.  But, what I do care about is the fact that, once again, game companies went to where the mainstream gamers were spending their money.  And, therefore, the FPS craze effectively killed off the adventure game genre, it killed off 2D fighters, and it killed off puzzle games.  And why?  So they could play with some more fucking guns.  And that's when it does bug me, when it interferes with other people's gaming.

 

Alright, that looks like as good a place as any to stop.

 

PS:  Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, this is a basic generalization.  I'm not saying each and every thing I attacked there is true in EVERY case, but for the majority, it is.

[Guest Bruin]

Okay, being stupid as I am at times.. I read through this and thought it was about me from the pinned topic at the top of this board after what I said something to the equivelant that the XBox is much more equipped to push the graphics based on it's technology. Whew.. Well now I have to rewrite everything I had before, now that I see where you're comming from KOR, hehe (Wasn't anything bad, just makes me look like a moron because I took it out of context)

 

Anyway, I concur with what you said KOR, now onto something Fazzle said..

 

It all goes back to the "mindless simple games" arguement.  It doesn't get any more simplistic than a FPS.  Now, I really don't give a shit if they play FPSs, that's their own business.  But, what I do care about is the fact that, once again, game companies went to where the mainstream gamers were spending their money.  And, therefore, the FPS craze effectively killed off the adventure game genre, it killed off 2D fighters, and it killed off puzzle games.  And why?  So they could play with some more fucking guns.  And that's when it does bug me, when it interferes with other people's gaming.

 

Please, don't tell me that all FPS games are mindless shooting. I can give Many counter-examples to that rule just off the top of my head. However, I can give you tons off the top of my that fit to that rule so much that it's embarassing. Quite frankly, I can only stand FEW mindless shooters, and they have to be insanely fun for me to like them. I don't care what GameSpy (The so called Authorty on Computer Gaming) says about Serious Sam is the FPS of the year. There are so many problems with that shitty Euro-Trash that it's not even funny. *  But then theres truly great FPS games such as Half-Life and Tribes that go out of their way to bring a whole new meaning to the FPS genre as a whole. Only to have it disregarded because it takes too much time to develop. THIS is why you get so many mindless shooters.

 

Yet still, you can go on and say that theres mindless Rpgs, Adventure games, and even mindless sports games. Does this go and degenerate every truly great game from that categorey though?

 

 

* Serious Sam IMHO is a total peice of shit and the only Plus I found from it was that a Friend gave me a burned copy for free. If I had to pay for this, I would've truly hurt someone. There is no point to own this game. The Croatians that made this, I admit did a good job.. BUT They used the QUAKE FUCKING 2 ENGINE when they made it. The Q2 engine isn't that bad now. But when you try to give it things it was never designed to even come close to emulating, then you have a problem. Quake 2 was NOT made to have 32 bit color, run on Glide, have bump-mapping, mip-map dithering, anti-aliasing, 4 textured surfaces, and REFLECTIVE SURFACES! The only engine that can truly give reflective surfaces is the Unreal engine, and Unreal is light years beyond Q2. The game absolutely CHUGGED on my system, I felt like I was watching a slide show than playing a game, and I was running it in the ever Fluid (for other games atleast) Glide mode. I have a 750 MHz TBird, and it chugged.. I have 765 MB of Ram.. THIS THING CHUGGED! Textures were completely absent in various levels, everything was coded shittly.. EXPLOSIONS were CIRCLES! No actual polygons used for them, just CIRCLES! Yet GameSpy calls it one of the best FPS games of 2001. For this reason, and many many more, you should understand the one line in my personal quote..

[Guest areacode212]

And speaking of "Gorier" that brings me to my next bitch.  Mainstream gamers created the First Person Shooter craze.  It all goes back to the "mindless simple games" arguement.  It doesn't get any more simplistic than a FPS.  Now, I really don't give a shit if they play FPSs, that's their own business.  But, what I do care about is the fact that, once again, game companies went to where the mainstream gamers were spending their money.  And, therefore, the FPS craze effectively killed off the adventure game genre, it killed off 2D fighters, and it killed off puzzle games.  And why?  So they could play with some more fucking guns.  And that's when it does bug me, when it interferes with other people's gaming.

