I don't mind older graphics as long as the game is very good. I can play Everquest on P99 with the older models with no trouble but the camera can get a bit of time for me o get used to as I cannot play the over the shoulder mode any more which was what I originally played the game in. I need a good third person view to be very comfortable and none of the views does it properly and I can only get comfortable after a few hours.
However other aspects like the long meditation and HP regen times can be a bit of a chore these days but graphics are not an issue.
Gotta come down on one side of this discussion or the other, saying "yes and no" is an easy out. You made an argument that yes they do matter, and yes, they do matter. How much is going to be variable to the player, but saying that no, they don't matter is untrue.
It's all about how much they matter, and how a person prioritizes them.
Graphics matter to me, but not at the expense of game mechanics/combat. I would much rather pvp in DAoC than spend 5 minutes fighting in a war on New World...which is a beautiful game, graphically. DAoC gave us open world large scale 3 realm combat, which on my system ran really smooth, with basic graphics. Put 50 vs 50 in an instanced war on new world and i feel like smashing my keyboard. There is a good reason max server pop was set at 2k players....
If a game doesn't have good graphics then chances are i will have no interest in the game, that is not to say that other things do not matter, they absolutely do, but like women, they have to look good to be able to grab my attention in the first place, keeping my attention, well, performance and gameplay etc. are important, but without good graphics, they will probably be overlooked, because if a game doesn't grab my attention in the first place, it does not matter how good the rest is, because it probably isn't, skimp on one, skimp on all.
I'm glad the thumbnail of the article is Retail WoW's ugly graphics. Activision tried to improve the graphics since vanilla and it's true that they now have more polygon count and better texture resolution, but it's also true that the graphics are uglier than Vanilla's. The style has completely changed, before it was cartoony, but in such a way that the low details left a lot to the players' imagination and interpretation.
Now the problem with most new graphics is that everything is "imagined and interpreted" for you so you don't have to think too much and you realize how boring and generic everything is.
There was a charm in old graphics, especially 2D games required more effort for the visuals, now Unity and Unreal Engine are free and every talentless idiot with a few asset packs is putting their trash on Steam. There is this low polygon character asset pack
which I've seen in at least 5 different games, most of them asking for money on Steam. One has to be pretty clueless to buy into something so low effort.
Graphics don't really matter because it's the gameplay and story that matter, but nowadays it seems most new games focus on the graphics and the gameplay is horrible and if you can remove the modern graphics and replace them with something from 1999 that looks like CS 1.6 and leave the gameplay the same, a lot of people will realize how bare-bones those games are. Like Hogwarts Legacy for example - remove the graphics and you have a game with less freedom than a game from 1999.
depends on what I am playing, in MMoRPGs not so much, as I play WoW, LotRO and SWtOR more then any of the others. But in single player games such as madden,RPGs and RTS games I prefer good graphics, but it still comes down to if I enjoy the game or not, I have tried to play plenty of games that had really good graphics but the game play itself didnt meet my criteria of what I consider relaxing and fun
Graphics matter for me as far as creating an identity, a visually coherent flow of action, and style choices that prioritize for longevity.
Graphics actually affects quite a bit in gameplay and subsequent user experience.
Making coherent and visually readable action within games is a big thing often overlooked. Delivering strong visual feedback in combat, cleanly telegraphing important information, controlling the clutter to maintain a focus for the gameplay, etc. There are many graphical choices to make which have a direct hand in our end user experience beyond just how shiny a veneer a title has.
I think people who say it doesn't matter, are deluding themselves. As a species, we're very visually based. Even if you don't acknowledge it on a conscious level, it's there subconsciously. You can force yourself to accept something that isn't appealing to you, but it's there.
Graphics have to be good enough for the "suspension of disbelief". If my character is supposed to be a knight with a sword, a 2-D red square isn't good enough. However, if the object is supposed to be a tank division in a hex-based wargame, then a red square might be enough.
The art style also makes a big difference. Fortnite cartoon figures are good enough, for that game. LoTRO models are good enough for me. I don't require stunning realistic graphics.
Trying to be as realistic as possible is probably an error, because as the hardware gets better, you'd have to continually upgrade the graphics. A slightly cartoony and stylized set of graphics probably has a longer lifespan, since even if the hardware gets better, the cartoon style is still valid and won't have to be redone.
