I guess I agree with the article but not exactly for the reasons that Dana wrote it.

I think that technology is the enemy of good game development.  Graphic whores just happen to be techonphiles.  Actually I think that technology, graphics and innovation are all three enemies of good game development.

I hate high poly FPS style graphics.  I am more drawn toward low poly models with high quality textures.  I also dislike console-Anime style combat with particle effects and other garbage.  I much prefer the original models and Velious textures of EQ to that of EQ2.  EQ2 does have very nice textures for its buildings I will say.

Graphics is a crutch for the children who are designing (and playing in the case of Jon Wood) MMO's today.  It is far easier to use some software to crank out eye popping graphics than it is to create content that has to be crafted by hand.   I don't think that most game designers today have enough varied life experience to create good storylines and game worlds.

I don't know if I fall under his description of graphics whore or not. I can play true classics today, but I will just sit back and mock a game company currently trying to peddle 3-10 year old graphics on me.

The Unreal 3 engine has gone gold. When it hits a PC game, my system is ready to run it. I have played Half Life 2 and think that engine looks good. So, moving forward we need Half Life 2 and Unreal 3 quality engines in games. The minimum I will accept is around the EQ2/Vanguard (not sure about the later, since I haven't played it) level. But honestly, I now expect games to come up to the level of the Unreal 3 engine. Why wouldn't I want something that looks better in every way?!

If you have a great game idea, license a good engine. Nothing kills my immersion faster than a game that looks 3+ years old.

WoW just barely managed to get away with what they did by doing the box of exploding crayons method. Let me just take this time to say: I really, really hate the graphical people they have over at Blizzard these days. WC3 was the ugliest modern RTS I can think of. I loved the cinimatics in Diablo 2, after that everything just started looking odd over there.

EDIT: I just read the post above me, so I thought I'd add this. Graphics need to get better and better, as I've said. But if you turn out a crap game with the Unreal 3 engine, it's still a crap game. As I expect graphics to get better and better I expect the same from gameplay, polish, etc. If somebody tries to release EQ, SWG, Lineage 2 or WoW now that it's been a few years, they should not expect to see me, I don't care if it is wrapped in the Unreal 5 engine! I expect more.

This is the best editorial I've read here by far and I couldn't agree more. While some argue that graphics HAVE to get better and better, I disagree with that completely. No matter how you slice it, better and better graphics will continue to take away from other elements of the game. Not to mention making the the game run slower for the majority of people who don't have the latest computer or upgrades - thereby alienating the userbase. I mean WoW may not be my in my favorites, I think its a great looking game. And believe or not I don't run around that game thinking..."You know this game could look better." Instead I'm playing my character being immersed in the world that blizzard created to be its own....not to look like the real one. If you notice its always the MMOs that aren't the best graphically that last longest. I think people that need great graphics in order to be immersed in the world lack imagination....and so do the developers that make these really great looking games with nothing else going for them.

Great editorial Dana. It clearly expresses something ive felt for a long long time.

I recently purchased BG and IWD compilation in the hopes of enjoying the storylines, but after NWN2's graphics, it was tormenting to revert to 2D pixelated graphics..

With that said, I feel that graphics are an integral component of any game, and as an industry on the whole, we should continue to improve graphically using better technology. It's good that the companies are actually doing this and not stagnating.

The truth is, there is probably a significant correlation between graphics and the sales of a game. Ultimately, money steers the companies actions and development priorities, graphics or not.

Cheers, good editorial.

For me, it would work as following:

 

A- Gameplay enjoyement:  If above 90%, ignore everything else.

B- Feeling: If above 90% and that the gameplay enjoyement was at least 80%, ignore everything else.

C- ...

