This has been something I've been meaning to type up, but haven't until now.

What is with people's fixation on photorealistic graphics in games? These days using the term "cartoony" to describe graphics seems like an insult.

I was on the Sims 3 board on gamefaqs (big mistake I know.) and I was greeted with a ton of threads of people pissing and moaning that the graphics aren't "realistic" enough from what they have seen so far. I hope they don't get too realistic if you ask me. I liked that the Sims games have a humorous look to them.

Call me crazy but I prefer a game with style but is unimpressive technically, than a game that has photorealistic graphics but no style or soul. Don't get me wrong, I like some sense of realism, but these days gamers are so obsessed with their games having super-realism. There should be a balance. Yet again this is my opinion.

Of course, I understand that not everyone agrees with me, and some people prefer realism over cartoony. That's perfectly fine. I'm more talking about people who want every game to be life like to the last detail. I thought people played video games to escape reality.

well, to me it depends on the game. obviously games like katamari and mario i don't want to look like photo-realistic, it's part of the style of the game, though i've never been into the sims.

as for games like gta, most fps games, and some rpgs it's nice when the graphics are realistic. but to me, it honestly doesn't matter if the graphics are exactly right if the game is good. i've gone back to some older games and have enjoyed them just as much, if not more, than some of the games released this-gen.

so, with all that said, graphics aren't the end-all be-all but they can be a great accessory to an already awesome game.

I agree with that, I just had a stressful day and typed this rant in a hurry.

Now that I think of it I don't care much about graphics either. This trend of photorealism is just something I have observed over the past few years. And you're right with games like GTA and especially the fps genre working well with realism. It all depends on the game, though I really liked Guitar Hero's cartoony style (except for III), even if it is considered "ugly".

It all comes down to different opinions I guess.

yea, depends on the game. i like my fps to look kind of real but dont need photoreal to be happy.
i liked oblivion to look kinda realistic but still appreciated its painterly look.

gta4 has a very paint and pastel look to it if you really look. its very pretty. the more realistic filters in that game would have ruined it.

the new sonic game coming out soon has a realism feel to it. sound like bunk, but when you see it in action its cool!

Sometimes the high price of awesomely awesome graphics means you get a shiny picture but a crappy game.

oh yea! i have seen that many times!

I'm in the "depends on the game" boat.

At the same time however, there's some games where the stylization comes off looking more so like just bad graphics. Basically, as my Portfolio professor said, things should never make the viewer/audience question "What? Why did they do that?". It should seem natural.

Granted there's some cases where it's just something you haven't seen before... like when I first saw Katamari I thought "WTF is up with these graphics? Is it all like this?" But now a days I couldn't imagine Katamari without it! (though with this topic I'm seriously digging the idea of a glimpse at Katamari To The Real...)

while some artists have always wanted the viewer to question the choices, and never appear natural...

All of you bring up good points. I too, beleive that it depends on the game now that I think of it. For example, a WWII fps should be expected to have realistic graphics, but others like Okami and Katamari, are most effective with stylish.

It's just a pet peeve of mine when people use the term "cartoony" to describe graphics as an insult, even if the game works well with it. Of course, everyone has a different interpretation of graphics I realize.

They aren't the number one important thing in a game, but they can set a particular mood depending on style and setting. It must be extremely complicated to create settings for games.

That would be very interesting. Not sure if would work well since the games involve a lot of objects on the screen at once. That would probably generate bad lag. I could be wrong though on that though.

Good discussion so far, I got a lot of insight and realized stuff I didn't before. (I know my posts sound confusing, my brain is melting from that amazing pheomenon known as the end of semster work.)

graphics are ONE of the MOST important thing in a game really.

i guess i'm going to have to disagree.

in the 70's and 80's when they were developing games, the graphics were very basic and you could see the actual pixels that made up the characters. and yet we still played (and even still do in some cases) pong, breakout, frogger, and pac-man to name a few. even going back now and playing some ps1 and snes titles for the first time recently have proven better than other games that were developed with eye-popping graphics. my biggest complaint about ffvii this year wasn't the graphics, but the fact that it sucks to run in a seemingly 3D area and can't grab on to a ladder, though it was something i got used to.

so to that, i would have to say that the gameplay and general playability of the game is more important. if the graphics are pretty but you can't walk, run, jump, grapple, throw, advance in a level, etc... the way the game was intended, then the game isn't worth the disc they used. i can deal with sub-par graphics before i can deal with broken gameplay. i'll get used to the fact that the shadows on my characters face aren't falling in the right direction long before i'll get over the game glitching or bad developing.

and to me there's nothing wrong with cartoony if it fits. if adults didn't like cartoony graphics, then why do so many of them watch the simpsons, futurama, and south park?

