"It's the coders who introduce it. The artists work constantly to marginalise the effects since the coders don't want to remove them. "

Doesn't that seem counter productive? Are you trying to make ugly looking games? 

"All that time and money could've been spent on improving better aspects of the game. For example."

Graphics programmers don't work on AI or gameplay code ... what else do you think they're going to be spending time on if not visual effects and better frame rate? 

"I Play Games For Gameplay"

Yes, yes, we all do. However, good gameplay doesn't have to look like a game from 1997 does it? 

shit slinging and point scoring going on here there is a valid argument on both sides.
I personally am up for all of the eyecandy in the world times a million and I am prepared to pay for a system to actually be able to run it.
But a game which uses all of these things to succesfully assimilate a good style has to incorporate these technologies in a balanced fashion. They have to run optimally as well as be present and deliver a visually pleasing/functional effect.
STALKER CS/CoP both use DoF a lot, but it doesnt look realistic, it just looks fuzzy and blurry. I personally would prefer a more subtle realistic effect. However running such an effect at an opptimal speed would probably require a rediculous amount of horsepower.
So what do the developers do? Do they remove the effect altogether? or do they leave it in and try and find the balance the best they can?

Worrying about who is more responsible from within the ranks and departments of a development studio is just silly and a completely unrealistic perspective to talk about from the average consumer's point of view. 

Often times these effects aren't used in the pursuit of realism (which is a mistake that many people make) but instead they are used to achieve a look that the art director is looking for. Most games are highly stylized and very few are actually going for "real world realism". 

100% agree, it certainly has its place. I assume your talking about Crysis & to an extent Stalker : Clear sky, which are both at fault here. At the end of the day its down to common fucking sense, which is seems some developers leave behind.

Modern Warfares, really. Never played Stalker, only seen Crysis in action, and only for about five minutes. There are options to turn off most of the extra visual effects, so everybody's happy, I suppose.

I don't agree with this, I think that having cutting edge visuals is a very important part of the game. It helps with immersion, characterisation, and stops the player thinking "lol this looks like ass" when they start it up for the first time (always a plus!).

Cutting edge visual effects does not equal distracting and annoying visual effects. See also Willem's point about bad art direction.

Graphics programmers don't work on AI or gameplay code ... what else do you think they're going to be spending time on if not visual effects and better frame rate?

What else can the money be spent on if not graphics programmers?

Yes, yes, we all do. However, good gameplay doesn't have to look like a game from 1997 does it?

I'll get me coat. 

Im not questioning your correctness in any way when I say that the average consumer's opinion of what style looks good is entirely their own opinion, and cannot be argued as right or wrong because it is a reflection as much of themself as it is of the art they are critiquing.

If someone on a forum starts critiscising a visual effect which they see in games and then broadly critiscising a whole sector of a whole industry then I guess it is safe to assume that they didnt like the styles that they saw in place.

Should an artist give a fuck about one person's opinion? Fuck NO! That's what art is all about.
The person doesnt get to have any influence over future creations but in turn simply has the choice to not play the game, or avoid the studio, or even avoid the publisher or whatever.

I think that depth of field is good in cutscenes but it must be carried out with diligance in an in-game situation so as not to mess with the player's ability to perform well in the game (can see the enemies which are far away/close because they are too blurry for example).

I mean if on a turret or something, with enemies appearing an a certain place, at a certain range then fine. If the effect works when the player chooses to look down the barrel of their weapon, but can lower the weapon and shoot with no depth of field - also fine..... etc 

"What else can the money be spent on if not graphics programmers? "

Companies not investing in keeping up with current technology are really shooting long odds at being successful.

People can talk about Quake all they want (in relation to the "gameplay over graphics" dribble) but that game was absolutely cutting edge when it came out. The graphics were off the chart amazing and the graphics technology was beyond what anyone had ever seen.

"I'll get me coat."

Hey, you may like games from 1997 and, honestly, you're in luck because there are tons of them! Knock yourself out.

But to expect modern day companies to still produce games at that graphical level is ludicrous. 

I think we're pretty much discussing entirely different points by now. 

Sorry. Please re-state your point so I can respond appropriately. 

But to expect modern day companies to still produce games at that graphical level is ludicrous.

this seems to be a wild, fabricated assumption of yours purely based on your knowledge of people's game preferences here. you're the only person who actually brought quake into the argument :| 

 

"this seems to be a wild, fabricated assumption of yours purely based on your knowledge of people's game preferences here. you're the only person who actually brought quake into the argument :|"

Then it's unclear what people want. They don't want new visual effects but they also don't want old style graphics? They don't want progress but also want progress? So what do they want? 