 

Anyway, you get the picture.  I still play Medieval Total War, despite the fact I have Rome Total War and Medieval 2: Total War.  Graphic-wise, the successors are nicers.  But gameplay-wise, they aren't.  I love Medieval Total War 1, it is BETTER than the sequels and explaining this would take sometimes.  (Take the Jack O'neil clone and put the BET-TER emphasis) 

 

I WOULD play old EQ if they make a raid-free server, and I would be an adamant defender against newer games.  But...I am part of the minority.  This is why I let old EQ alone and focus on new games, anyway, you can believe that I try this raid-free server with every other MMO, it is just that pass a point, you switch to where you may convince folks.  I have been refining my arguments and tries for 3 years now...hehe, slow learner I guess I am.

 

After reading Dana, I think he underestimate his gameplay side and overestimate in shame his graphic-whore side.  I wouldn't play Civilisation 1, but it isn't because of the graphics...it is because CiV IV is a LOT better, gameplay-wise.  See, CiV IV-Warlord is better, on every single aspect, and as well in an overall view (design view).  The graphics doesn't mean much.  I play Joust regularly!  Wooohooo!  I also would play Romance of the 3 Kingdoms II or Celtic Legends or Steel Empire if I could find a nice emulator that reproduce the initial game, as it was, on the Amiga500...point is, the emulators have been inferior, and downgrading is pretty hard.  Now, is Civ 1 or 4 getting the best ranking in time, I guess it should be the first, due to the original breakdown, however, the fourth is definitely superior, even if it is a successor and wouldn't overank the first.  Just like Throne of Bhaal is better than BG, yet never overrank it.

 

I find it hard to play again some older games, but again, it isn't the graphics that make it hard, it is the gameplay.  See, let's take Baldur's gate, the second best game in history IMO.  I couldn't play it anymore...and this is kinda a shame.  Is it because of the graphics?  Nah, I overplay it and new games are usually better on soo many points it is hard to go back.  (it is still the second best game of all time, due to it time of release, what games where present and available back then, it will be pretty hard to beat that, but it isn't impossible...just extremely unlikely)

 

Despite all it claims on Gameplay, Nintendo didn't convince me yet with it Wii, it doesn't seem that worthy, gameplay-wise.  Nintendo has very little strategy and RPG titles to line up, to convince me, gameplay-wise.  Considering that I am a GBT fan, their failure is their own, not the "superior" graphics of the PS3/Xbox360.  Oblivion has neat and awesome gameplay, which I didn't see in any Nintendo product...Advance Wars is their only product I enjoy so far and it is on the DS, going to try AoE on the DS soon as well.  I just wait to see something that catch my interest, but party-wise, when I am drunk, it is going to be Joust and nothing else, so no point in trying to get me to try other party games, and not Joust 2 but, Joust for the win!    Nintendo is lining up tons of games that lack gameplay IMO...I mean, that are action-driven!    Yet, just like Vanguard put the emphasis on the word freedom, they put emphasis on what seems to be lacking the most in their game, which is what they call gameplay.  For some reasons, sellers are often focusins on weak points of products, like DDO focusing on REAL D&D...silly devs.  They underline something that they think is a strongpoint, while in fact, it is a weakpoint.  Gameplays in action games?  Well, sound kinda limited IMO.  You should have varying style and games, yet, they always line the same few gameplays, overdone, over and over and over again.

 

Graphics won't make your players subscribing 2 months+, only gameplay can.

My take on this topic is simple ... it's 2006, awesome graphics should just be a given. I want MORE & MORE immersion. Hell, just jack my brain in somewhere...

Well I've only logged twenty something hours on FFXII since I bought it and I probably have topped 80 hours in Space Empires 4 and 5 in the last two weeks...go figure.

I think I'm in the majority here when I say that I will always want a better graphical experience when possible, but I'm willing to concede the ability to produce such graphics sometimes falls below the bleeding edge of what is possible. A game does not have to blow me away graphically for me to respect it. Anything I would rate a 7 or higher in all meaningful categories (story/plot, graphics, sound, gameplay, replayability, etc.) has my respect, shown in the dollars I spend to purchase it, and the reviews I might write for it. A seven, graphically speaking, varies depending on the platform, of course, but for PC-based MMOGs, there's really only one criterion for me: Do the graphics detract from my immersion?

