Roundtable: Graphics in games?

Welcome back to the Roundtable! It’s a long discussion this week, so go get some Bugles and a Mountain Dew and enjoy!

Cam: How much do your gaming purchases and opinions depend on the graphics of a game? Have you ever bought a game just for the graphics, or have they ever kept you from playing a game? What are your thoughts on graphics in older games and how they stand up to modern games, and how do you feel about remakes?

Answer my questions or I’ll code your render!

Beau: I don’t know that I’ve ever bought a game purely based on graphics, but definitely based on graphics + the setting. I hate to admit it, but I often “judge a book by its cover,” so if I see that a game has crappy graphics, I pretty much assume that the developer didn’t put a lot of work into a game. That’s at least the case for higher-end games; obviously, indie games are different since they just don’t likely have the resources to put into making amazing graphics.

On the flip side, crappy graphics have definitely kept me from playing certain games. For example, somehow I never tried Starcraft back when it came out. But it’s generally recognized as one of the best RTS games ever, and I have friends who still play it and swear by it, so I finally bought it last year and gave it a try. I honestly just couldn’t get into it because the graphics were so old and dated. I just couldn’t get as into it as I could a similar game with modern graphics.

Brandon: I can think of 2 times, off the top of my head that I purchased a game without any knowledge of what it was all about based on the graphics: Final Fantasy 8 (my first FF, I know, late bloomer) and Gran Turismo.  I saw commercials for these games and the graphics were so good that I knew I had to play them.  These days I don’t think graphics are enough to compel a purchase from me.  We have pushed the box so far that it would take something truly revolutionary to catch my eye.

In fact, the most visually stunning games I see now seem to be games that are clearly not based in realism.  I think this is an interesting concept.  There is a psychological theory which states that as inhuman objects become more clearly human in appearance we are more and more unsettled by them.  At the very core of our being, we believe those things that are not human should not look human.  This is why no matter how much graphics improve, games don’t tend to become any more real because we notice more and more flaws in them.  The graphics in Aion are visually beautiful and the characters are exceptionally well rendered and very realistic.  As soon as you move though, you notice how inhuman the movements are.  They don’t feel right.

Games like World of Warcraft, with its cartoonish graphics, seem perfectly acceptable to view an 8 foot cow walking on its hind legs and swinging an axe the size of a telephone pole.  Interestingly, this is the exact reason that Bioware chose to go with a heavily stylized graphical look for Star Wars: The Old Republic and it is a move that I think is going to pay large dividends.

Justin: I believe you’re referring to the Uncanny Valley, and I’d have to agree with you. Some of the more impressive looking titles that have come out are either from small development teams (like ThatGameCompany for Flower) or when Wind Waker came out with the cel-shaded look. I’ve nothing against realistic graphics, especially for games like FIFA or NHL, but it’s always nice to sample many dishes for one’s palate.

I’m going to agree with Beau in that at times I’ve judged a book by its cover as well. Though as I’ve grown older I’ve learned the difference between a cut scene (seen on a commercial) that’s rendered and in-game graphics (which count more for me), I’m still a sucker for pretty things.  I appreciate more and more the kind of talent it takes to pump out some of the stuff we’ve seen. It’s not just making it look pretty, its physics interaction, proper coloring techniques, and incredibly smooth animation.

I play older games not because they look good, but because the games are good. They give me that nostalgic feeling. Games will continue to look better; it’s the way of technology. But game play is game play. The game can be brand new or 10 years old and it will still play just as good (or bad) as you remember. While graphics can get a bit stale after playing a game for a while, game play is what makes the game enjoyable. Which brings me to my last point: remakes are good (for nostalgia purposes) and I still wish they had brushed up the Chrono Trigger remake just a tad. The ability to add a fresh coat of paint on a SNES title would have made a great experience even better.