Willem, the "damage feedback" in UT3 is one of the worst offenders ever in this department. I had to manually edit some .INI files to disable it.

Any kind of competitive online play with it enabled is completely impossible. As soon as you start getting hit by the Linkgun or Minigun, your view goes so red and so shaky, fighting back is a near-impossibility.

This did work in GoW (althought IMO it should've been a bit toned down there as well), but in UT3 it was absurdly overdone. 

That doesn't seem to be what's being discussed. That could have been done with 1997 tech - all it requires is alpha blending. It might be a bad design decision but it's not related to the messages I'm getting from this thread. 

They don't want new visual effects but they also don't want old style graphics?

the messages i'm getting relate to specific graphical features that adversely affect gameplay or enjoyment (more because of shoddy implementation rather than by design), not graphical advances as a whole.

then there is obviously the matter of subjectivity. everyone likes games to look good, but not everyone has the same opinion of what looks good and what doesn't (case in point: motion blur), and it seems you're calling people 'fucking retarded' for having differing personal tastes... 

My understanding of the argument is : "Many new advancements in graphical technologies are used poorly and thus should not be developed."

If this is basically the case (I'm probably leaving out details) then it's false, because even if you develop some really obscure graphics tech, if it can be applied in a cool way then it's good. Maybe not worth the cost on the GPU to render it if it's really expensive, but the point is how the tech is used really. 

I dont think its so much that they dont want new visual effects as much as they dont want new visual effects which they dont like.

So let them turn them off where possible!

Or dont, screw 'em. 

"then there is obviously the matter of subjectivity. everyone likes games to look good, but not everyone has the same opinion of what looks good and what doesn't (case in point: motion blur), and it seems you're calling people 'fucking retarded' for having differing personal tastes..."

Really? That "fucking retarded" can be regarded as hyperbole, something this board normally excels in. Now it's an issue? Please. 

yeah agreed pretty much. development & implementation probably need distinguishing more.. 

Well it seems you're perfectly set to defend your corner - it's not a discussion but an argument since you have no intention of changing your thinking.

My original point was that games don't need to look incredible in order for people to like them.

A lot of companies get caught up in a technology race, always wanting the best graphics, which seems kind of pointless really.

I'd say there is a reasonable lower limit of graphical fidelity, but the eye candy effects for me (and I'd guess for most others) are just fluff, additional to the game.

No big deal if left out.

Looking at reviews the graphics are factored in as 1 piece of the total score, amongst 4-5 others. When they mention 'has graphical feature X' it tends to sum up months of work in a single sentence, since there's not a lot interesting to say about said feature.

Each to their own though.

Some responses:

Doesn't that seem counter productive? Are you trying to make ugly looking games?
Yes it does. But I work in a team and it takes time to convince people that other ways can be better. As long as the game doesn't look like utter shit or completely out of date I couldn't care how it looks. That's not my concern.

Then it's unclear what people want.
If there was an easy answer to that we'd all be millionaires.

Yes, yes, we all do. However, good gameplay doesn't have to look like a game from 1997 does it?

Minimum level of graphic quality Vs. cosmetic graphical features again. 

"Well it seems you're perfectly set to defend your corner - it's not a discussion but an argument since you have no intention of changing your thinking."

I take some offense to this if only because it's pretty clear that you won't be changing your mind either. You are hard locked into your argument.

"I'd say there is a reasonable lower limit of graphical fidelity, but the eye candy effects for me (and I'd guess for most others) are just fluff, additional to the game."

This the divide, I guess. They are not always fluff and often provide feedback and immersion to players. That they are sometimes done poorly doesn't mean they aren't useful. 

Fancy shit is cool if you use it well and sucks if you don't. 

If that's the summary, then some of you people need to get way better at wording your complaints. :) 

I did change my stance from 'all that stuff is shit' to 'most of that stuff is shit'.

----

I distrust immersion in relation to graphical effects because there's no way that graphical effects can heighten immersion beyond a certain point.

At the end of the day it's some guy sat in an armchair playing the game with a controller.

If you're going for pure immersion then Wii / Natal motion control, lawnmower man helmets and Tron leotards are the future.

Feedback is different though and where such effects can be great. I forget the game it was, but it gave the player a buzzing sound in their speakers and motion blur over the entire screen when a grenade went off nearby. That was great.