UO is an excellent example. I tried to enjoy that game, and simply could not. It was so graphically archaic when I tried it, I just could not begin to care about how the game itself actually played. The same was true of Asheron's Call, to a lesser degree. I admit it, I LOVE a pretty game, and I've probably missed some great MMOG experiences because they weren't attractive enough, but that being said, I don't want companies to cater to my ideas of what is graphically "good enough." Instead, make a finished product. Make a game that looks, plays, and feels exactly like you envision, and let me decide if your vision is enjoyable. I believe that any game that is developed and tested thoroughly, and is pronounced "finished" by developers and at least 75% of your beta players is worth putting on the market, and if it's not the prettiest game out there, so be it.

Best of luck to all developers in bringing more amazing experiences to the MMO genre.

I see a lot is written on this.

Well , let me give you my point of view - as a professional graphic artist and magister of arts

The thing people dont realise , there is a diference between

simple(or old) graphic and bad graphic

example no1: Super Mario

This game has old 2d sprite graphic. But nobody can say it has bad graphic. It is simply enjoyable.
So why is that super mario games can claim they have good looking graphic even today.

The answer is simple - They are ICONIC

There are countles theories written on this subject. Like "uncanny valley" and many others.
The result is simple , as closer something resembles the "real" object , the more obvious are its faults.

The further away something is from "real" the more our brain is compensating - and thus creating perfect image
half real half imaginary...thus "Iconic"

example no2:

  <- is this a face ?

Just circle , 2 dots and a line...

So finnaly we come to a match made in heaven

WoW vs Everquest2

WoW uses high iconisation - deliberately sparking our imagination , making our brain to compensate
-
EQ2 goes for hyper realistic look - undeliberately producing "uncanny valley" effect , making us judge it graphics

In few years EQ2 will have highly dated graphic , while WoW graphic will be as fresh as ever - because tey are iconic and not dependant on rendering but on "style"

 

So in closing word.

Good or bad graphic is not function of age , or rendering engine or new directX

It is in hands of clever design and good eye for art (and knowledge of human visual mind)

I have to disagree with the statement made that "Graphics whores are killing innovation in gaming." More then likely it is a developer not able to put all aspects of a game together, rather then just the graphics. If a developer is thinking they can attract people with eye candy only, then they probably are in the wrong industry. Graphics are apart of the game, no denying that, but they are also not the end all be all of a game either.

To me a game can be viewed as a orchestra with string(Game play), brass(Content), woodwind(Skill system), percussion(Graphics) and the Conductor(Developer) keeping them all in sync. Sure a orchestra could play with a lousy section or even missing a section, but the music would not be as pleasant as if it contained all parts. It could also be said that it could be played with one or two sub-par sections and one superb section, the music still wouldn't sound as sweet as if they all were all highly exceptional and in sync.

So having that example I would say if the Conductor can not get all his sections synced together and working together, or if one part is off key while the others are playing great, the music itself would be effected as a whole. While some might not mind that it sounds a bit flat or off key, most will probably say this just doesn't work, or is just plain awful. The same could be said about graphics in a game,for some it might be acceptable to play with stick figure characters from a overhead view but everything else is great, while for most will see that as not being innovative, or just be plain unplayable.

So back to the original editorial, while graphics might not be the top of everyone's list, they are apart of a whole. With the amount of money and time being invested into a game these day, and the amount of income they can produce if they are successful, it baffles me to no end how so many developers go so wrong with totally missing out on one section in favor of another, not only graphic wise. If you can manage to be innovative in all aspects of a game and put it in sync, you would be hard pressed to produce a dud. But all too often Producers/Developers of a game feel they have to get a game out as fast as possible to join the MMO bandwagon before it gets away, if that means just make some eye candy so be it. So I disagree that it is graphic whores fault innovation is not taking place, but more on the greed of a developer to cash in with as little time and investment involved. It just seems like graphics are easier to improve upon then having to come up with a storyline, raids, quests, skill systems, character creation, ect...