Dustin: I am similar to Beau in regards to judging books by their cover. It used to never be an issue as nearly all games on the NES and Genesis looked equally crappy, but nowadays it is easy to separate the games apart by how good they look. This typically doesn’t guarantee that the game is better than another game with worse graphics, but I’ll typically pick up a copy that looks nice compared to something that looks like pixilated vomit. For example, racing and sports games are way easier to compare when it comes to graphics. Some look like crap, but something like Midtown Madness is 10x better than some of the Need for Speed games that were out at the same time in terms of game play, but NFS had much better graphics. The same goes for sports games. Generally one game of a certain sport will have better graphics, due to the developer, but it does not guarantee a more fun experience.

I’m all for games having unique graphic styles or going against the norm, but I hate to admit that I typically won’t play a game that has mediocre reviews unless the graphics/packaging blow me away. However, if the games graphics are only a small part of the game and the control/game play mechanics are the selling point, I’ll likely pick it up, i.e. Little Big Planet and Lumines.

Justin: NES and Genesis games may look like crap now, but did you think that when they were brand spanking new? Hell when Sonic came out and I blasted through the Green Emerald zone I wasn’t complaining about the graphics at all. It was the first game that gave me that sense of incredible speed.

Andrew: As someone who is currently enjoyably re-playing PS1-era Final Fantasy titles – I say that graphics do NOT factor into my purchasing decisions as much as other features.  A good story or an innovative game play mechanic is way more important if you ask me.

For instance, Final Fantasy 7 and 8 are miles ahead of all FF titles that came out after them in terms of overall quality, IMO.  Yet they’re also miles behind all further titles in terms of graphics.  Another case in point is Super Smash Brothers.  How many drunken games of 4v4 Free-For-All Super Smash have you played with your friends?  For me that number is in the hundreds.  But what about the Game Cube version?  It was pretty, but they complicated things, destroying the best part of Smash Brothers: its simple and addictive game play.  So I only played it once.  I’ve hated any and all ice climbers ever since.

On the flip side, after I played through Resident Evil 5, it sure felt like all I’d paid for was a box full of shiny HD graphics.  I would have given up highly defined beard stubble and beads of sweat in exchange for some sort of innovation to the over-the-shoulder-shooter mechanic.

Dustin: We just had a discussion this weekend while playing FIFA 09 in Boston about how ridiculously perfect the ball’s physics are for getting kicked around the pitch and deflecting off players’ hands, heads and feet. The graphics are impressive, but sometimes the shining factor is the realistic physics put into the game. Granted, I wouldn’t want to play a sports game where the characters are huge clunky blocks, but the physics are 100% perfect. I’d still need decent graphics, but it is nice to see the majority of developers aiming for realism in their games.

Justin: Is Physics considered a game play mechanic or a graphics addition? Like you said, the ball physics definitely come into play, but interaction with your environment (and thus the animation it brings) could be a graphical add-on (like in Half Life 2).

Dustin: When games like Half Life 2 and possibly some of its predecessors began adding destroyable environments that typically were just set-in-stone background pieces, that is when I really started noticing the detail put into games. Max Payne may have also been a great example of this as well. I remember shooting everything up in Wolfenstein and Duke Nukem, but the pixels would fix themselves and wouldn’t leave a dent after about 5 seconds. I really appreciate how in some games nowadays you can literally destroy everything. That makes a game look prettier, more realistic, and in turn, more fun.

Brandon: I think on the subject of physics that that would have to be considered part of the game engine rather than graphics.  The ball looks the same regardless of how it moves.  The movement is what is a big deal. I think how a game moves is part of its overall feel, but I think it is separate from the category of “graphics.”

Cam: Good points by all. One thing to remember, as Justin pointed out, is that when NES and Genesis and all the older systems came out, nobody was saying the graphics were crappy. We look at them now and they are outdated. I would disagree though with Dustin that they all looked equal as I think if you sat down and compared you would find that some games definitely looked better than others. One that note, I really don’t prefer remakes. To me, you start to lose something when you try to improve graphics in older games, particularly ones that have reached a sort of legendary status. Look at the DS remake of Final Fantasy IV. Square made it 3D (I guess because that’s what all games are now?), and all the characters had giant heads like they used to. But it just wasn’t Final Fantasy IV anymore to me. It lost its character. It’s important to realize that certain things work better for certain games when it comes to graphics. There is no standard and there is no best way to do things.