Hmm...FPSs killed off adventure games, 2D fighters and puzzle games? I'd argue that 3D fighters killed off 2D fighters (and besides, the Capcom 2D fighters continued to flourish years after 3D fighters came out). FPSs, which, until very recently, were primarily a PC genre, whereas fighting games were part of the console/arcade realm. How many game companies shifted from making 2D fighters to FPSs? I can't think of any offhand.

 

As for adventure games, then yeah, you're probably right. Aside from Grim Fandango, I haven't heard of any decent adventure games of note.

 

Incidentally, if you're big on old-school adventure interactive fiction (e.g., Infocom) type games, you should be aware that the IF scene is still alive and well, and that new freeware games are still being made.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

Jingus said:

<<Just curious, which would be the >10 games that couldn't be done on PS1?>>

 

I can't think of ten examples, but a game like Halo, which has really expansive enviornments and lots of enemies on the screen at once, would be really tough to port.  I guess with enough of a reduction in polygons and lots of fog, it could be done, but it wouldn't be pretty.  And obviously games like PSO wouldn't work, since you don't have a modem.

 

Bruin said:

<<Okay, being stupid as I am at times.. I read through this and thought it was about me from the pinned topic at the top of this board after what I said something to the equivelant that the XBox is much more equipped to push the graphics based on it's technology. Whew.. Well now I have to rewrite everything I had before, now that I see where you're comming from KOR, hehe (Wasn't anything bad, just makes me look like a moron because I took it out of context)>>

 

Hehe it was people on this board that set me off, but it definitely wasn't you.  I think the combination of the X-Box fanboy on the pinned thread and the guy on the MGS/GTA thread saying that MGS's only innovation was some stupid blur effect pushed me over the edge.  Not their fault though, a graphics rant has building for some time now, heh.

 

Wow, I'm surprised no one flamed me, weird.  Doesn't someone at least want to explain why I'm wrong and graphics are really important?

[Guest fazzle]

Hmm...FPSs killed off adventure games, 2D fighters and puzzle games? I'd argue that 3D fighters killed off 2D fighters

 

Alright, fine.  I'll agree with you there.  But, damnit, I like to get carried away in my FPS bashing.

 

Oh, and you might want to check out The Longest Journey for another good adventure game.  Bah, one good adventure game per year, year and a half.  Friggin pathetic.

 

 

Please, don't tell me that all FPS games are mindless shooting.

 

Well, to that...

 

this is a basic generalization.  I'm not saying each and every thing I attacked there is true in EVERY case, but for the majority, it is.

 

And that's the closest thing you'll ever get for a compliment for ANY FPS out of me.

[Guest J*ingus]

Hmmm.  If not adventure, under what category of games would you classify the Resident Evil series?  Some of those were DAMN difficult.

[Guest The Mighty Damaramu]

Bah! Graphics! They're pretty to look at but if a really fun game don't have them then fine by me. It's still a really fun game.

[Guest TUS_02]

Doesn't someone at least want to explain why I'm wrong and graphics are really important?

 

First off, you're really not wrong... I agree with you for the most part, but we all have a little devil's advocate in us and I feel like sharing mine here...

 

To me, better graphics = smoother gameplay and therefore smoother gameplay = more fun.  I remember playing Mega Man 2 on the NES and on the stages, I could manuever myself so that I have BOTH FEET OFF THE PLATFORM, YET I WAS STILL "STANDING" ON IT.  I know it's a small detail, but it's the smarks.com we're talking about here... everything is nit-picky

 

These people who buy their games JUST for the graphics are just as justified in buying their systems as you are for buying them for 3rd party support, current games, etc....  if there were NO graphics, you'd be playing a bunch of unrendered code.  Think of it like this... a graphics fan can live w/o any 3rd party games... but can 3rd party game fans live w/o any graphics.  There will always be people who know that with advances in technology, there will be advances in graphics, just as there will be advances in gameplay itself.  Basically, let graphic fanboys do there own thing, Why should you care about what people say about graphics if you don't even care about them in the first place?

[Guest fazzle]

If not adventure, under what category of games would you classify the Resident Evil series?