I beg to differ.
While graphics can be a part of an experience, they in no way *make* a game the way most people think. They *can* however ruin a game. (Think GRAW on ps2/xbox if anyone played it).

Look at past generations of gaming, the original Star Fox is still a great game today, even if the graphics are just a Mode 7 crapfest.

I'm not saying graphics don't matter, I'm just saying they're more important to an experience, than to the quality of the game (look at far cry. It was a medeocre game at best, but it sure was beautiful)

guys i didnt say realistic graphics or a specific style is the most important (though the sales people would argue against that).

the "graphics" refer to the visuals of the game overall i am thinking. if there was none there would be a black screen... no game.
now good games have been done with just a black screen and text, or just rectangular sprites (when i started gaming!) yet without the visual information there would be no game at all.

much of the interactions you named sonya are built within the graphics engine.
equal parts are the writing, programming, ai build, sound design (etc) then all combine to build the gameplay.

thats where i was coming from.

edit: arron i loved far cry on the xbox! played through it like 5 times.

i totally get you, but we were talking about photorealistic graphics. i realize that the picture in general is important, hence video game. most of what i was talking about wasn't directly related to the graphics but the programming. though obviously if i direct my character to jump it would show up in the visuals in the games we are all used to playing. all i was saying is that it doesn't always depend on the quality of the graphics as long as the game functions as it was intended.

i also think that depending on the genre of games the importance goes in different order: (these are my opinions, mmmkay? lol) sidebar: "gameplay" here represents a general term for physics, combat, and general playability, etc.

rpg:
story>gameplay>graphics

fps/platformers:
gameplay>story> graphics

fighters/driving sim/sports:
gameplay>graphics>story

ok, i know there are other genres but those are the ones i mainly play and what i think is important in each. granted, i do appreciate good graphics, but a good storyline and well thought out game design will generally influence my opinion of a game far more than the quality of the graphics.

word. :smirk
i was only refering to one quote from a member when i said what i did.

are photoreal graphics needed? nah.
yet for many dev teams it remains the holy grail.
kazunori yamauchi wont settle for less for his projects!
i just like it all clean and polished (ie: sonyas gta4 man in the wall = fails! :lol )

hey, thinking about your "jumping" example. it is graphics programming, so they are melded.

of course they're not needed, but it's obviously important to gamers in general to have good graphics or else this topic wouldn't have been started. and though i say that i don't "need" jaw-dropping graphics, i, too, have found myself bashing wii graphics every time i get a new game for it, first with brawl, then with mario kart. we've been pampered with 1080p resolution and when we have to play a game in 720p or 480i we feel we haven't gotten what we rightly deserve. however, after the initial shock of "why is this game so freakin pixelated!?!"... if the game is good, i forget all about the resolution and continue happily along my way, so it all evens out. all in all, graphics are not what i would review a game on for the most part, but i'm sure it would come up in general discussion if i was giving game recommendations. i can't ever recall a time i said, don't get that game, the graphics are terrible.

and yes, the poor gta ghost man was bad, but as far as i can remember it was the only thing like that i've seen so far.

maybe we've taken this too far... or else i have a lot of pent-up emotions. :lol

for the record, i would never want to see a realistic katamari game. while i would be less inclined to want it, i'd still buy it for the sake of the board but it's still not something i would ever want to see.

wouldnt that be something if like there was one level in a (5 year away) future katamari game that was actual photo realistic!?
people would freak!
like the one simpsons ep where homer went to the real world.

katamari sprites and forms in a 3-d video capture world would look fun for like one level.

sonya yea i have been spoiled by 720 and 1080 res. i notice it at friends houses (that are in 480) and more so they notice how nice it is when they come play on my tvs.
i too thought that the wii kart looked poor.

It may seem like an odd standpoint, but I actually despise photorealism in games.
Look at CoD4.
The game is beautiful, with tons of online modes. But the single player mode? I have friends who beat it on medium difficulty in a few hours.
I'm probably in the minority by saying this, but I would prefer cel shading and traditional art stylization(is that a word?) over photorealism.
A few points in case:
My favorite racing game ever is Auto Modellista. There wasn't anything that set it apart from other racing games, generic closed course point a to point b racing, but the cel shaded graphics were mindblowing. There was so much detail in the game, which you wouldn't expect from most racing games, especially a cel shaded one. Crackdown had left similar impressions on me.

As for traditional art styles, look at *any* NIS America RPG over the years (Atelier Iris, Disgaea, Phantom Brave, La Puicelle Tactics to name a few).
I'd rather have static "cut scenes" with well rendered sprites and incredible gameplay than photorealism.

