Bethesda's Peter Hines says good graphics are an integral part of creating immersion as well as a valuable marketing tool.
Speaking on the latest OXM podcast, the publisher's VP of marketing said: "There's a lot of people who say graphics don't matter. To them I usually say 'you're lying'.
According to Hines, quality visuals play a key role in creating "a sense of immersion", and with the upcoming Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, the company's "looking for the best sense of immersion you can get".
Last month, Bethesda launched a Skyrim trailer showing off the first in-game footage.
Comments
65 comments so far...
g_marrs on 16 Mar '11 said:
Indeed, I certainly bought Pokemon White for the uber-realsitic and immersive graphics.
fps_d0minat0r on 16 Mar '11 said:
try telling that to "Neil Tendo"
MerseyMal on 16 Mar '11 said:
Well that's a vote for getting the PC version then
lordirongut on 16 Mar '11 said:
Graphics don't matter. That's why Retro Gaming is so appealing.
gmcb007 on 16 Mar '11 said:
Well you know what really matters Bethesda? Releasing a game not riddled with bugs!
MrPirtniw on 16 Mar '11 said:
Sort of- but then a game can have lovely looking graphics and have the most uninspired art direction which puts me off. The ability to throw around a billion polygons per second is pointless if all there is on screen is an assortment of greys and browns.
pRM8 on 16 Mar '11 said:
I agree to an extent but it takes more than just awesome graphics to fully immerse me in a game.
Pretty visuals minus good gameplay to back it up is also a massive immersion breaker, it goes both ways.
milky_joe on 16 Mar '11 said:
I can think of dozens of examples of older games being superior to their modern counterparts despite those nice and shiny new graphics engines, so... No.
unacomn on 16 Mar '11 said:
I would very much like to play something good that looks like crap, instead of something photo-realistic that plays like crap.
That's mostly why I prefer to weed trough Daggerfall's ton of bugs, than face Oblivion's interface.
fps_d0minat0r on 16 Mar '11 said:
only a dozen? i can think of hundereds of new games being superior to their ancient counterparts so... Yes.
Cogglesz on 16 Mar '11 said:
Graphics do matter, but in a certain way, there are NES games that look fantastic however there are ones that look completely s**t with bad colours and pixel artist work, the same applies here with the latest games, it doesn't need to look super realistic but as long as its a nice thing to look at and isn't ugly then the graphics are fine, graphics matter to me, but only in this sense, if graphics in a certain game are so badly presented that it makes the game a pain to play then yes of course i care about graphics, its not about the power, its what you do with it.
However i'd like to add that i do appreciate great graphics in a game, when you play a next gen console for the first time you can't help but feel a bit like a graphics whore.
Sleepaphobic on 16 Mar '11 said:
Yes
freds1 on 16 Mar '11 said:
Well, good graphics are nice no doubt, but gameplay and longevity is muuuuch more important to me. If something that has both also happens to have good graphics, then it's a boon. Sorry TODD.
Vantigard2S on 16 Mar '11 said:
I wouldn't necessarily say that graphics don't matter, but they aren't exactly important. You can make a great game that has bad graphics, but it will still be a great game. The most common example being Minecraft. I've played that game for a long time and not once have I said "Wow, these graphics are pretty terrible". Why, because it wasn't important to me and it didn't matter.
Sure, graphics do make some games better, visually. I mean Skyrim looks incredible, but I would still play it even with Morrowind graphics. Gameplay is far more important to me and many others than graphics are.
a3HeadedMonkey on 16 Mar '11 said:
...or you own a Wii. Or both.
EthanWoods on 16 Mar '11 said:
And he's absolutely right.
Note he said "good" graphics, not "realistic".
newsinthefield on 16 Mar '11 said:
I can honestly say that graphics don't matter to me. If graphics mattered to the majority of gamers, nobody would play Oblivion or Fallout 3.
Fr33Kye on 16 Mar '11 said:
He's right, i'm sick of people saying graphics dont matter, its usually used as an argument in nintendo's favor. How a game looks is very important, no one would argue that its more important than gameplay but its idiotic to say they dont matter.