Well, you could go the company line an call them "survival horror", or you could go the more direct approach and call them basic wandering around aimlessly waiting for something to crash through a window, a boarded up door, through the ground, or something else "scary."

 

By adventure games I mean old school, point and click, full of inventory based puzzles and story driven, with little to no action.  And RE definitely isn't that

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Without graphics you'd have a text based game like those that you can find on the net on the classic gaming archives:

 

You found the key!

You are using the key!

You opened the door!

You stepped in the door!

You got shot from behind!

You fell to the ground!

You died!

Game Over!

 

Basically thats a transcription of any FPS thats in 3D now.  I think games would be very bad without graphics lol.  They are an important part of the gaming experience.  And logically, as technologies advance, so will graphics.  But I think that the leap in the graphics from say 1993 to today will end up being greater than any jumps over the next 10 years.  The improvements in graphics now are to  make them look smoother, move more fluidly and act somewhat real (ie hair movement, light reflections, physics models, etc..) Whereas the changes from 1993 to just recently were focused on just making the game 3D.  The current graphic advances aren't 100% necessary, they are more for eye candy than gameplay. Thats why Mario 64 was so awesome back in 1996, as it was one of the first really true 3 D adventure games that actually had solid gameplay behind the 3D exerior.  now its  lost most of its novelty other than being a fun yet graphically bland game.  The point here is that a game can be fun no matter what the graphics look like, But the graphics can definitely make a game more fun and enjoyable.

 

Additionally, the games out now for the GameCube and X Box are first gen games.  By the end of this year, I think you'll see games for these systems that start pushing hardware a bit further and you'll see the differences.  Right now I think you are seeing PS2 games start pushing the hardware. On the Gamecube front Zelda (or Celda as its being called) comes to mind.  Its using a cel shading technique similar to JSR for the DC and XBox, and this is something that requires a whole lot of power to pull off.  Of course die hard Zelda fans are in an outrage over it, but I think it adds some freshness to the Zelda series and makes the game stand out.  Cel Shaded games are the new *hot* thing.

 

As for new consoles soon, I wouldnt doubt it.  I would buy a new computer every 2 years if I had the money, but I dont so I've managed to stretch it to 3 years (1995-1998-2001) even though that  last year or so was pretty much terrible. Sadly now that consoles are more like computers, a 5 year lifespan on a console seems like an eternity (Both N64 (96-01) and PS(95-00) were out roughly 5 years before being replaced).  I dont think the computer I bought last year (866 mhz AMD Duron 128 mb ram 40 GB HD) will make it to 2004 as my 3 year progression has gone in the past, so I know that in the PS2's case especially, you'll be hearing about a new console by the end of 2003.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

Hehe the problem with going on rants is that you tend to overgeneralize and exaggerate.  When I say that graphics don't affect gameplay, I don't mean that literally if there were no graphics at all, gameplay would still be the same.  Obviously you need graphics to have a game, and certain graphical innovations, like polygons, were critical, as they allowed gameplay to progress.  What I should have said, instead of graphics don't affect gameplay, is that no graphics changes over the past, say, four years, have affected gameplay, and I don't expect graphics changes to effect gameplay from now until the end of time.  Once you get games into 3D, there really isn't anywhere else you can go technically.  It's just up to developers to come up with new gameplay ideas.  You seem to disagree, so I'll go through your post...

 

<<The current graphic advances aren't 100% necessary, they are more for eye candy than gameplay. Thats why Mario 64 was so awesome back in 1996, as it was one of the first really true 3 D adventure games that actually had solid gameplay behind the 3D exerior.  now its  lost most of its novelty other than being a fun yet graphically bland game. >>

 

See, I totally disagree with pretty much all of this.  You make it sound like the graphics were a major reason why Mario 64 was great, and I completely disagree.  Every time Next Gen went on about Mario's real time reflection special effects, I yawned and skimmed through that section.  All I cared about was the game's amazing gameplay, which is why I think it's every bit as enjoyable now as it was back then.  If the game was remade on NGC with modernized graphics, I wouldn't enjoy it one bit more.

