One Man\'s Septic Tank is Another Man\'s Hot Tub.

When I first thought about writing this article, I was planning on writing about the thing I\'ve been saying for the past week, "Just because the graphics are different does not in any way make them inferior."  But as I continued to think about what to write, I realized how deep this topic really is, and how that statement above is somewhat wrong.

I\'ll start from the beginning.  Ever since the 32 bit era, game companies have been striving to push as many polygons as possible in attempt to make their games look superior to all others -- which, in many peoples\' minds, meant an overall superior game.  I admit that I was a person who loved good graphics and my opinions on games were based on mostly graphics.

Now that we are in the 128 bit generation of consoles, we are going to see some very impressive graphics with a polygon rate ranging from 15 mpps to probably the high 20 mpps or low 30 mpps.  Some developers are following the trend and will be trying to push the polygonal limit of each console with their games, and other developers will take a different root, trying to push the market in a different direction than just, “More polygons!  More realism!  More!  Muahahaha!”  


This leads to a few questions.  Why does it have to be that we base the quality of graphics on polygon count?  How come games with a different graphics style, like the new Zelda, are considered to have inferior graphics?  A lot of people have forgotten that there is a lot more to graphics than a high polygon count.  When talking about graphics, there are many things to consider:

• Style:  IMO, style is the most important thing in graphics.  Is the game realistic like DOA3?  Is is cartoony like Zelda?  Are the graphics gritty like in Silent Hill 2?  The style of graphics can set the mood for the whole game, nomatter how low the polygon count is.
  
  
• Animation:  Animation has a lot to do with how good graphics look.  IMO, animation plays a way bigger role than polygon count.  What sounds better, a lifelike model of a dog walking down the street done with three frames, or a stick figure of a dog walking down the street with over 20 frames making the animation seem lifelike?
  
  
• Polygon Count:  The higher the polygon count, the more you can do with the game.  A higher polygon count does not necessarily mean more realistic, but it does mean more detailed.
  
  
• Textures:  Textures are very important.  They can make or break a game’s graphics.  If you have a huge world done with millions and millions of polygons, but the textures suck and all look the same, the graphics will suffer.
  

After thinking about what "graphics" are, here is a new question.  What are "good graphics?"  The answer is very simple.  Good graphics is anything made with a computer that is pleasing to the eye.  But wait, not everyone has the same eyes!  Oh no!  Therefore, every person can have their own definition of what exactly what "good graphics" are.  Jumpman doesn\'t think Jak and Daxter has good graphics because the game is not visually pleasing to him.  A lot of people don\'t think the new Zelda has good graphics.  Is it because it doesn\'t have a super high polygon count?  Is it because the textures are not lush and detailed.  Is it because the game looks like a cartoon?  Or is it because, like Ryu said in this this thread, they just ignored what Nintendo said about it being a tech demo and set themselves up for a big disappointment?  Any one of those reasons is valid, but there is not a set answer.  What looks good to one person might look crappy to another.  That is why there are so many different types of games.

Should a person have to defend his decision after saying he doesn\'t like the looks of a game?  Should he have to stand up for a game that he thinks looks good but everyone else doesn’t?  No, because it is that person\'s opinion.  Everyone was made different, have grown up different, and has different preferences in video game graphics.

Now lets look at that quote again: "Just because the graphics are different does not in any way make them inferior."  The reason this is not completely correct is because it is just my opinion on how I look at graphics.  You might completely disagree with this quote and say that if it is different than the trendy high polygon count style of graphics, then it is inferior.  We need to remember that it is fine to think either way.  One man’s septic tank really is another man’s hot tub; One man’s crappy graphics might be another man’s brilliant graphics.

So what kinds of graphics are visually pleasing to you?  Do you think polygon count is the most important aspect of graphics, or does style, textures, or animation rank higher on your graphical priority list?  What direction do you hope the industry goes?  Do you want games to be almost life like, or do you want the industry to go to a more chartoony/fantasy graphics style?