Brandon brought up a great point with WoW. To me, WoW has some of the best graphics in the MMORPG genre, but all of the models are relatively low-poly. They balance this out by using really great textures and incredible design. Conversely, Everquest II used fairly high poly counts from what I could tell, but the textures they used were bland and uninteresting. Even though the game is technically “higher quality” in graphics, it didn’t look even close to as good as WoW. Blizzard made it a point to find what would work best for their game rather than assuming that high-poly models would automatically look good.

On the topic of physics simulation, I think any time you’re talking about how something looks, it falls under graphics. Physics simulation is usually grouped in with graphics along with lighting effects and the like. So for example, you’d be talking about graphics when seeing how real water moves in a game (for example, when two waves intersect), but that’s really a physics simulation issue. It’s equally important in how a game looks though. So personally I would say that physics is a big part of graphics. However, I think it’s important to point out that just like rendering techniques, there isn’t a right way to do physics. It should be based on what will be the most appropriate method for your game. Some games should have trippy physics.

How do you guys feel about the differences between 2D and 3D games? Do you think 2D graphics are still a viable and important option? Or is that whole ‘style’ outdated? Not many high profile games for the big 3 systems are made in 2D anymore, at least not true 2D instead of 2.5D.

Dustin: I am not nearly as much of a fan of 2D games as I am with 3D games. I just like not being limited to one direction or feeling forced to have to go from point A to point B. However, I loved side-scrollers as a kid and Justin was right, Sonic really did give you that sense of, “Holy shit we’re moving fast now!” WTF was with Ecco the Dolphin though? That game is still a mind trip to this day… I don’t think I’ve ever once in my life thought, I wish I had a game where I could be a dolphin.

In regards to MMOs with great graphics, I have to agree that WoW has the best graphics. They may not be technically the best in terms of polys, like Cam stated, but look at Age of Conan trying to push systems to the limit with the graphics. Unless you’re running a maxed out comp, you will never see those graphics. Also, even on a top system, they don’t seem to flow and be as pretty as WoW is, which runs on nearly all computers and looks good on even the lower settings.

Brandon: I think 2D graphics would be acceptable if a side scrolling game was compelling enough.  The problem is there just aren’t any 2D games coming out anymore really.  I think you would face an uphill battle against 3D games, because it’s not just an issue of graphics when looking at the two.  We talked about open world games last week, and whether we feel that those games give too much freedom or just the right amount, its pretty clear that linear games are something of a relic in the games industry.

Cam: Ok so from a game play standpoint, you don’t like 2D, but I’m talking about purely graphics. Pretend you are watching someone play a 2D game. Do you think it’s not as good as some other 3D game?

Brandon: I don’t think people would have a problem with the graphics, I think people would be asking why they are playing a 2D game.

Cam: But why? Why is 3D more valuable from a purely aesthetic view? We’ve already established that realism is overrated. Can 2D images not be just as pleasing to the eye? I mean we’re not talking completely pixilated images here. We have the technology to make it where you could be playing a video game that looked like a painting if you wanted. Would you play a game coming out right now that was 2D and top down like in Final Fantasy VI?

Dustin: The first real impressive side-scroller in a long time was Little Big Planet. Technically, it incorporated a few 3D ideas, but it’d be claimed as a 2D game. Games can still succeed if you market them to the right audience and offer some really interesting ideas in terms of game play and physics, but you’re limited to graphics available to these.

You’ll never see near realistic graphics in a 2D game, simply because it couldn’t fit with the motif of the game. I’d never want to see a human looking Mario jumping up real flagpoles and smashing realistic Goombas, if that is even possible to do. However, I’d love to see this as a YouTube video set on a treadmill going hyper speed.

Cam: Little Big Planet is really more like 2.5D. It’s just 3D that they’ve restricted to two axes instead of three.

Justin: I love 2D. Redraw FFVI and I’ll go buy it right now. I mean look at some of the Marvel vs. Capcom vs. Whoever is the Flavor of the Month games. Those games are incredibly drawn. Another 360 fighting game, BlazBlue, looks just as great.

Brandon: I think fighting games could be a notable departure from the norm, because I think the introduction of a third axis complicates those games too much.

