>To claim that graphics don't matter to games would be like claiming cinematography doesn't matter to movies.
Cinematography (camera work) is not graphics though. It's as essential to cinema as the plot and acting is.
Graphics in relation to games not so much. You can make a great game with very simple graphics, even today (from Tetris and Pacman to Leterpress). You can even make a great game with no graphics at all (all the much loved text adventure games, MUDs, etc) -- whereas you cannot make a movie at all without any cinematography.
If you want to make a movie comparison, visual effects and/or fancy sets would be a better one.
Tetris requires a properly sized view and clear, effortlessly distinguishable artwork.
MUDs require a quality typeface, proper layout, and appropriate coloring.
Pacman would be nothing without its remarkable low-fi charm.
Letterpress wouldn't have gathered a moment's attention if the tiles weren't immaculate and well rendered.
Graphical quality matters in everything, everything, everything visual. And it's a reasonably reliable proxy for how much effort has been put into the rest of the game.
>Graphical quality matters in everything, everything, everything visual. And it's a reasonably reliable proxy for how much effort has been put into the rest of the game.
You sidestepped the whole "text only adventure games" thing with the "visual" word. We were talking about computer games in general.
As for all the above examples, I don't think they show at all how graphics matter. They show that great addictive gameplay trumps flashy graphics any day of the week.
I mean "properly sized view and clear, effortlessly distinguishable artwork"?
Those goes without saying. Of course graphics should not obscure the game's goals.
That doesn't mean that the graphics are "60% of Tetris" -- in the same way the fact that Tetris would be totally unplayable if the background was all black and the tiles dark gray --doesn't mean that graphics are "100% of Tetris".
As for "MUDs require a quality typeface, proper layout, and appropriate coloring", yet people have played them in bad typefaces --heck, even not typeface at all, just bitmap graphic card fonts-- and black and white. Matter of fact, in the eighties lots of people on DOS PCs played color games in black and white monitors, and enjoyed them too.
> Of course graphics should not obscure the game's goals.
Indeed, you might say in that case the graphics are of high quality! Low quality graphics can easily detract from gameplay.
I think there are two definitions for "graphics quality" commonly used.
- Realism, as used in this article.
- Aesthetics, an example of which would be Team Fortress 2. By any definition it is not a very realistic game, but it still has very well-made/high quality graphics (before hats, anyway.)
>Graphics in relation to games not so much. You can make a great game with very simple graphics
Absolutist claims about how important graphics are can never be true because different genres utilize graphics differently. The immersive games crytek makes weren't really possible before computer graphics technology was capable, so I would argue that no: making crytek's games with very simple graphics would not even be possible.
I think you are right, but it feels like a matter of definitions. A movie without cinematography is essentially a novel (not exactly the same, screenplays differ from novels), and they both fall under the "story" umbrella.
I feel that "game" is most closely related to "story", and what Crytek are talking about are "visual games", where there are also things like "text based games".
Cinematography is lighting and, to an extent, camera work! IMO movie comparison would be with production design. After all, it's the script that must work - everything else is a bonus. Same goes with games, if mechanics is there...
I think the analogy is quite apt. Even more apt if you include visual fx.
A lot of the most popular movies rely heavily on lush cinematography and advanced computer generated visual effects. Just as many of the most popular games rely on advanced graphics. However, not all do. For every Minecraft or FTL there's a Clerks or Blair Witch or Primer.
Cinematography (camera work) is not graphics though. It's as essential to cinema as the plot and acting is.
Graphics in relation to games not so much. You can make a great game with very simple graphics, even today (from Tetris and Pacman to Leterpress). You can even make a great game with no graphics at all (all the much loved text adventure games, MUDs, etc) -- whereas you cannot make a movie at all without any cinematography.
If you want to make a movie comparison, visual effects and/or fancy sets would be a better one.