Very_Silver_Ownz on 16 Mar '11 said:
He has a point
MightyJordan on 16 Mar '11 said:
That should be directed more to Lionhead. I've gone through every Bethesda game since Oblivion without experiencing any major bugs. Fable II, on the other hand, I was forced to start the game all over again about 3/4 of the way through it.
almanac2015 on 16 Mar '11 said:
Graphics matter...to an extent. I'd take better gameplay over worse graphics any day.
However, Bethesda do make the type of games that are made better by graphics IMO.
hitmanfan on 16 Mar '11 said:
It's not that I don't care at all about graphics, if they the game looks great then obviously that's a good thing. But I would much rather play a game with crap graphics but great gameplay rather than the other way around.
dragontorc on 16 Mar '11 said:
Utter tosh....
I played the original Oblivion on the 360. 128hrs in I was stuck in a bug, unable to get out of a catacomb. I reloaded the game from an earlier load, visited the catacomb again and the same thing happened. Unfortunately this catacomb was required to be visited to complete the main story.
I contacted Bethesda and they admitted their was no patch. They asked me to start the game again.....
A patch was eventually released but it only impacted a brand new game, and didn't patch existing players games.
I WONT BE INTERESTED IN OBLIVION2.....
Not until they have released at least 10 patches....
theblkwhsp on 16 Mar '11 said:
Exactly the same thing happened to me! Was it by any chance the mission where you had to clear some ruins from bad guys first then go underground to kill someone for an item they had only to come to the surface and be stuck in the doorway? I had to start again too and learnt of the patch weeks later. Great if you play offline like some do...
The Bossman on 16 Mar '11 said:
Graphics do matter but they don't make a great game, AT ALL. The Fallout games look terrible but are great fun for fans of that genre. Just as well they have a new engine, no reason why they can't release a new Fallout game every 3 or 4 years with the new tech. Or less hopefully but don't want it turning into a yearly series.
Mogs on 16 Mar '11 said:
It's very important for marketing, yes.
It's absolutely not essential for immersion. The fact that I used to get immersed in games that now look completely s**t & never had any chance of realistically representing the environments they were trying to create proves this conclusively.
I don't think, from a gamers perspective, we're ever going to complain about nice graphics and it can help with immersion, but vital/essential? No.
gameperv on 16 Mar '11 said:
AGIAN INDUSTRY LIES BASED AROUND WHAT NINTENDO SAID BUT DIDNT SAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IWATA CLEARLY STATED IN HIS WISDOM THIS EXACT LINE """""""""""GRAPHICS ALONE ARE NO LONGER ENOUGH PROVEN SO WITH DS AND Wii"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
but this got turned into graphics dont matter by idiots the kind that subscribe to that kiddy site neogaf are usually the type at no point was this said but dont tell the hardlycores AH-HHHMMM
g_marrs on 16 Mar '11 said:
Hmmm *caps lock off*
Very_Silver_Ownz on 16 Mar '11 said:
graphics are only good to have if the actual game is good. without the good gameplay its just a good looking turd.
razors edge on 16 Mar '11 said:
Tetris.
photoboy on 16 Mar '11 said:
I'd better unplug my NES then now that I know the graphics are dated, clearly the gameplay won't be enough to satisfy me.
To be fair, he's right that if a screenshot doesn't impress me, I'm less likely to be interested in the game, but I think that's because most rubbish games today look like Modern Warfare, and I'm sick of that bandwagon.
BenThomasFoster on 16 Mar '11 said:
I go art direction and style over graphics anyday i.e fable 3 was imo one of the best looking last year. that said i love the technical scope that amazez me in Shogun total war all those detailed people on screen at once with all those trees and grass and shadows and particles simply amazing!
Balladeer on 16 Mar '11 said:
Most of us "hardcore gamers" will use various sources and word of mouth to make our decisions, not the first screenshot. Ironically, it's the "casuals" for whom that first glimpse makes all the difference - the casuals who all bought Nintendo's graphically inferior console, remember?
He's right in that graphics matter, but only up to a point. Where that point is will vary from person to person. But graphics shouldn't be the main focus for any game that doesn't revolve around them.
Ben: Agreed.
A3RO_DYNAMIK on 16 Mar '11 said:
Definitely helps, depends on the type of game.