Cam: I have never played a 3D fighting game that I thought looked as good or was as fun as 2D fighters like Marvel vs. Capcom and Guilty Gear.

Justin: 2.5D games like Trine and Shadow Complex show that people still enjoy a “2D” game as it were. I see no reason why 2D can’t survive. Look at LBP, and hell they’re even making a remake of A Boy and His Blob, which looks great.

Brandon: The reason you wouldn’t play a 2D game is because the game play would not be compelling enough to warrant playing it, in my opinion.  That can always be proven false, but I don’t know of any games currently that would fall in that category. Games that are side-scrolling or top-down are a thing of the past.  They can’t compare with their counterparts which are less limiting.  Even games which are linear, like God of War or something, allow you uninhibited movement along the linear path.

Beau: I played Super Paper Mario a while back and even though it’s essentially 2D (even when you switch the 3D mode it barely qualifies), I thought it looked good and was still fun to play. I think the only game type that can still pull of 2D and be fun and look good is the side-scrolling platformer/action game. There are actually a bunch for the iPhone that have fun graphics (like a cell-shaded zombie-killing game) that still look better than old NES games.

Justin: How about Castlevania: Symphony of the Night? I played it a few months back on the PSN. It’s still one of the best 2D games ever and I’d stack it up against any other game on the market.

Dustin: Could they really make a 3D version of Toobin’ or PaRappa tha Rapper and have them be as successful as their predecessors? I dare them to try!

Brandon: They already did, its called Guitar Hero.

Dustin: Technically, it’d be called DJ Hero, coming out soon, since you can’t chop-chop it up on Guitar Hero, like you did in PaRappa.

Brandon: I love old games as much as the next guy, but if I pick up Mega Man 2 again it’s because I was bored and decided to indulge in some nostalgic gaming.  It’s not a game that I’m going to be thinking about all day how much I can’t wait to get home from work to play.

Justin: Maybe not Mega Man 2, but look at how successful Mega Man 9 was, which was released not too long ago and features the same type of retro style the old MM series.

Brandon: How much of that was due to people wanting to experience the feelings of playing NES Mega Man again though?   How many people bought it and played it once and then put it away for good?  I bought the Mega Man collection for Game Cube back in the day for the same reason, but it only ever got played if I was bored and didn’t feel like playing anything else.  2D games are a thing of the past, I do not believe one could be made today that would earn the same reputation as games like Mass Effect or KOTOR or whatever else you want to throw in there.

Cam: I’m not sure I agree with that last statement, but I have no evidence to the contrary. I don’t think many people are trying to make epic 2D games though.

Brandon: How would you make an epic 2D game?  How would you make an epic 2D game that compared favorably to an equally epic 3D game?  My opinion is that this is not possible.  If having a game be 2D was something that could be considered beneficial, Square would not have made every FF since 7 the way they have.  We know from the re-releases that they can make a game 2D and incorporate 3D FMV, so why not do that?

Cam: I don’t know that I think you can make an epic 2D game that is as good as an epic 3D game. The problem is that we’re getting into non-graphics related issues, or at least indirect issues. Yes, 2D games are limited. It’s a fact. But are you saying that 3D games will always look better than 2D games, or even that the best looking 3d game will always look better than the best 2D game? Because that I highly disagree with. I guess I’m sort of working in a bubble here, because you can’t really separate game play and graphics when talking about how good a game is, but to me this topic is about aesthetics.

Justin: Mass Effect and KOTOR are two games that cost a lot to make and sold butt loads. But look at games like World of Goo or Crayon Physics that didn’t cost that much to make and still sold very well.  Like Cam said, I don’t think people are pumping money into 2D games but they’re still being made (and bought) into successful products. So saying they’re a thing of the past, I couldn’t disagree more.

Brandon: Who made those games and do they still exist?  Struggling game companies fold and go under every day.  Bioware isn’t going anywhere.  I understand start-ups don’t have the financial resources of Bioware, but essentially what you are saying is that good 2D  games can be made, but only because the companies don’t have the resources to make them 3D in the first place.  That isn’t a virtue.

