Here's a discussion I was having with one of my colleagues the other day:

Me: "Remember the NES and SNES eras of gaming? Those games didn't really feature complex plots like the games of today..."

Colleague: "Well, it's not like you can tell much of a story with just 8-bit, or even 16-bit graphics..."

This got me thinking:

Do you really need sophisticated graphics to be able to tell a good story?

What was an 8-bit ot 16-bit game you played, that you think had a plot which rivals the complexity of the plots of games today?

Truth to tell, I can't think of any myself...

...the plots of said games usually ended up being limited to cut scenes that preceded the title screen, and you didn't hear anything of them until the ending.

Otherwise, any plot other plot details, you had to refer to the instruction manual.

Most of those games, I wouldn't have known had any plot at all if I hadn't read the manual...

the answer is a big fat NO.
kids nowadays are dependent upon being spoonfed 5+ hours of movie footage within a game to enjoy it.
the whole idea of role-playing involves imagination and thinking, not just mindlessly absorbing everything the tv spits out...

Neither plot nor graphics make a good game.

Bingo. Graphics Smaphics.

A few things that tick me off:

Wild Arms: everyone complains the story is typical save-the-world fair, but how many RPG's are there were you don't save the world, or at least inadvertently save it while dealing with your personal business? Awesome character development and villians.

Wild Arms 2: The battle graphics are balls - so? Everything else (outside the simplistic combat) is awesome. Wild Arms 3 might be prettier, but it's so boring and did next to nothing on the combat issue.

This reminds me of my friend's 10-11 yr old brother, who said Castlevania: Symphony of the Night looked like trash when I was playing it his house because it wasn't 3-D. Poor dumb bastard kid, I'd feel sorry for him if he wasn't now a poor dumb bastard teenager who mindlessly swallows everything EA throws down the pike.

It was too rich when he got in trouble for sexting.

Graphics are way more important than most people are willing to give them credit for. Not that having a great looking game now isn't common, but anyone who's ever said "graphics don't make a game" hasn't played games like Bioshock, Odin's Sphere (and by extension, Muramasa), or Final Fantasy XII. They contribute a lot, especially when the game's engine is backed up by some really amazing visual designers and can lend a hand towards developing a sense of immersion.

Anyone who tries telling me "graphics don't matter" or "they aren't important" just sounds to me like they're trying too hard to not sound petty or something.

You're right - I haven't played any of those games and I probably won't. I have played great ugly games though - Driver on the PSX immediately comes to mind. I wore out a couple CDRs of that game, and it looked terrible.

so essentially you're agreeing that a majority of the new games would be lacking without the significant contribution of their high end graphics.

I'm saying they're important.

I'm not trying to start anything here, but I have to admit I wasn't expecting such an opinion from you Idolores. I don't know why, just kind of thinking back at other things you've said over the years.

Still, the reason I'd still but plot over graphics is graphics are just a means of conveyance; it's not the true reason for being. Nice graphics are nice, but really, haven't we reached the point where such graphics are pretty much a given anymore?

That's kind of the point I was making. I wasn't trying to say that I would choose graphics over plot, just that graphics are more important than a lot of people say.

And as I said, a good handling of a graphics engine can mean wonderful things that are hard to deny. Remember walking around Rabanastre in FFXII the first time, or plummeting into the ocean only to make your way to Rapture in Bioshock? I'm talking about visual thematics that set the tone for already impressive games. It's not like I said FFVI was shit because it isn't in glorious 3D or something.

What kills me these days is bad voice acting (more common than not). We can all be thankful that FFVI didn't have to suffer from this ailment.

(But bad acting is usually a result of endless and badly-written cinematics, put into the game by developers who want to take advantage of all the pretty graphics. It all ties together.)

Sometimes the voice over people they get are just wholesomely bad. Other factors that can contribute to bad voice acting are awkward scripts that affect performance (ZOE 2's cast did a great job emoting, but the dialogue killed it).

I agree with Idolores, everyone favors good-looking games over the alternative, it enhances the experience.  If you could buy the same game for 2 different consoles that you own, and all things were equal except the graphics, you would choose the version with better graphics.  It's the reason I want to get God of War Collection for PS3, when the originals have been out for half a decade (the 1st one at least). 

But to answer the original question, older games relied more on the player's imagination to make the experience engaging outside of the gameplay, but most of the vintage stories that I would prefer over a lot of modern ones would be found on Turbo Duo and Sega CD.  Not in terms of complexity, but in terms of enjoyment.