Since a lot of people like to use WoW as the example and probably the most familiar, here it goes. Blizzard took the time to piece all parts of a game together and put it in a nice sync where no part is sub-par, while nothing in wow is really innovative, the fact that they where able to put a lot of pieces from a bunch of different mmos best parts into one that worked, well I have to give them that it worked and in itself is innovative. So it is less about the Graphic Whores, being games like WoW are not just eye candy as WoW's graphics are not all that great. It's the part of putting together many great aspects of other MMO's which makes it a innovation.

I realized I was a graphics whore just recently. Dark and Light opened my eyes to my true inner being. I always claimed innovation and ideas, gameplay, features and content were more important, with graphics and sound bringing up the rear.....but i was wrong, I read everything about Dark and Light, and really thought it had a lot to offer, and then I paid 50 doallars for it.

I was burned, I forced myself to play it for two days, and then I never signed on agian. It made me take a look at what matters in a game, and I realized that it is immersion. A game must have style, something that makes me forget my little computer room, an d graphics have to hold my attention long enough to get to the innovative game play.

I finally laid Star Craft to rest recently also, Dawn of War series was good enough for me to no longer play the rts giant. I didnt care that the graphics on a '93 game were very outdated, they still had style, of course until DOW came along, now I expect that level for my rts games.

So I guess i'm saying I agree...I was a closet Graphics whore who has finally come out.

Graphics get me looking at a game. I normally read an article on a game based on some screenshot that is included. I might go and buy a game based on graphics but long term playability such as a MMORPG needs more. Games like EQII got my initial $50 but I eventually got bored and quit paying the monthly fee. A game can look great but something more is needed to keep players following that dangling carrot of an MMORPG, at least from my opinion.

Another scary thing is that if MMORPG.com  feature a game lacking in graphical pizzaz then normally it means that the game is being done by a small company, or that the company is behind on production allowing the graphics to become dated, or that quite possibly the gameplay will be as boring as the graphics. I've played good looking games and ugly games that stunk on the game-play/fun-factor side so it is always a coin toss but I tend not to even look at a Shadowbane or a Dark and Light anymore. It's very rare that a MMORPG is going to release with 1998 graphics but some stellar innovative incredible gameplay design in todays market.  Now if only I could say on the other side of the coin that an impressive graphic engine meant I was going to see stellar gameplay then it would all be so easy.

I think the author's mistake is to assume that high-end graphics and innovative gameplay are at odds with one another. If a game fails to deliver either one it's not likely to get my money.

I don't believe it's a focus on graphics that's hampering the evolution of MMOs, but the fear of failure. Developers and publishers stick to an existing mold because there's a precedent for its success. They know people will line up to play the next sword and sorcery level grind, but a wild new idea is a big risk. Instead of spending their development dollars on unique, innovative gameplay, they try to differentiate themselves from one another with a few minor details (offline bazaar! yay!) and prettier graphics. Others rely on popular licenses to bring in customers, but most of those still start with the tried and true MMO model first, trying to shoehorn in the licensed property after the fact. Star Wars Galaxies and Lord of the Rings Online are two huge properties that could offer very unique gameplay experiences that truly reflect their respective worlds, but both have relagated themselves to the standard class-based level grind. It's disappointing.

I disagree with the article. There's no excuse for a new game not to have good graphics.
If they don't, it shows they have low  production values, a small budget, or both and it doesn't exactly
fill me with confidence in the rest of the game.

Since graphics are what you are looking at all the time when playing the game, it is not the place for devs to skimp.