I would say aesthetics is a better word. Aesthetics do matter to me a lot. A lot of people didn't like Dark Soul 2, citing the gameplay and level design, but I loved it, and I think it mainly had to do with the aesthetics.
But maybe aesthetics also encompasses more than graphics style and quality. The music, the animations, tone of dialogue and voice acting, premise, lore, UI... I think these things also matter.
Now, the above example was with Dark Souls 2, which is not an MMO, but I do think the same principle applies to MMOs. On the whole, I think that the right aesthetic will make me want to play an MMORPG even if it has poor gameplay systems. But with poor gameplay systems, I may not feel any need to stick around after having "played through the game" or getting bored/frustrated, which results in failure for an MMO.
To see the power of aesthetics, we can see the example of various Kickstarter MMOs that had no game to speak but had a lot of people buying in.
For me they matter a lot because I'm an explorer and love exploring beautiful worlds, but they have to have more than graphics. It's part of the reason I'm currently not playing any MMORPG and focusing on single player games like Horizon Forbidden West and Cyberpunk 2077. I usually wait 6 months to a year or longer to play these open world games with great stories to allow them to polish their game so I'm not a beta tester at release. I'll do the same with Hogwarts Legacy where I won't touch it for at least 6 months. I've tried games like Wildstar where I've lost interest quick due to the graphics and story and I've played games like Elder Scrolls online where its a bit more realistic looking, but I lose interest in the gameplay because the single player game looks better and plays better. Still waiting, probably forever, for an MMO that can compete with the fun I have in the games I mentioned plus games like Witcher 3, Skyrim, Horizon Zero Dawn, etc.
Graphics matter to me, but not at the expense of game mechanics/combat. I would much rather pvp in DAoC than spend 5 minutes fighting in a war on New World...which is a beautiful game, graphically. DAoC gave us open world large scale 3 realm combat, which on my system ran really smooth, with basic graphics. Put 50 vs 50 in an instanced war on new world and i feel like smashing my keyboard. There is a good reason max server pop was set at 2k players....
welcome to the forums!
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
I'm always suspicious of these types of articles because they smack of anti-tech gamer elitism from the same mindset that glorifies the old stuff they played when they were 13 and bashes all new games for never living up to those glory days' standards.
I'm sure you've run into that crowd in these forums once or twice. I mean. there is one poster in particular here who creates that very point as a new topic almost daily... you know?
The fact is that Graphics and art style both matter a lot given a playable game, to begin with.
There are also consensual standards set just by sheer release volume for any given time period and they're never the extremes that video card vendors push nor the minimalist look shoestring budget studios with no art director try to sell.
In fact, I think the norm is that butt-ugly games are usually indicative of equally uninspired gameplay by hucksters who don't give a shit about either as evidenced by the thousands of shallow asset flips on Steam. It's almost like butt-ugly is an early warning system you can depend on at a glance for equally bad gameplay.
There are exceptions of course since it's possible for a studio to have bad taste in visuals but good taste in game loops but that's unusual IMO.
Ans "indie" is no excuse. There are plenty of examples of indie studios producing very good, artistic looks for their games on a budget.
So yeah, gameplay, graphics, art style, monetization... they all matter a lot, and if you downplay the importance of one of those while heaping praise n the others you're just marketing a product or agenda.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Graphics that shoot for realism never have that "timeless" look. I always feel stylized will beat realistic 8-10 years down the road.
So IMO Borderlands 1 will hold up to time better than Assassin's Creed 2.
But this is a moot point imo. What if you play enough of the game while the graphics hold, before that inflection point? And afterwards, you'll be fuelled by Nostalgia, so ... yeah.
put it this way if you have great graphics & shity to subpar gameplay, story & so on it won't last but if you have game with subpar/ decent graphics with great gameplay, story & so on it lasts for long time till it dies out like all games does in time....
also we have keep in mind can't have it all besides if you have a mmorpg with top noch graphics, gameplay, story & so on which is almost never rarely happens it would cost a buttloads of money to make a game like that & when if it comes out there won't be many people to be able play it cause need top end computer which not many people can afford on top of all their expenses...
I know that MMOs are a special case, but the question stands.
I think it's completely personal preference. I love minecraft and play text based MUDs and don't even care if the game has graphics but I can totally understand people who wouldn't touch something that they thought looked bad.