I'm not going to lie and say I'm not impressed by how much 3d graphics have improved over the years (not too many of us here will remember the days of "omg polygons"), but I still think it only serves a real purpose as a tech demo, really just showing off what can be done vs what is practical.

*edit* on the subject of photorealistic katamari...
Oh god I don't even want to type it all out. Just think of pre level "briefing" from the first katamari. *vomits*

but it was game of the year by most reviewers. including me.

I'm not gonna argue about CoD4 being a good game, I've enjoyed what I've played of it at my friends (gonna buy GOTYed for xbl).
I'm just saying I don't feel it *needed* photorealistic graphcs. Like graphics alone didn't make it game of the year. I guess I would just rather see the developers load up on game content rather than focus 100% on graphics.
If CoD4 had been done in any other style, it would have still been the same game, and they probably could have added more content at the expense of the high def graphics.

True. Call Of Duty 4 wasn't all bad. It would've been just as good even in katamari-style (blocky style). The game just needed a little more oomph instead of all the state-of-the-art graphics. Gran Turismo 4 and 5 have great graphics and tons of content, so they were successful titles.

:no no way guys.
arron the game really didnt need anything else.

like people say, it all depends on the type of games.
with gta id like realism with a hint of stylised cartoonishness.

i disagree about cod4 i think the graphics enhanced the feel of the game a lot. it immerses you in the environment. i especially am at odds with how aaron can make a statement about how he hates photorealism full stop. i think you have to consider what game it is.

for something like pro evo where it is trying to simulate football or GT then i think its important and enhances the game
with a more obscure or fantasy type game then i think its fine to surrender graphics for something else. but these days with the capacity of storage media surely all elements of the games should be top notch.

despite all this i can understand why some people feel graphics is important. our eyes are our primary way of experiencing a game, it is what you see first and consistently experience throughout the game. to a casual gamer if they were to just look at the graphics of a game and there is little progression then it will not grab them.
it is also the thing that has clearly changed over the years so its natural to want to follow on and keep improving.


i dont buy games based on graphics or style or story or whatever. i buy games cos the whole package appeals to me, if that means it comes with photo realism sometimes then so be it. i rarely buy a game that im not happy with because i do my research before hand.

one thing that annoys me is that people that moan about tiny frame rate issues and crap when they are usually so minor that it makes little difference

though i have played games that become unplayable with the amount of slowdown they can have.

some fps and fighters can be drastically altered by a mere 3 fps drop believe it or not though stu buddy! some of my vf5 combos are based on button press entries during exact character frame animations.

ah good thing i dont play those too much then :D

I've been spending more time on CoD4, I actually just picked up a copy today.
Now that I'm spending time on it in campaign mode and not in lan multiplayer, I'm getting a better feel for *why* it won GOTY.
While a lot of people will credit the graphics, in the campaign, I'm getting clipping and pop-in like previous CoDs.
Oh god this is turning into a CoD4 thread. Nevermind.

I feel sound design is far more important than realistic graphics.
Maybe it's just me, the biggest tv I play on is a 37", so mindblowing graphics are still just decent (and even then I'm typically playing on a 27" SDTV, so graphics are meh on it). But I still feel that well edited sfx and well mixed surround sound can make a game moreso than incredible graphics.

The more I play these games with great graphics, the more I really realize how much more sound immerses me into the game world.
Example:
For anyone who has played the suffering, you know the graphics were top notch for ps2/xbox. The game was beautiful, they did a splatter matrix through the enemies when you shot them for blood splatters, and the character design was very well done.
But the graphics alone weren't enough to draw you in. It was the *clank* *clank* *clank* as the monsters walked with their knife-legs, and the *screeeeeeeeeeech* as they dragged their knife-arms across the walls.
The sound made you more aware of the surroundings, because you knew that there was stuff out to get you that you couldn't find.

Another great example would be silent hill 2 on the ps2. They did simulated surround sound on headphones. It added to the feel of the game and made a game with crappy graphics a good experience.

...why do I feel like I'm writing an essay for school? :\

Anyways, that's just my take on things.

I mean more so that it shouldn't look like it was a mistake or messed up. Even if it *is* meant to look like a mistake, it's still purposeful and somewhere along the way the viewer needs to be able to tell that it's done on purpose.

Regardless, as far as video games go, a purposeful mistake is only worthwhile in humor... at least as far as I can think of.

/quoting from earlier in the discussion

Graphics for me really depend on the game and the direction of the game. I'm not too picky as long as the graphics don't out weight the gameplay.

helen frankenthaler was all about the "happy accident" and wanted mistakes.
no professor can be right about all things with a blanket statement.

yet a mistake in a videogame sucks! :smirk