Im dying to find the free time to finally play some old games for the first time: chrono cross, radiata stories, terra enigma, and Seiken Densetsu 3. The fact that they all have monkey balls for graphics (in terms of pixelated fuzziness) is no deterrent to me. If i dont get to them before i move to AZ, i may never get to them.

I think bigger, more intricate plots just grew along with the graphics; it was all part of the evolution of games. I enjoy beautiful graphics because it greatly enhances the experience for me. I don't play RPGs just for plot or gameplay, I play them to be transported to another world for an hour. I enjoy the exploration, the different locales. Sometimes I could care less about the battles or the next bit of dialogue--I just want to run around a mountain village while breezy music plays in the background.

Now, there are many SNES games that I love for their graphics. For example, to me, nothing can compare to the snowy woods or colorful field areas in Secret of Mana. I've spent much time killing wolves in that glimmering, frozen forest simply because I liked being there. But if I compare it to one of my recent favorites, Elder Scrolls IV, it's like apples and oranges, with Oblivion usually coming out on top. Oblivion is much more immersing to me (although it depends what mood I'm in). Still, something is to be said for the lean, no-pretense gameplay of older games. My favorite SNES game isn't even an RPG, much as I love 'em. It's Goof Troop, which is 100% pure fun.

I'm currently playing two games: The Legend of Dragoon and Final Fantasy VI, both of which I've played before. I can't seem to get into FFVI because I've been having such a good time with Dragoon that I keep going to it first. That game has some gorgeous scenery (not the characters so much). The battles eat up a lot of time, but things move forward steadily enough that I don't feel too bogged down with the fighting. Hopefully I'll feel the same when I get beyond the first disc. FFVI, on the other hand, hasn't grabbed me yet. The battles are speedy but the rest of it has been rather ho-hum so far. I think I just need to get further into the game. (It probably didn't help that I browsed an FFVI forum before playing and got all pumped up by the brown-nosing praise on there.)

I once heard someone say that the Aerith-Sephiroth death scene would have had the same impact on them had it been done in stick figures. That's pretty funny. Granted, those graphics aren't so impressive now and you probably have to be pretty young for that scene to move you in the first place. But saying that your imagination can make up for superior visuals is kinda like saying, "I ate an ice cream cone once, but to avoid the sugar and calories from now on I'll merely wrap an ice cube in a bit of bread and suck on that, let my memory fill in the rest." Imagination is good when you read a book. When you watch a movie the audio/visual factors can certainly break it, even if the story is engrossing. Role-playing games don't need to use movies or interactive techniques, but if they do then the visual conveyance should hold up to the quality of the story. And the story is enhanced because of it.

If I were making a monster/horror movie with a low budget, I would not try to digitally animate the monster like they do in those cheesy sci-fi channel movies. Instead, I would use realistic puppets like they did in the old days, with low light and as little on-screen time as I could get away with. That would result in a decent film. I would rely on the narrative and standout character traits. However, if I could hire Weta to animate the monster, I believe I would end up with a stronger film overall. I would still rely on the narrative and not gratuitously emphasize the monster over the characters.

There have always been fun and boring games. Scenario writers and graphic designers are two different jobs (though they must work closely together sometimes), and I don't think they've gotten more stupid over the years. As I said earlier, for me it's more about exploration and sense of adventure. I don't NEED awesome graphics, but when I play a game like Baten Kaitos and enter a town made entirely of whipped cream and candy, it only elevates the experience.

Final Fantasy VI.

It's possible for a boring game to have both killer graphics (either for its' time or by modern technological standards) and a plot that is perceived as excellent by the majority of people who have played it. I really don't understand where this discussion is headed.

Forgot to state my own opinion!

My own experience, I find that the other aspects of the game, namely gameplay, suffer more that graphics and plot are concentrated on; I probably should have said Graphics Vs. Plot Vs. Gameplay.

NES games, graphics were pretty basic, and the plots were even simpler, but many, I remember being really damn fun to play, even if many were as tough-as-nails (Castlevania and Ninja Gaiden come to mind; hell, I've never actually beaten any games amongst the first 3 Mario games...)

It's possible for a game to excel in all 3 (Graphics, Plot, Gameplay), but holy shit is it ever rare.

Many games I've played lately, I've played just for the plot and music, but the gameplay's usually so damn annoying and repetitive (but not necessarily challenging), I just end up Gamesharking them to get to the end.

My mark of a good game, is when you don't want to Gameshark the damn thing just to finish it...that's my only real criterion for a good game; and if you can design a game that doesn't NEED cheat codes (because you don't have to grind for money or levels), that's even better!

When it gets right down to it, I just want a game to be fun to play; graphics can be basic or shoddy for their time, the music can be forgettable, and the plot can be tacked on, but if it's fun to play, I can forgive all that.