To me it's all just eye candy. I don't think graphics alone will do anything to help a game if under the hood it's complete trash.
I would say good graphics for sure are important to most people but a lot of people gameplay trumps them every time.
Just think about something like chess. I love chess as well btw.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
A line of distinction and conversation to be had here is the difference between graphics as a technical rendering suite, as an art style, and as a game component.
Most of the time seems people only regard graphics in the context of the rendering suite. What bells and whistles are going into "polish".
But that's very far from all graphics is and does for a game. The art direction of a game defines it's visuals just as much if not more so.
Beyond that, there are impacts to gameplay to consider. From environment design and presentation to how character's are visually presented and interact with the world and each other.
Example from my prior comment being clarity of visuals and combat feedback. Graphics designed poorly just fills a screen with incoherent clutter. Graphics with clear purpose and easy to read at a glance forms helps to read entire scenes and situations way better.
Same with rendering effects for combat, or even how characters and enemies visually react to combat. Be it winding up a heavy attack, channeling an ability, taking damage, etc. The more that can be visually conveyed about what's happening in a fight, the less you have to stare at HUD elements to know what's going on.
A line of distinction and conversation to be had here is the difference between graphics as a technical rendering suite, as an art style, and as a game component.
Most of the time seems people only regard graphics in the context of the rendering suite. What bells and whistles are going into "polish".
But that's very far from all graphics is and does for a game. The art direction of a game defines it's visuals just as much if not more so.
Beyond that, there are impacts to gameplay to consider. From environment design and presentation to how character's are visually presented and interact with the world and each other.
Example from my prior comment being clarity of visuals and combat feedback. Graphics designed poorly just fills a screen with incoherent clutter. Graphics with clear purpose and easy to read at a glance forms helps to read entire scenes and situations way better.
Same with rendering effects for combat, or even how characters and enemies visually react to combat. Be it winding up a heavy attack, channeling an ability, taking damage, etc. The more that can be visually conveyed about what's happening in a fight, the less you have to stare at HUD elements to know what's going on.
This could really be it's own topic.
Even environmental stuff like water ripples, walking through grass/snow/sand, foot prints etc all add to the experience. Weather is another big one.
The quality of the graphics and how they are used really sets apart the good from the bad. Even just combat feedback with ducks, flinches, dodges, weapon contact, visual feedback like getting soaked in blood etc can seriously improve the game.
Also the art style like you mentioned I instantly think of Zelda and Journey.
Animation is a big factor here too. Swinging around a huge warhammer should look heavy and like it has weight to it and when it connects the result should reflect that. Along with using animations to telegraph attacks instead of stupid shapes on the ground.
This is an excellent point.
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Comments
However other aspects like the long meditation and HP regen times can be a bit of a chore these days but graphics are not an issue.
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
It's all about how much they matter, and how a person prioritizes them.
Now the problem with most new graphics is that everything is "imagined and interpreted" for you so you don't have to think too much and you realize how boring and generic everything is.
There was a charm in old graphics, especially 2D games required more effort for the visuals, now Unity and Unreal Engine are free and every talentless idiot with a few asset packs is putting their trash on Steam. There is this low polygon character asset pack
https://www.unrealengine.com/marketplace/en-US/product/polygon-fantasy-characters
which I've seen in at least 5 different games, most of them asking for money on Steam. One has to be pretty clueless to buy into something so low effort.
Graphics don't really matter because it's the gameplay and story that matter, but nowadays it seems most new games focus on the graphics and the gameplay is horrible and if you can remove the modern graphics and replace them with something from 1999 that looks like CS 1.6 and leave the gameplay the same, a lot of people will realize how bare-bones those games are. Like Hogwarts Legacy for example - remove the graphics and you have a game with less freedom than a game from 1999.
Godz of War I call Thee
Graphics actually affects quite a bit in gameplay and subsequent user experience.
Making coherent and visually readable action within games is a big thing often overlooked. Delivering strong visual feedback in combat, cleanly telegraphing important information, controlling the clutter to maintain a focus for the gameplay, etc. There are many graphical choices to make which have a direct hand in our end user experience beyond just how shiny a veneer a title has.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/The art style also makes a big difference. Fortnite cartoon figures are good enough, for that game. LoTRO models are good enough for me. I don't require stunning realistic graphics.
