Gaming A quick word about imagination in games

Relying on the human brain to do a bit work often works just a little better than spangly graphics...

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2012/03/30/quickimagination/1

 

There is a common belief with many people that very good graphics equates to poor gameplay. I have read countless times from people who believe if a game has great graphics then it must have poor gameplay. I argue that is simply not logical and a game can have both (Battlefield 3, Alan Wake etc). It all depends what the game calls for. Some games should aim for photorealistic graphics/animation while other games like Minecraft don't need it. Minecraft isn't an ugly game, it has quite attractive shading across the landscape, without the shading it would look quite ugly and bland.

I do feel there is a distinct lack of imagination in games though and I am reminded of the 80's where we had Carrier Command on the Amiga, Stunt Car, Driller, Mercenary, Virus and many other interesting games. These days we have linear shooters, kiddy games like warcraft that only exist to make kids into junkies to get money from them and other generally unimaginative games. There are some exceptions. I like Alan Wake PC, love the Myst series although am too stupid to solve most of the puzzles, minecraft etc. I think Valve have gone some way to reintroducing imaginative games from indie developers. Unfortunately some of these games seem to receive poor reviews and are almost fragmented concepts rather than playable games. There are exceptions here though like Limbo.

It is the major game companies that are responsible for stifling creativity and the gaming consoles with their dumbed-down shooter games rather than anything requiring thought. Just wondering how many games like Myst exist on the consoles?

I detest consoles but I understand why they exist. Not everyone can afford a gaming PC and people think they have to spend crazy money to get a games playable PC.

Blah blah (I ran out of words because I need coffee and food).

 

I think its more of a perception that games with above average graphics have made this achievement by focusing on this at the expense of other elements (such as story, gameplay, originality and so on).

Personally I think this attitude probably has something to do with the early CD-ROM games and Interactive Movies of the early 90s - lots of shovelware with lots of bling but were flipping *awful* games.

These days of course there are lots of really pretty games that have excellent gameplay backing them up, equally pug-ugly games that have nothing else to redeem them either.

 

For FPS games I want photorealism and that's where we're heading slowly but surely. Interactive movies of the 90's? Dragon's Lair? Firefox?

 

Changing CD doesn't ruin a game if the game is good enough. Myst was the first game on windows if I recall.

 

Yeah, this.

I still play Carrier Command with WinUAE....which is awesome, except that the A.I. cheats and sails the carrier through islands -_-

I recently showed a (younger) friend of mine Baldur's Gate 2, which is still my all-time favourite game, and Final Fantasy VII. What did he say? "I don't see how you can play a game with such **** graphics". He tried them both and wrote them off after a few hours because the graphics weren't up-to current standards.

I nearly killed him.

 

Yeah, I feel myself returning to the likes of caesar 3 when confronted with the visual superior but otherwise not that good gameplay of more modern variants. On the other hand, beautiful games like far cry where GOOD too...

I would have liked this article to be a bit longer, it was only getting interesting...

 

For me, if the game is good enough then a bit of leeway is allowable on the graphics front.

LOD and POPUP ... cannot not f***king bear either... spend way too much time tweaking to minimise these than playing a game when I get it first...did someone say Oblivion ;-)


ps. started up System Shock 2 awhile back, the greatest game ever and which I adored and pleaded with heathens to try....and bloody hell, the graphics were shockingly bad (mainly res). Time moves on and so does the 'acceptable' level of graphics.

 

Oh, THAT Imagination, I thought you meant the group...thank god for that.

 

Believe it or not, the most immersive game I have ever played, by far:

 

To be fair, FF7 hasn't aged well. FF6 et al., Chrono Trigger and the other earlier ones have aged better, largely because they weren't first-gen 3D on 2D backdrops but 2D sprites that were lovingly and carefully crafted. FF8 and 9 have aged better than 7 in terms of graphics because they're actually textured. I was never a fan of 7 anyway - the only character I actually liked was Sephiroth...

Baldur's Gate 2, though... there's just no excuse for that.

...

I still play Civ II... sure, the graphics aren't like Civ V... or even Civ IV or III... but it's got it where it counts.

 

Old or new, when I enjoy them, they're good for me. I don't mistake pixel #
with imaginative/enjoyable any more than production expense with melodic
sensibility/my subjective reaction to music.

If the only thing interesting about the game is how well it renders realism
and that's bad, the game sucks. Then aain, if that's all that's interesting
about it, even if it's good, you'd probably be happier playing another game.

 

Was this article the product of a bet to see how many times the same fairly obvious point can be made in 650 words?

Yes, we get it already.

 

The games I have played that I remember above all others have not been about the graphics, more about the sense of place they instill in me.
I'll give you a couple of examples.
Elite.
When I played this, it was in a cold bedroom at the top of a council estate on a black and white portable.
The game had wireframe graphics but it didn't matter. My bedroom was the cockpit of the Cobra MK III, I felt I was 'there'.
Knight Lore. Now this DID have good graphics for its time. Again, same setting as above. The cold room I had only served to add to the sense of place as I honestly felt I WAS mooching around that cold castle!

Half Life 1/2. Both had great graphics for their time but again, the graphics only served to add to the sense of place.
There was a scene quite early on in HL2 where you are in a corridor with graffiti on the wall, papers blowing around and there is a staircase at the end of said corridor. It has light shining down in and I felt genuine trepidation walking down there towards the staircase and what was beyond. Valve succeeded in creating a 'real' place in my mind.
Graphics help but brilliant graphics per se do not necessarily create a great gaming experience...that's all in the mind.

 

Where does this person live? *sharpens knife*

 

One of my all time favourite games is Descent and even though it has pretty terrible graphics if you play it these days (320 X 240 :|) I still love it and it has made me jump more than any more recent title.

 

I think its more of a perception that games with above average graphics have made this achievement by focusing on this at the expense of other elements (such as story, gameplay, originality and so on).

 

I hope your not talking about wing commander 3!! ;-)

Yeah, good graphics have never hurt a game. I do believe that some developers concentrate too much of their resources on graphical prowess. Perhaps to do with publisher pressures.

In this day and age, surely good graphics, good story and originality would go hand in hand. Although not a graphics powerhouse. I think Portal got it right.....

 

Too many people judge 'books' by their covers. When the cover, being both the physical and the marketing stuff, is covered in shiny still images a game will sell better than one with simpler graphics (textures because that's all you get with a still).

Draw distance and consistency are far superior to textures.

There are of course examples which go too far, Skyrim's textures make me nostalgia because they were sacrificed for scale.