Retro games appeal because they bring back good memories in my opinion, and we probably bought them then because they had good graphics in their time.
jtthegame on 16 Mar '11 said:
graphics don't matter. its no good having a game with brilliant graphics if the gameplay is a load of rubbish. also if graphics mattered i would not be able to play things like pac man championship edition dx or anything retro i play. bethesda is talking crap.
lordirongut on 16 Mar '11 said:
That's not entirely true. I play a lot of retro games precisely because I could never play them originally - for example, since my first console was the PS1, I find myself quite often going to SNES games. I also play a lot of old Japanese games which only years later got unofficial translations - for example Bahamut Lagoon. In these, it's the story, characters and gameplay that count, not the graphics. Case in point - Tactics Ogre: Let us Cling Together came out on the PSP only a few weeks ago - it's a port of a SNES game. It has graphics which are over 15 years out of date, yet everyone loves it and it scores highly everywhere.
Domin666 on 16 Mar '11 said:
San andreas bethesda great game average graphics,dont try to over reach most of the games u release are laggy,bug riddled I for one would like a smooth game play compared to nice pretty pictures that show a great game in a frozen state( mind you this then shows your titles off so accuratly froze on me about every hour or so)
griffa94 on 16 Mar '11 said:
funnily enough I put over 200 hours into oblivion since it came out and i only came across two big bugs, first one being the clavicus vile quest when my game jammed everytime I completed it with the do statue in my inventory and the hermaeus mor quest when i killed an argonian with the spell but it never registered on the game no matter what
oh and ofc the money glitch on the vampire quest
rbt2 on 16 Mar '11 said:
Everyone likes looking at pretty things. Take my mrs.....please.
icedmetal57 on 16 Mar '11 said:
Apparently "good graphics" = "realistic, high definition graphics", he said "good" as in it's visually pleasing to look at. The realistic quality has nothing to do with it. Tetris, for example, has some good graphics, as in it's graphics are visually appealing. Yes graphical quality doesn't entirely matter, but it does to some degree, and when they're terrible it can be off-putting. I don't think the majority of the posters here realize that. Though one person also mentioned the same thing as I did, but didn't elaborate enough I guess.
Graphics have a lot to do with immersion, imagine playing a game like one of the Fallout games where it did not look like it was a post-apocalyptic wasteland but instead was all brightly colored and looked like you were in Candyland. It definitely wouldn't play the same, nor feel like you were in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
richard99 on 16 Mar '11 said:
If a game has great graphics then it is a major plus point for the game, it does make it more immersive and it is eye catching.
Having said that graphics aren't the be all and end all to me, gameplay, story, art style (which I think is separate and a lot more timeless), freedom and depth all matter more and go much further towards making a game great. If a game gets those things right then I don't mind if graphics aren't another strong point and I'll still happily play old favourites with dated graphics (Oblivion and Morrowind included).
razors edge on 16 Mar '11 said:
It is all in the eye of the beholder.
Paranoimia on 16 Mar '11 said:
Yes, good graphics do help immersion, Bethesda. But you know what helps even more? When a game isn't so riddled with bugs that graphics are missing; when character's heads don't spin 360 degrees vertically on their necks; and the DLC doesn't cause the engine to grind along at 30spf (yes, that's right, spf ... 30 seconds per frame) and crash every ten minutes.
Talk to us about games when you've learned how to code properly.
SilverLightning on 16 Mar '11 said:
Graphics do matter.
It's console power that doesn't matter, it's what you do with said power that matters. I'd call Chrono Trigger's graphics great because I love what they did with the sprites.
Dragovian on 16 Mar '11 said:
Graphics have always mattered. In fact, this is the first generation I've heard a significant amount of people dispute that, which I put down to the Wii. Whilst it does have good games with good graphics, there's no getting away from the fact it's the first successful console that has the graphical ability of the previous generation.
At least it is quite "good" at 3D graphics though, in the same way the Xbox and PS2 were. As much as I love my DSi XL (much prefer it to the Wii), I've seen more bad graphics on the DS in general than on any other machine. Most games that used polygons were so bad and low-res I honestly had to strain to see them. Etrian Odyssey had stunning 2D art, but the 3D trees genuinely detracted from the game.
Sprites are brilliant. Sometimes I feel the DS would have been better if it did not have the polygon function, as it could calculate so few. I don't know if you've seen Shantae: Risky's Revenge, but that is absolutely beautiful. Again, though, the DSi allows it to utilise much better graphics than a NES game, so the point still stands that graphics matter.