Trying to be as realistic as possible is probably an error, because as the hardware gets better, you'd have to continually upgrade the graphics. A slightly cartoony and stylized set of graphics probably has a longer lifespan, since even if the hardware gets better, the cartoon style is still valid and won't have to be redone.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
But maybe aesthetics also encompasses more than graphics style and quality. The music, the animations, tone of dialogue and voice acting, premise, lore, UI... I think these things also matter.
Now, the above example was with Dark Souls 2, which is not an MMO, but I do think the same principle applies to MMOs. On the whole, I think that the right aesthetic will make me want to play an MMORPG even if it has poor gameplay systems. But with poor gameplay systems, I may not feel any need to stick around after having "played through the game" or getting bored/frustrated, which results in failure for an MMO.
To see the power of aesthetics, we can see the example of various Kickstarter MMOs that had no game to speak but had a lot of people buying in.
I know that MMOs are a special case, but the question stands.
There Is Always Hope!
Proud MMORPG.com member since March 2004! Make PvE GREAT Again!
I'm a MUDder. I play MUDs.
Current: Dragonrealms
So IMO Borderlands 1 will hold up to time better than Assassin's Creed 2.
Ea is like a poo fingered midas ~ShakyMo
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I'm sure you've run into that crowd in these forums once or twice. I mean. there is one poster in particular here who creates that very point as a new topic almost daily... you know?
The fact is that Graphics and art style both matter a lot given a playable game, to begin with.
There are also consensual standards set just by sheer release volume for any given time period and they're never the extremes that video card vendors push nor the minimalist look shoestring budget studios with no art director try to sell.
In fact, I think the norm is that butt-ugly games are usually indicative of equally uninspired gameplay by hucksters who don't give a shit about either as evidenced by the thousands of shallow asset flips on Steam. It's almost like butt-ugly is an early warning system you can depend on at a glance for equally bad gameplay.
There are exceptions of course since it's possible for a studio to have bad taste in visuals but good taste in game loops but that's unusual IMO.
Ans "indie" is no excuse. There are plenty of examples of indie studios producing very good, artistic looks for their games on a budget.
So yeah, gameplay, graphics, art style, monetization... they all matter a lot, and if you downplay the importance of one of those while heaping praise n the others you're just marketing a product or agenda.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Just pointing out a thing.
also we have keep in mind can't have it all besides if you have a mmorpg with top noch graphics, gameplay, story & so on which is almost never rarely happens it would cost a buttloads of money to make a game like that & when if it comes out there won't be many people to be able play it cause need top end computer which not many people can afford on top of all their expenses...
To me it's all just eye candy. I don't think graphics alone will do anything to help a game if under the hood it's complete trash.
I would say good graphics for sure are important to most people but a lot of people gameplay trumps them every time.
Just think about something like chess. I love chess as well btw.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/Most of the time seems people only regard graphics in the context of the rendering suite. What bells and whistles are going into "polish".
But that's very far from all graphics is and does for a game. The art direction of a game defines it's visuals just as much if not more so.
Beyond that, there are impacts to gameplay to consider. From environment design and presentation to how character's are visually presented and interact with the world and each other.
Example from my prior comment being clarity of visuals and combat feedback. Graphics designed poorly just fills a screen with incoherent clutter. Graphics with clear purpose and easy to read at a glance forms helps to read entire scenes and situations way better.
Same with rendering effects for combat, or even how characters and enemies visually react to combat. Be it winding up a heavy attack, channeling an ability, taking damage, etc. The more that can be visually conveyed about what's happening in a fight, the less you have to stare at HUD elements to know what's going on.
Even environmental stuff like water ripples, walking through grass/snow/sand, foot prints etc all add to the experience. Weather is another big one.
The quality of the graphics and how they are used really sets apart the good from the bad. Even just combat feedback with ducks, flinches, dodges, weapon contact, visual feedback like getting soaked in blood etc can seriously improve the game.
Also the art style like you mentioned I instantly think of Zelda and Journey.
Animation is a big factor here too. Swinging around a huge warhammer should look heavy and like it has weight to it and when it connects the result should reflect that. Along with using animations to telegraph attacks instead of stupid shapes on the ground.
This is an excellent point.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/