Beau: I have to disagree with Brandon that small developers only make games 2D because they couldn’t afford to make them 3D. Being 3D doesn’t necessarily make a game better by default. Even back on the NES, Smash TV wasn’t better than Super Mario Bros.

Brandon: Beau, that wasn’t necessarily my point.  That was what I interpreted Justin to be saying, which I felt was not an argument he wanted to make.

Justin: How are you measuring success Brandon? Are we talking sheer dollars or how fun the game is? Because it’s a little bit unfair to compare an established company with a 1 person team. Obviously even if the game is crap the marketing will make sure it gets bought.

Brandon: How do companies measure success?  By their profit and loss statements.  These aren’t bored computer science students sitting in their dorms playing with C++.  These are people whose goal is to make themselves filthy rich.

Cam: But we’re talking about what we think about games, not what CEOs think about games. This is philosophy 101, not business 101.

Justin: I asked how you were measuring success. What makes an epic game “epic” in your mind?I’ll agree with Cam and say that yes, 2D games are limited, but I will disagree with your statement and say that 2D games can look just as good as 3D games.

Brandon: The question, I believe, was about graphics relating to how desirable a game was.  My argument is that, as a gaming culture, we have moved past the point where 2D games are viable, and that regardless of the quality of graphics they will not be as successful as 3D games.

Cam: I agree. But I think that’s unfortunate because 2D games can look really great.

Dustin: Marketing goes a long way. This is a big issue for the smaller companies, but thankfully for the great games that come out with low budgets, there will always be word of mouth and about 500 gaming sites heralding the success of such small games. This is the case nowadays, but small games for the Genesis, Playstation and N64 wouldn’t have been as successful as a game like World of Goo since without advertising dollars and the limited forums and viral outlets, these games would have just been shelved as another 2D game.

Justin: Yes, we all know now that Brandon hangs a picture of 2D Mega Man, Mario, and Link having Marcus Fenix, Dante, and, Kratos cut their innards out.

Brandon: Better Legend of Zelda game: Link to the Past or Ocarina of Time?  Sums up this argument perfectly.

Justin: Yes but it’s not an easy answer. They’re both great games, and I was just going to write something like “If Nintendo made a new Zelda with ALTTP graphics how well do you think it would sell?”

Brandon: I think it would sell really well and then be completely forgotten.  It’s impossible to make the argument with this particular example because the Zelda franchise carries too much power.

Cam: Better Castlevania, Castlevania 64 or Castlevania: SOTN?

Dustin: Castlevania 2. Getting down to brass tax, it’s the best game in the series. I’m biased, as I never played the series after C3.

Brandon: Just so you know, Castlevania 64 received reviews of 9/10, 8/10, and 4.5/5 from major reviewers.

Cam: I played it and it was hot garbage. And to bring it back to this topic, the graphics didn’t compare to SOTN.

Brandon: And Konami debated on whether to even release the game in the U.S. because it was 2D, and even then the game has more of a cult following than actual financial success.  I know that most consider it to be the high-point of the franchise and I wouldn’t argue it.  The fact remains that it was limited in mainstream gaming because it was a 2D title in the first age of 3D gaming.

Cam: I want to bring us back a bit real quick: I think nobody can disagree that 2D games are limiting in regards to game play. I think it’s a bit weak to claim that in a series, the 3D versions are obviously better than the 2D versions (even though I don’t think Brandon was making that claim outright).

My main point is that from a purely aesthetic view, 2D can be just as compelling and interesting as 3D. I think at this moment in the industry, there are very few people who care about 2D graphics, obviously due to the limits. I think that’s a shame, but unless someone comes out proving you can do something new and interesting with 2D, it will probably stay that way.

To bring it back even FURTHER to the original point, based on this conversation I suppose it’s obvious that graphics are important to people. I do think it’s important that people keep an open mind with graphics and understand that there are many different approaches that can be taken to make a game look great.

Justin: I think you’re starting to see some of these 2.5D games that use 3D gaming engines, like the Unreal engine, since they’re such scalable engines for developers to use.

Cam: The problem with 2.5D is that it has the same limitations as 2D, it just has added depth to make it look “better”.