 

<<Additionally, the games out now for the GameCube and X Box are first gen games.  By the end of this year, I think you'll see games for these systems that start pushing hardware a bit further and you'll see the differences. >>

 

I can see the differences already, at least compared to DC.  I just don't care.  If they push the hardware to produce amazing graphics, but release derivative games, it doesn't make a bit of difference, and that's what almost always happens.  Gameplay wise, this generation, so far, has been almost identical to the last one.

 

<<On the Gamecube front Zelda (or Celda as its being called) comes to mind.  Its using a cel shading technique similar to JSR for the DC and XBox, and this is something that requires a whole lot of power to pull off.  Of course die hard Zelda fans are in an outrage over it, but I think it adds some freshness to the Zelda series and makes the game stand out.  Cel Shaded games are the new *hot* thing.>>

 

Eh if JSR was available for DC, then obviously you don't need all this next gen power in order to produce the effect.  Anyway, not only do I not like the effect, but it doesn't inherently change gameplay.  They could make the same game using polygons, and the only difference would be the lack of an effect that I don't like, heh.

 

<<As for new consoles soon, I wouldnt doubt it.  I would buy a new computer every 2 years if I had the money, but I dont so I've managed to stretch it to 3 years (1995-1998-2001) even though that  last year or so was pretty much terrible. Sadly now that consoles are more like computers, a 5 year lifespan on a console seems like an eternity (Both N64 (96-01) and PS(95-00) were out roughly 5 years before being replaced).  I dont think the computer I bought last year (866 mhz AMD Duron 128 mb ram 40 GB HD) will make it to 2004 as my 3 year progression has gone in the past, so I know that in the PS2's case especially, you'll be hearing about a new console by the end of 2003.>>

 

And this is *exactly* what I'm complaining about.  Why should I be forced to buy a new computer every four years just to play games that are completely derivative of the games that I was playing on my old computer?  Computer game programmers keep pushing up the system requirements without adding *anything* to the games, and as a result, I've given up on computer games entirely.  The only computer game I've ever really enjoyed is SubSpace, and it could run just fine on a Pentium 200.  Attempts to "improve" SubSpace by giving it a graphics overhaul have all resulted in worse games that required a better computer to play.  I feel that the same is true of FPS games.  I'd much rather sit down and play Doom without any hassle than spend many hours trying to get Q3A or UT to run at more than 5 FPS, only to realize that Doom had better level design anyway.

 

I do agree that console generations, if anything, are going to get shorter as opposed to longer, and I obviously think that's the exact opposite of what should be happening.  When hardware advances actually changed gameplay, then sure, bring them on.  Now, they just allow for barely noticeable lighting differences that I don't care about and and am having more and more trouble even noticing, so it feels like a total waste of money.  When are people finally going to say that enough is enough and just be content with the graphics that they have?

[Guest Mike the Guido]

I personally skipped the whole PSX/64/DC time period in consoles, the whole thing was utterly repugnant to me. The mainstream effect PSX had, which was described earlier, the way third-parties (SQUARESOFT!) backstabbed Nintendo (and Nintendo's own assnine censorship policy), there was nothing good to be found anywhere. PSX had Final Fantasy, but it was a watered-down, dumbed-down, crappy shadow of it's former glory. 64 had promise, but no third-party support. DC...well, was DC. I tried holding the controller but my arms can only support so much. So I sat out that entire time, playing Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasys IV, V, and VI, and Secret of Mana and Seiken Densetsu 3 on my SNES over and over. Now, with this PS2/X-box/GC bit, as much as I'd like to support Nintendo, PS2 has it all over everyone now. MGS2 was absolutely fantastic, my game of the year, sans the completely confusing ending. Final Fantasy 10 has shown that despite churning out pure drizzling crap for PSX, Square still has that series in them. GTA3, just pure destructive fun. Devil May Cry, I've been DYING for a game like this, the mix of using a projectile weapon and hand-to-hand combat (sword, fists) is just mouth-watering. All X-box has is Halo (barely) and supposed graphical superiority. As if that means anything. As for GC, well....I completely disagee with the cartoony crap they are pulling with Zelda, and I just hope for another good Ogre Battle game. Star Wars: Rogue Leader, however, owns everything.

[Guest Bruin]

Uhhh.. Mike, I think you're in the wrong thread..

[Guest bps "The Truth" 21]

If it still made games...I'd still play Nintendo.