I mean as we look back on the history of video games. Graphics really didn\'t matter back then. It was really just all about the game play. Because we knew that was all we where going to get and really didn\'t cares as long as the games where fun.

But I think as of now 2001 technology is always advancing that lust for more polys and more realism in games will continue to grow. I mean if a game looks like crap. The first thing some will say is this game sucks. They don\'t even give the gameplay a chance. And I think that is because of the time and era we are in.

I mean look at a game beautiful game like JSRF. Off hand a lot of ppl say that game looks like crap. Because they are not use to seeing those type of graphics. JSRF is a awesome game all around. But because of the new style it has most ppl wrote it off.

And I think with the times that we are living in we should have great graphics in games. I mean that is what supose to happen as technology goes. Graphics in games are supose to go. And as the years go on and technology so does the need for more better graphics.

 As for what is good graphics. I think most ppl will say poly count, poly count. I mean if a game has a low poly count everyone will say that game sucks.  I mean I  just love a game were everything balances eachother out. Good animation, good textures, good everything. It does not have to be the best ever.

I mean every console is different and as you raise poly count you may loose this. So I think as long as it is good I am ok. Because the technology is here and we no graphics don\'t have too look like crap and they should not.

Generally, when I\'m strolling about the forum and reading a few posts here and there, I sometimes am asked through a chat window or ICQ, "Why, Ryu, why don\'t you want an X-Box?"

Now, not to single the X-Box out in anyway, I know I am definitely going to be getting it for some games that I consider appealing at some point down the road, but the primary reason now is because it embodies everything I absolutely hate about the 128-bit generation.  It is a cold plastic black box filled with the latest improved technology.  It\'s basically the balls end approach the PC market takes toward hardware upgrades.

Increased efficiency over innovative design.

Now, when I say that, I\'m not merely speaking of the hardware.  Never would I use such a superficial arguement to support my claimes, but moreso what is being done WITH this hardware.  Basically, Microsoft took the best PC components available, modified them for a home console, and made them as effecient as possible.  Is this a good thing?  Has anything really changed?  Sure, I can see the birds in the background in DOA3 more clearly as well as the monsters in Halo shrivel and die as their death animation, but what exactly has changed enough to make me want Halo over Half-Life or DOA3 over Soul Calibur?

Perhaps the best way to show you exactly what I mean is by contrasting what Microsoft is doing with its games and what Nintendo is doing with theirs.  Lets try the new version of The Legend of Zelda set to be released in late 2002.  Here\'s a series that was set to go from a young elvan boy saving the world into a young elvan man saving the world.  This was the direction we all expected, an improved graphics engine with Ocarina of Time style gameplay.  Did Nintendo deliver what we expected?  No.  Despite Tecmo\'s obviously popular "graphics over gameplay" recent business model, Nintendo has opted to go for style and something fresh and new for its audiences.  Miyamoto said it best afterall:

"When designing games for the Nintendo 64, the difficult task was trying to perfect a two-dimensional game and bring it to life in three-dimensions while still keeping that same charm it originally had.  Now, the challenge is going to be presenting that same three-dimensional game in a way that is both innovative and original."

Style is the key to making sure games do not become rehashed versions over and over again.  Like the PC, it\'s the hardware that changes, not the interface.  If the hardware for games continues to become better and more powerful, will that really mean better games?  Is WinME really better than Win98 because I used Win98 on a 233mhz system rather then my decent 800mhz system like I did with WinME?  Will DOA3 be that much better than DOA2 because the graphics are that much more improved?  The look has changed, of course, but it\'s still the same basic shell.

What it comes down to is that graphics are supposed to enhance the original concept behind game design: Fun.  When a system improves graphics or allows for a new original style of graphics, it\'s simply being used to enhance the game.  Will DOA3 be more fun because the graphics are improved?  Perhaps, but isn\'t that overall sensation fleeting once you have gotten used to the look that wowed you, but now leaves no effect on you 20 matches ago?  Is a hollow game worth owning if the graphics are the only thing improved over the original?

