Does photo-realism really matter?

Sure, graphics matter to an extent, but at what cost? Introversion's (Darwinia, Defcon) Mark Morris argues that developers' pursuit of photo-realism is a dead-end for the industry.

So far, with visually abstract games like Uplink, Darwinia and Defcon: Everybody Dies, Introversion has taken an obvious stance on the graphics vs. gameplay debate. Company director Morris says that Introversion is likely never to create a photo-realistic title, and his reasoning is simple: "Everybody's doing it, it's expensive and, most importantly, photo-realism doesn't matter."

But really, would any reasonable person argue that graphics (particularly photo-realistic graphics) are more important than the gameplay factor? Probably not, but Morris says that the games that are released nowadays indicate otherwise.

"What I think happens too often is that [developers] sort of go, 'We're going to show you the best graphics you've ever seen and then we might pack a bit of gameplay or a little bit of entertaining fun on at the end," he says. "I think that's a very bad thing, a very bad thing to do, and I think we're seeing a lot of companies doing it."

[fury]

Yes, it does.

[heihoosilver]

if not why made new and more powerfull/expensive machines?
We only needed a saturn or Ps1 if Photo-realism doesn´t matter.

[THAMMER1]

Yes it dose. Just look at R: FOM and GOW. Both games play great and have great graphics. Crack down has awesome graphics and Game play that is on par with the best Mario games out. And Halo is Just WOW. And Madden 2007 is pretty too. So this guy is lame.

The best games have awesome game play and he probably sucks at video games in the 1st place. I tired of the tools that try to make it seem like good graphics are a bad thing. That is why I buy so many games. I want to see the best graphics and get pulled into a game by its realistic effects.

[TheGoodMART]

yes, they do

[Bullseye]

I'm tempted to instantly agree with the guys above and say yes,photo -realism matters.But i would just like to qualify that a bit more,before i pledge alliegance to the almighty graphics gods. afterall, we have been playing games for decades now and the first game characters consisted of not much more than stick figures.I don't think we enjoyed those games any less than we enjoy the modern, graphic intensive games we play today.So,it may be its what we have become accustomed to rather than whats actually needed from an entertainment point of view.I sometimes wonder if it isn't the industry that pushes the graphics, because of a lack of inventiveness and originality in the gameplay department.See,i don't recall us arguing over the graphics quality in Mario, or the fact that street fighter wasn't hi-res, no, we where to busy enjoying wonderfully entertaining games.Photo-realism in games is inevitable,whether its essential is, i think, debatable.

[THAMMER1]

You do not need to have great graphics for a great game. But it dose help. Street fighter is fun because of the awesome game play and what it takes to master the controls. You will allways forgive the graphics because they nailed the game play so tight.

[0ldb0y]

I certainly agree with your thoughts about the industry pushing for more photo-realism over gameplay, but at the same time I attribute much of the OVER emphasis on consumers demanding it when they shouldn't be.

You can have a great game that has non-photo realistic visuals and great play value (i.e. New Super Mario Bros for the DS), but great graphics and poor gameplay will NOT amount to a great game. Take Eragon, for example, which actually had poor graphics and gameplay. Even if it had the best photo-realistic visuals, to the point where it looked like you were controlling real life people, it wouldn't have helped the gaming experience.

As Morris explained, visuals had a great impact when they grew in complexity from blocky 2D sprites into 3D models, and I'll agree that graphics are the first draw for any game as it appeals to most people's dominant sense of sight. Personally, I feel that it gets to a point where photo-realism can actually take away from a game, regardless of gameplay.

For another example, consider Gears of War. Both visuals and gameplay are astounding, but Marcus and Delta squad character models are pretty stretched in terms of realism to actual human beings. Real people are not proportioned like that (except maybe body builders, in which case they wouldn't even be able to move as soldiers need to). Had they been able to perfectly replicate human character models, I doubt I would have liked it as much. It was the art direction that drew me in rather than its similarity to real life.

In some instances, photo realism does play a vital role, i.e. racing simulators where you want the car models to be crisp and accurate to real life. But making it a priority in all games is simply a mistake.

In the end, the article is making the point that you have to balance between visuals and gameplay, but you'll usually have them work in opposite directions. Yes, photo-realism matters, but gameplay trumps all.

[Jakens]

If one-hundred games came out and they all had awesome graphics then I can bet that many of those games have great game play as well. I love graphics, I crave them. What sane company would put 10 million into graphics without thinking about the game play aspect. I say very few.

[Bullseye]

Yes. i see your point and you would thing that was obvious logic,wouldn't you? However, as a gamer i'm sure you must have been suckered numerous times,as we all have,by trailers and demos with fantastic graphic promise.Only to then find out, its great to look at, but shyte to play.This is the point myself and Thammer1 appear to agree on.Do you remember Dragons lair, anyone?

[BoneMagnus]

Recently I've been playing some last-gen games - Mercenaries for example on my XBOX, and it is great. But later that same evening, I put in Gears for some LIVE action, and the difference and level immersion is breath-taking.

In Oblivion, I frequently walk to a quest location just to admire the scenery and "be" in that world.

So while a great game does not require graphics approaching photo-realism to be visually appealing (FFXII and Zelda:TP are two great examples of beautiful games that create a vibrant fun world - and a great story also), those games that are top-notch graphically (with the story and gameplay) will attract the most attention and be the most effective at drawing in the audience.

I think this is especially true for creating mood. Heck, some of the dark dungeons in Oblivion creep me out (especially when a headless zombie is after you). - Can't wait for Bioshock!