Imaduck on 17 Mar '11 said:
It all matters every single criteria. Some games succeed even with a crap story or visuals because something else is so good, it outweighs the problem for many. Imagine how good it'd be if ALL aspects were that good though? That'll gnaw at you. So yeah don't slack anywhere developers, do you best all round
The_KFD_Case on 17 Mar '11 said:
Agreed. Just as with women, looks matter to me...but the looks alone won't keep me around.
solamon77 on 17 Mar '11 said:
I agree with what he's saying but that doesn't mean that ever game needs to have boundary pushing graphics. I think they matter in more in an artistic sense than a technical sense. Don't get me wrong, I love amazing graphics as much as the next guy, but art is more important than graphical power. Otherwise you'll end up with the proverbial polished turd.
plightstar on 17 Mar '11 said:
Graphics do matter, but its all context as shown with Minecraft the graphics suit the gameplay so it has good graphics. Same for other games, you wouldn't want say Tetris to have 4xAA and tesslation with DX11 support and HD textures and HDR lighting with advanced shading, it wouldn't suit the game.
G00N3R on 17 Mar '11 said:
I don't say graphics "don't matter", I just say that gameplay is more important. For me, the graphics need to be good enough so that I can understand what I'm doing. But the gameplay must be fun. A perfectly rendered piece of s*** is still a piece of s***. Good example - I'd take Doom 1 with no enhancements over COD any day. Heck, Killing Floor is not exactly the gaming equivalent of Scarlett Johannsen, but its still my current online FPS of choice because its just so much fun.
RandyChimp on 17 Mar '11 said:
I agree with Bethesda, good graphics create an immersive atmosphere, bad graphics make you aware that you're playing a game with s**tty graphics, which kills the experience.
People who say graphics don't matter come across as wii owners who can't accept that their console has last-gen graphics or people who are too stubborn to move on from Gameboy colour.
CryogenicDead on 17 Mar '11 said:
Everyone who just tore into Bethesda I think you jumped the gun. Look at it this way he just stated that graphics improve immersion, which is true in this age. Not once did he say gameplay didn't matter or even hint at it.
Look at the games which are popular at the moment Call Of Duty, Assassins Creed and Fifa, not one of them has "bad" graphics. In fact they all have stunning graphics.
Now what gets me angry is when someone states that whoever likes haveing good graphics isn't a "proper" gamer or they believe that they are above the person who likes good graphics, well if you're not bothered about how game looks then go out and purchase the Alpha Protocals rather then Fallout.
Also to the dude who stated San Andreas was an avergae looking game - at the tiime the graphics were alot better than previous Rockstar entries.
Personally I like good graphics, that doesn't mean that I purchase non AAA titles, alot of my favourite game are off the Xbox Live Indie market at the moment such as Gerbil Physics and Shoot 1up. However retro gaming is good and fun and shouldn't be forgotten or boxed away but its called Retro for a reason. There is no need to berate people or get into these kinds of arguments when there's something for everyone to like. I find it hard to believe that the person who loves retro gaming would want gaming to go back to that time, memories of what has gone are good and worth revisiting but everyone and everything evolves for a reason. Gaming is quickly growing into the most dominate entertainment market out there, if we regressed back to Pong then all that growth wouldn't be worth much.
As for the fact that developers are getting laid off due to the fact that some games just aren't AAA games and its hurting the buissness well we have different types of games and new ideas there is stiil the digital downloads for lower developers and theres always flash for the PC gamers. Yes times are changing but we are benefitting for it, if times didn't change we could still have EA putting no effrot into their games or WWII games every year, we could still have James Pond and Spot Goes To Hollywood. Now we have RPG's which have been westernised there would be no Mass Effect without Kinights Of The Old Republic, there would be no Knights without Star Wars and so on. Whether we like it or not Graphics matter, gameplay matters much more but good graphics can be the difference between a Activision and a Bizzare.
milky_joe on 17 Mar '11 said:
You've missed the point rather spectacularly there. It only takes one older game being superior to its modern counterpart to disprove the notion that graphical capability matters to any great extent. If it was that important then there would be precisely zero games popping into my mind when I think of those great older games (interestingly, for those who think it's an attitude that's come about because of the Wii, most of the games that I thought of straight away would be older Nintendo games going all the way back to the NES being better than their Wii counterpart despite massive improvements in technology).