Bascially, the companies that have the guts to go out there and try something new will be the company that earns my undying respect.  Nintendo took their biggest franchise and changed it so much so gamers would stop having the same old expected trend that has become the industry norm.  For this specific reason, I miss Sega as a hardware company.  Sega has always been the first to test the hardware waters and the all new cutting edge technology.  It was the consoles afterward that improved upon that original model.  With Sega gone, who\'s next in line?  Sony definitely know how to make new hardware, but the newest hardware isn\'t always the best hardware.  I\'ve already discussed MS\' methods in length.  That leaves Nintendo, a company willing to sacrifice its greatest franchise to show that they do not fear change.

When it comes down to it, from a hardcore gamers point of view where gameplay is the most important aspect of a game, Nintendo\'s approach is best.  However, when it comes to the casual and the general public that is distracted by magic and shiny objects, it\'s the PS2 and X-Box that will take the lion\'s share of the profits in North America.

If it was up to me, we\'d all be living in a world flat and hand-drawn.  That\'s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

There are games with equal poly counts out there which look
totally different. I\'ve seen character models with relatively
high poly counts looking less good compared to a lower poly
count character from a good games designer.
It\'s just a matter of how you handle \'em polys. When I heard
about Nintendo, that it doesn\'t really matter to have the highest
poly count, but how you make em look : I didn\'t really bought that
 ; at first that is. Now I see lotsa NGC games that look awsome.
That\'s because NGC makes those polys so smooth, that the games actually don\'t look like poly made anymore ; that\'s what we want. If for example , in a game there\'s a representation of a wooden bridge, jagged polys will make me feel : \'oh that\'s a poly bridge model with wood textures on it.
The bridge model on NGC wouldn\'t make me think that and take
it as a bridge for granted. That\'s because the poly\'s have \'disappeared\'.
PS2 can make lotsa polys. If devs can push the machine even more in the near future I think PS2 can get more and more games
with 20 milion p\'s p sec. But what \'worries\' I will still be able to see the poly\'s.
I hope XBOX won\'t get a PC\' ish look. But I think XBOX has a strong advantage with it\'s bumpmapping.
Consider : MGS2 characters have mid level poly counts.

Knotter8

Good reading,

The holy grail of the hardcore gamer:
Jaw-dropping graphics & Innovative game play.

Anyone remember a title like that ????

Yah, Shenmue.  Remember, innovation does not always mean "good."

[Living-In-Clip]

Originally posted by Ryu


If it was up to me, we\'d all be living in a world flat and hand-drawn.  That\'s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

I don\'t have a lot to add, that Ryu has not said already. However, that quote is simply the greatest quote and I couldn\'t agree with it more so.
Long live 2D!

Heck yeah, 2D rules.

In responce to what Ryu said about Nintendo and the new Zelda, I agree, Nintendo has guts!  Like I said in my post, "Some developers are following the trend and will be trying to push the polygonal limit of each console with their games, and other developers will take a different root, trying to push the market in a different direction than just, “More polygons! More realism! More! Muahahaha!”

If it wasn\'t for Nintendo completely changing the Zelda series\' graphical style, I think all games would follow the "lots-o-polygons" trend.  This would make the smaller developers not have a chance in this industry because they wouldn\'t have enough man power to make games with a really high polygon count.  But because Nintendo actually risked losing millions of fans and going the opposite direction than that trend, people will actually start looking beyond high polygon count when they decide if they like a game\'s graphics or not.

IMO, what Nintendo did with Zelda is one of the most innovative things that has ever been done in a video game.  You might be saying, "Cel Shading has been done before!  Nintendo is not innovative at all!"  Sure, cel shading has been done before, but it has never impacted this big of a group of people at once.  First the Nintendo fans and the Zelda lovers will change how they judge good graphics, then people who are wondering what all the excitement is about will try out Zelda 128 and change their standards.  I honestly think Nintendo has saved the game industry in the long run by making it possible for even the small companies to be successful -- which will not only allow new ideas to enter the game industry from the smaller companies, but will keep the pressure on the big companies to make new games with original ideas.