[Siesser]

I agree that nice graphics make a game more fun to experience, but I'm rarely sitting at the screen THINKING about the graphics. When playing games like Okami or SotC or Beyond Good and Evil, I might say wow every now andf then, but for the most part, I never really think about it. God Hand (an awesome game) has very dated looking graphics despite coming out last year, and I don't feel I'm enjoying the game any less. Rez has extremely simplified gaphics, but the gameplay and audio more than make up for it.

It's all about balance. You can have straight eye-candy like The Bouncer, which fails in its execution, or you can have great execution, but dated graphics. To this day, I still play the original Driver's "Take a Ride" mode regularly, because it's just that much fun to get the cops chasing you all over downtown San Francisco. Do the graphics suck? Yeah. But I have more fun doing that than I do playing half of the "prettier" games that came after.

[ZeroAlarm]

I agree with him at the end (why did only state it in the end though??) that immersion is very important. Photo realism is a way of immersing the player, but it isn't the only solution.

I was playing Half-Life 2 Episode One for the first time the other day, a game which doesn't have the most up-to-date and certainly not photo-realistic graphics. The graphics did not capture me in the way that say, the up-coming Band of Brothers may. What did was the emotion which was exhibited from Alex. When you're first grabbed in joy by Alex after being rescued from the rubble, you can almost feel the emotion of the moment. That is for two reasons: Good (but they aren't quite photo-realistic) graphics which enable you to believe that this woman is real, or close enough; but more importantly the facial expressions that she makes and her body language, of course with a well-acted out dialogue.

Photo-realism could make that a lot more believable, but at the same time I think it would restrict animators to having to make realistic animations which would end up looking a bit flat, and taking the life out of the character. Exaggeration is a beautiful part of animation and can actually make things seem hyper-real. So perhaps what is needed is not an active pursuit of perfect realism, but character. I feel that is what draws me into a game. I can look at graphics and go "oo that's nice" and get drawn in by the realism for a while, but if the character isn't there, then it won't last.

[Siesser]

Have you ever played Indigo Prophecy, by chance? It is the best example I have ever come across of immersing a character into the story, to the point that you don't think along the lines of "what do I want him to do," but rather "what do I want to do." All of the attention to voice-acting and animation really pay off in that game.

[PS360PCROCKS]

Photo-realism in games...hmm...I mean as bullseye said it's enevitable but not necessarily essential to gaming. I think everyone likes to see pretty graphics it pulls you into the game and immerses you in a world that's not your own, it's an escape. I mean what he says about pretty graphics and no content I think is wrong, unless your name is EA. With more powerful machines it's not just graphics, it's physics, explosions, AI, everything. Look at games like Stranglehold, the things you do in that game would NEVER be able to be done that nice before these consoles...With graphics comes gameplay, with power comes innovation because it pushes the threshold of what people can do in a game...I am more excited about gaming now than I have ever been before simply because I love reading about the innovative things they're doing, which yes includes graphics.

[psycho goldfish]

I think I would way rather see great gameplay than amazing graphics in a game. more expansive levels/worlds, greater difference between levels/worlds, more interaction with in game characters, better AI... all would be for more enjoyable than a game with the most amazing graphics that I can probably beat in a day...

[HaKeRsCanRotINHEL]

thats why the Atari 2600 is still so popular today.

Is this guy trying to convince us or himself?

The good developers can deliver both in spades! PWNED :)

[guitboy85]

Of course they matter. I love a game with an artful presentation like Killer 7 or Fear Effect, but would you want all games to look like glorified cartoons? Of course not. The ones that call for a more natural presentation should have THE most realistic graphics possible so as not to diminish the immersion.

Graphics will never kill games. The most beautiful game ever made would not sell if it weren't a good game. People with always go for the complete package or the great game with lesser graphics. The Game of the Year awards from the past two years went to absolutely amazing, groundbreaking games that were also two of the greatest graphical achievments to date. Photorealistic graphics certainly did not hurt these games, nor will they hurt the industry; rather, they have set the benchmark for incredible games that look incredibly real.

I agree with many of the other comments and would like to add, if graphics didn't matter, we wouldn't need new systems. Graphics are not the be-all, end-all of games, but it is below primitivism to shun growth.

[SIX]

Good graphics are important. Photo realism is a different story. I've always prefered the look of say, a game like metal gear ( Which is more stylized) over something that was more (photo realistic) like splinter cell. I think a more suitable title would be do better graphics matter. My answer to that would be yes.

[anthonsh]

Graphics matter in two ways:

1) Marketing -- There are a lot of people who rent/buy games simply by looking at the back of the box.

2) Gameplay -- Lets face it, realistic graphics enable realistic gameplay. Are photo realistic graphics a must? No, but if you make games with text only, good luck making an effective 3d platformer.

When push comes to shove: Games are making graphics BETTER than movies, and that is VERY unnecessary. Im sorry ps3 and xbox360 fans, yes, it is neat. Yes, it adds to the experience. No, there is no time when you "NEED" it in order to create a new game experience. When games became 3d, that was a must. Photo-realism just isnt.

[heihoosilver]

i think gameplay is one of the most importante things in a game, but i really like great graphics. When im play Gears of War the gameplay is gorgeous but several times i stop a while and say to myself " damn this building seems like a real one, this seems like real life," and thats is awesome. I have others games that graphically aren´t so good but have an good gameplay and i have a lot of fun too, but for me photo-realism is the next step and i really lock forward to it.