In Hayward's article Videogame Aesthetics the topic of graphics in gaming is discussed. Graphics hae come a long way since the days of PacMan for the arcade. Everything is much more realistic. In games like Spliter Cell 2, Halo 2, Far Cry Intincts and Half-Life 2 the graphics prove to go above and beyond the call of duty. In games such as these the surrounds look more realistic, it makes a player feel as though they are in the game, which enhances the experience.
"By no means am I suggesting that aesthetics are the very substance of games, but obviously, "it" is not all about gameplay."
Gameplay is the very sustance of gaming but the graphics make a difference. I know that when I play a game with poor graphics I get aggravated very easily and give up. Both gameplay and graphics go hand in hand. The question of the day is how can game creators exceed in photo-realism in games if they are already very good? I think with technological advances anything is possible.
Posted by Kayla Lukacs at January 6, 2006 02:45 PM | TrackBackBut notice that Hayward argues that graphic realism is approaching a pleateau. Of course there are other ways games can be realistic besides graphics -- the physics simulation (gravity, friction, object mass and sharpness) all give you new ways to improvise weapons and do damage.
Let me play devil's advocate here. Has greater graphic realism helped us come up with new ways to play games?
I'd argue that the improved character-generation graphics of Half-Life 2 leads to NPCs with facial expressions that can affect one's level of involvement in the world. But at its core, Half-Life 2 is still pretty much the same game as Half-Life, which is still pretty much the same game as Duke Nukem or Castle Wolfenstein.
Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz at January 9, 2006 03:06 PM