Brandon: I don’t disagree with you that a game can be made with great 2D visuals.  My only issue is that I just don’t think those games would be popular.  And about 3D being better than 2D, while its not inherently true that the actual graphics are better, clearly adding a 3rd dimension is a graphical element, and clearly that has a very large impact on how people perceive the game.  At this point in time, I think 3 dimensionality is such a prevalent notion that, yes, a 3D game will automatically be better than a 2D game.  This doesn’t have anything to do with the visual quality, but has everything to do with the GRAPHICS themselves.

Cam: I very much disagree. And maybe it’s just personal preference. But I will never think that 3D is somehow better looking than 2D. I like paintings more than I like sculpture as well, and I don’t think one is better than the other.

Brandon: As I said, it has nothing to do with visual quality, but rather spatial quality, if I can invent a term here. Adding a 3rd dimension is a part of the graphical nature of the game.  In my opinion, for most gamers the jump from 2 dimensions to 3 dimensions is worth more than the quality of the actual visual graphics.  So the “graphics” of a 3D game can be better than the “graphics” of a 2D game even if the visuals are better in the 2D game.

Cam: Yes, I can agree with that. What’s interesting is that based on the question I originally asked about 2D graphics, none of us should really be arguing with you.

Brandon: I find that to be true on just about everything, TBH.

Cam: /ROLLEYES OMFG

Justin: I see what Brandon is getting at. On paper it makes perfect sense. Would you rather move in 2d or 3d space? Naturally 3d seems more appealing. Look at Mario 64; it blew my mind the first time I played it. It seems more appealing that’s all. Whether or not it’s a better game is a case by case analysis.

Brandon: I am saying that spatial considerations and aesthetic considerations are both a part of the “graphics” element of a game.  At this point in time, I think that graphics are more defined by the spatial considerations than the aesthetic considerations.  Yes that has to do with limitations, but it also means that a 2D game has a lot of ground to make up to be considered as having “better graphics” than a 3D game.  It isn’t impossible, but I would wager it rarely happens unless you are comparing the best 2D game against the worst 3D game.

Dustin: Would you guys agree that when they came out, games like The Secret of Monkey Island, King’s Quests and other similar games were fairly ground breaking at the time? I remember we got the first King’s Quest on a Mac way, way back in the day and I thought the graphics were so freaking amazing. Technically, they were just shaded cells, similar to a painting, but they were fully animated and looked great. These were 2D games, for the most part, and I think they were both successful and visually appealing.

Is there any reason games like these and more recent games, such as the Penny Arcade games and Sam & Max among many others, can’t enjoy success but not push the bar with graphics?

Cam: Not really. As long as they have limitations that 3D games don’t have, they won’t be as successful or compelling. They will be fun to look at, but that’s probably it.

Brandon: Those games were amazing because you were going from having 0 dimensions to have 2 dimensions.  You have to consider relativity.

Dustin: Not necessarily. Nearly all games on the Commodore, Apple II and Coleco offered 1D games. We had this game called Shanghai on my grandpa’s computer where you sold opium and had to shoot down other pirate ships in the sea to become the leading drug smuggler on the open seas. This may not have been the best game to teach kids about life. But as you can tell, I sling opium while at sea better than the rest of you guys, as evidenced from our Opium’s Big Day Out Bash we had last year.

Brandon: Well you mentioned King’s Quest, and that was the first game that you could actually move around in.  Prior to that it was static pictures and text parsing.

Dustin: I think it is safe to say best graphics ever belongs to Tetris?

Cam: I think it is safe to say this is a good stopping point.

Beau: As a last piece of evidence that 3D games aren’t necessarily better than 2D, I give you:

The Virtual Boy
http://www.retrothing.com/2006/08/three_dimension.html

Dustin and I actually had one of these things, and while Mario Tennis was actually quite fun, otherwise it was god-awful. Although I guess you can’t technically say its graphics were up to snuff since its only colors were red and black.

Well that was enlightening, right kids?? Let us know your thoughts on graphics in games by commenting below!

Got a news tip? Send it to press@mmomfg.com and we'll shower you with love!