Furthermore, by pointing out that there are older games that are better despite their graphical inferiority, I'm not suggesting that all older games are better. That would be dumb.
Yellow6 on 17 Mar '11 said:
Was that on Amiga?
g_marrs on 17 Mar '11 said:
And that's why books never worked as a medium. Yeah, novels and poems were immediately abandoned due to the absence of graphics. Could you imagine the chaos if the reverse where true? I mean large repositories of books could exist in nearly every town. People using their imaginations! Thank goodness they were abandoned by the middle ages. Well, I'm off to make sure no sudden English Literature classes have sprung up in any local schools. I mean corrupting our youth.
Balladeer on 17 Mar '11 said:
To be fair, Chimp is talking about good graphics vs. bad graphics, not good graphics vs. no graphics. Maybe his standards are just higher than mine, though, because no Wii game has thrown me out of immersion by virtue of its graphics yet. Or maybe he's just a graphics whore trying to justify his views. Who knows?
Megazell on 17 Mar '11 said:
It's amazing how ignorant some 'professionals' can be. He's got to be joking and/or trying to stir up controversy to promote his products. In the recent years many of the top games have been retro looking games. There have been too many studio houses attention whoring as of late. Must be sign of things to come.
Sammy_bham on 17 Mar '11 said:
its all down to opinion and what each individual prefers.
I love amazing graphics in games, and in certain games for me, its essential.
but then for fun, no brainer 5 minute retro games, of course it isnt essential.
im a huge fan of mass effect 1/2, and in my opinion, it wouldnt have been as atmospheric or as compelling if it had the same graphics as vib-ribbon. Might have been quite fun im sure. lol, but yeah.
great graphics have its uses in certain situations. mw2 and black ops have terrible graphics when compared to some games, but they arnt really required as its fast paced gun-ho gameplay and has never bothered me.
but would some of the set pieces in uncharted 2 have had the same impact if they had the graphics of gta for example? in my opinion, i dont think so.
monkeydude40 on 18 Mar '11 said:
Talking of Fallout and Oblivion....
Is it Just me or does every other male NPC look faintly like he has some Robbie Williams DNA in his Gene Pool?
Tyman2007 on 18 Mar '11 said:
For those who say that gameplay outweighs graphics or graphics don't matter, go play dwarf fortress and tell me that you don't want to shove that game down a wood chipper, tape it together, burn it, then shove it down a dull wood chipper, then feed it through a meat grinder, fry it, eat it, crap it out, then repeat from step 2.
And Dwarf Fortress isn't even a finished game.
Balladeer on 18 Mar '11 said:
Extreme example, but I have a friend who swears by it.
evileyecheese on 20 Mar '11 said:
i think i just said this elsewhere but...
its the persuit of graphical excelence which is killing this industry
not that anyone cares
ffcoppolla on 20 Mar '11 said:
I'd say the stagnation of ideas is a bigger threat than the pursuit of graphical excellence. The latter is just an evolutionary step that leaps forward every so often.
evileyecheese on 20 Mar '11 said:
yep your right as well
combined together you get a recipie where by the games industry dicides to consume itself, the problem is the ever incresing budget of games, this is why we see firms taking less risks and producing more of the same, for me its fueld by the ravenous appetite for graphics.
dont get me wrong, i love a grapical show peice as much as the next guy but there has to be room for more innovation, and if a step back in terms of visual horsepower will achieve this then im all for it.
Dayo4000 on 25 Apr '11 said:
Of course graphics matters in this current generation and the ones to come. Yeah, yeah, yeah we all agree that game play matters---but how much has game play really evolved? Graphics on the other hand is evolving and it is essential to the whole package (especially when you pay $60 for it). Graphics and game play must come hand in hand in this current generation. Games such as uncharted, batman arkhum asylum, god of war, all sport great play and graphics. I think he is trying to say we should not settle for one over the other, we deserve both especially in this generation of gaming. Unless of course we all want to live in the past. If a game doesn't have good graphics and or game play, I will not buy it. But again, how good game play is really depends on the individuals opinion.