If you want to emphasis excuses and justifications for some low budget, crappy art design game, go ahead.
Personally I'd rather play games that had both great graphics AND great gameplay.

I agree and disagree with the article.

Radicalism isnt a good idea in either case, whether the game has great content but poor graphics, or the other way around, great graphics but poor content. The game is defined not by 1 aspect, but rather by combination of many. Its true that some companies concentrate on one aspec more then the other, and then we see bad games with great graphics, or great games with very poor graphics. Logicaly speaking, the graphics should be just slightly behind content, because graphics can be upgraded without major changes to the game at any time (at least a well designed game).

What I disagree with is that graphics whores are killing anything other then their own finances and respect from the player base. Unfortunately bad products do exist, and lots of them. But so do good products. What we, as a community, can do is simple, dont buy products from companies without trying them first, and dont believe all the fancy screenshots or videos. I dont think people are dumb enough to buy something that looks pretty but tastes like poo, at least not more then once (yes, im an optimist, heh)

I partially agree.

I wouldn't call graphics as something that destroys games (not an only reason at least). [afraid] Producers, [afraid] designers and crappy coders is what is the worst. They prefer to make simplistic clones again and again, instead of doing something better, more original (of course there're exceptions, but rather rare). But that requires effort, more work, more imagination, more support, more time, more complexity. Why bother ? It's all about the money in the end. And simplistic, proven "solutions" work, supported by tremendous amount of PR bullshit. Regardless if it's mmo or single player game.

Good graphics does help medicore titles in staying afloat though.

In mmo realm, take for example L2 - a terrible game with incredibly broken game mechanics on practically, every level imaginable. With one of the worst CS. Yet it's still alive in NA. Why ? Decent graphics. Big, pretty, shiny, glowing weapons, cute armors, panties visible on every occasion, silicon DEs. Everything else seems to be secondary. Besides grpahics, people also love to self-brainwash themselves and force into liking crappy, unfinished halfproducts, and then literally drool to pretty screenshots and a few numbers. A lot of current players can't even comprehend an idea of a mmorpg without a grind. That's sad.

OTOH hard to not agree with the OP - by today's "standards", the amount of time spent on game engine (or even on using one already made), textures and animations is far more substantial than a few years ago. Time that could, and should in most cases, be spent somewhere else.

If AoC and DF flop, I think I'll lose my faith into mmorpgs completely. In the recent few years, there's been a lot of cancellations of promising titles, and a lot of letdowns. Not that sp games were much better (but there were at least few nice titles there).

I can play up to two generations behind in graphics if the game is good (AO or EQ1 is still acceptable to me).  The exceptions to that rule are the Shadowrun games on the Genesis and  Playstation 1 or Military Madness on the the Turbo Graphics. Now that I'm digging into history some maybe Road Rash or Need for Speed on 3DO might would do.  The madden games for Genesis or Playstation 1 I couldn't do anymore.

Spiritglow 

---

Originally posted by Rattrap

simple(or old) graphic and bad graphic

example no1: Super Mario

This game has old 2d sprite graphic. But nobody can say it has bad graphic. It is simply enjoyable.
So why is that super mario games can claim they have good looking graphic even today.

The answer is simple - They are ICONIC

example no2:

  <- is this a face ?

---

What a nice, simple, short explanation. This is the best post I have ever seen in mmorpg, that explains a lot for me in gfx success of a game. I enjoy nowadays some old games gfx and now I know why thanks to you.

And btw, gfx are a part of a game. Not more, not less. UO had good mechanics but lacked atmosphere due to the old gfx and animations, that hurt game inmersion a lot. Nowadays, there is no excuse to bring both gameplay, sound, gfx and support at a high level. And take the Rattrap explanation as a rule to judge what a good gfx means truly in a game.

You may also want to consider that while a developer can screw up or throw overboard the features that he announced, he cannot do that with graphics. Hence graphics bear more importance, especially in a to-be-released games, because they're the only reliable thing you have.