But if the game's an otherwise absolute pain to play, I'll stay only if it has good plot or music.

Bonus points if the game has a good setting/atmosphere.

YES. That's me, too!

Bad CG in horror movies makes me laugh! Bad CG in general, involving something I'm supposed to take seriously, generally leaves me feeling put off in general...

The FMVs in the PSX FFs, I think were so dramatic, BECAUSE they lacked voice-overs...

...

Whew...didn't expect to get so many responses!

I have a gorgeous friend (female) who's looking to get hooked-up. I find her pretty shallow, but she's as hot as hell! Anyone interested? Well, of course not, since we all know looks don't matter, right?

heh, just making an analogy to what Idolores said... clearly graphics matter. Myself, I care much more about plot than graphics, and I think many people are like that, but certainly graphics do matter. The plots in Ultima IV,V,VII are amazing!! However, by today's standards the graphics are terrible, and few people would purchase such a game today (unless the graphics and sound were redone). As mentioned, Bioshock would not be what it is without the beautiful graphics and music, and by the same token it would not be so special without the carefully woven plot. Nothing wrong with finding a balance.

So, the answer to the original question is absolutely NO. You don't need good graphics to have an excellent plot. However you do need good graphics in order to sell nearly any game these days (not counting retro games of course).

cheers,

-avatar!

I actually think Ultima VII has held up pretty well (I recently replayed it). Can't say the same for IV and V... but a big part of the problem there is that the interface is also very dated. We gamers have gotten spoiled and expect things to be more streamlined.

Ha ha, why can't my standards for video games and women be mutually exclusive? Your analogy is amusing, but fallacious

Retro graphics are awesome. Super Mario 2 looks gorgeous. The fantastic settings, the colors, the art style, modern games just look ugly compared to that.

And who needs a "complex" plot from writers who can't even write a coherent plot? Modern videogame writing is such shlock, I'll rather take my bad dudes and president kidnapped by ninjas or Dracula who uses his sorcery to make a bad world filled with evil instead of going through 30 hours of "oscar-worthy" characterization or exposition on what the Nameless or Unhearted or whatever are. When you get a Dagger of Throwing, your guy is a swordsman warrior and there's an evil wizard somewhere, that's your story right there.

Also, the final boss of Dragon Quest IV DS is both a culmination of the game's plot and its most awesome display of graphics.

Sure, old-school has a great deal of charm, but to say that Super Mario 2 is much better looking than say Uncharted, Bioshock, Prince of Persia, Demon's Souls, Oblivion... yeah, I won't ever agree with you on this one. 

cheers,

-avatar!

It's not charm, it's quality and aesthetic preference.

Just how do those games look better than Mario 2? They're murky, boring to look at and often generic, literally so in the case of Oblivion's randomly generated portions. There is nothing inherent in those games that makes them "better" looking than Mario 2, just different looking.

Now, some people may prefer the style of those later games and that is their (and your) opinion, but for whatever reason I really cannot fathom.

There IS a a certain aesthetic that something needs to have regardless of technical quality. Battle Arena Toshiden, for instance, looks ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE, and I'd definitely say SMB2 looks 'better' than it, as far as a "do I like looking at the graphics" point of view.

In fairness, I'd say just about everything 3D in the PS1 and N64 era was painful to look at back in the day and looks ridiculous now. In contrast, I always did (and still do) find many 8 and 16 bit games very appealing to look at.

Battle Arena Toshinden served it purpose early on - showing what the PS1 could do before Namco came knocking with Tekken and Soul Blade - but after that, well, you know the rest.

Still, I have to defend BAT here for a second. Yes, the gameplay left a lot to be desired, but for some reason I really liked the characters and always thought about what the game would be like if Namco got ahold of the IP.

Still, if you want to talk about 3D fighters on the PS1, Soul Blade and Tekken 3. Not too big on Tekken 3 but it looks amazing.

before i wake up tomorrow and forget this...

have any of you guys seen the controversial new TLC documentary about the children of jedi knights? it's called The Force Kin, uncut.

I had to say that one out loud before I got it. You are a bad man, Mike

For God's sake, man.

two in one nite,, this is a rare treat for you guys... i have a billion shipping labels to print.

did you know that the honorable judge D.U. Choven holds the record for having sent the most criminals to the gas chamber?

I actually have a fetish for early 3D. There's something unique about it

Kind of an add-on to the existing debate, in a round-about way, and more or less what I was trying to say before, but lacked the grasp of articulation to really do so.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/ … Aesthetics