What Makes Graphics?

I thought the argument was not about frame rate threshold, or what is an acceptable framerate, but whether it was an aspect of "graphics" or "gameplay"?

 

You are talking about a gameplay element. Both thread titles don't mention "gameplay" elements. It's purely about graphics. In other words, it NOT about being "useless" in a game playing situation.

Can you show me where "real-time" or "interactive" appears in the original thread that birthed this thread (or this thread title)?

Also, ALL console games are "real-time", so that argument leads nowhere (especially in the thread that gave rise to this one).

For example, in the original thread, some people would award a game, with only an advantage in framerate, the "best graphics" title. That would mean they are placing a value of greater that 50% on framerate alone. That doesn't seem to make sense. We have established where framerate important comes in. Put simple, framerate makes graphics moves. It, also, paves the way for graphical element called animation. However, this is solely about graphics (the LOOK of images and not the speed of them).

 

What? All people were saying was that frame rate was one component of graphics to be considered, not that it was the most or least important. How can you think an individual rendered frame is graphics, and animations is graphics, but frame rate is not part of the whole package we call graphics? You do understand how they're all connected, right?

 

I understand completely where the thread arose from. My statement still stands - The thread title should be "Presentation" instead of "Graphics" - Graphics in their strictest terms are "images", the *presentation* (package deal - we do agree) is how the graphics are brought to life. As I said we do agree, I just feel the need to use a different word. And as for MYST, that's why I said a good presentation means different things to different people. For me, I need interractivity, I need fluid control and motion that makes the character an extension of me, I need physics, I need to feel the world is alive and moving.

 

Yes and when you turn graphics up the framerate goes down and vice versa. You want to get better framerates to make the gameplay better, or you make the framerate worse to get better graphics.

This is how I feel too.

 

Suitability for purpose is a fair thing to judge something on.

You state that all "ALL console games are "real-time"", so quite clearly a thread in the console forum shouldn't need to specify it's talking about "real-time" graphics.

No, because they may think that a given frame was, say, "75%" as good looking (whatever the heck that means) as for the best 30 fps title.

No, you have established for yourself where framerate becomes important. Where this is for other people, and how much value they place on it, varies.

So ... animation is an element of graphics ... which can only be expressed by moving images ... but ... ?

 

But you dont get better graphics by reducing the framerate once it goes below a certain point if it makes whats on screen look horrible in motion. Cinematics have no gameplay but you wouldnt think they looked too hot if they ran at 3fps, so saying framerate only effects gameplay doesnt hold up .

 

Well, my exacting definition explains why it isn't a gameplay feature, but a graphics one. Framerate is just a form of resolution.

 

So I guess texture shimmering or texture crawling are not graphic artifacts when their occurence can not be readily described in one image frame?

And if you consider animation a graphical element then why not framerates as game that slow to a crawl during heavy scenes aren't animating ideally?

 

Not to mention shader, particle and post processing effects that update over time.

But we're going to get the same response. The "speed" of those effects doesn't matter; That's gameplay.

 

From the OP:

Carry on.......

 

We should also note that a great deal of 30 fps games regularly dipped into the low framerates during heavy scenes that animate nowhere near ideal.

30 fps isn't a establish standard because it represent the point of diminishing returns but a standard based on a lower limit of tolerance. 30 fps isn't about being good enough but about being one step above bad.

A game that chooses a higher framerate target to reduce the level of slow or stuttering scenes during the game deserves to have their framerate considered when judging visuals just like many of us often distinguish the merits of using realtime rendering versus prerendering when judging visuals.

 

If the WHOLE package (as you described) was called graphics, a finished still image wouldn't be called graphics...or complete. Yet, a still image IS complete and called graphics. That breaks your logic of "the whole package we call graphics".

QFT. It's all in the words you choose.

Are you saying that particle effects, etc disappear in a still image? If not, I don't see how your point holds up.

 

The basic definition of graphic is a visual representation on some surface. A cave drawing by basic definition is a graphic. However, the basic definition of "graphic" doesn't readily describe how the term is general used here and mostly everywhere else when describing 3d games in terms of "graphics". 3d games visually encompass more than just still images. Games are a visual representations that are dependent on millions of individual frames working in concert.

Like I said before (and you have yet to acknowledge) still images don't readily describe effects like texture shimmering or crawling. Nor do we generally judge realtime or pre- rendering a scene the same. But these aspects readily affect how we generally judge the "graphics" of a game.

 

This is the continuation of a discussion that was forced out of another thread. The discussion was whether frame rate was graphics or gameplay. Some people felt that frame rate had nothing to do with graphics, and was part of gameplay, the idea being that frame rate should not be considered if you were to review or evaluate the graphics of a particular game.

The OP also says consider that most games are 30 or 60fps, but that's kind of useless to the discussion. Games target those frame rates, but rarely adhere to them. They'll have considerable slow downs under different circumstances. It's very common.

 

Yes, a single image is graphics, but that doesn't mean frame rate isn't part of what we consider graphics in a video game. A still image is not a complete picture of the visuals in a game. Like I said, you can't properly evaluate shaders, particle effects or post processing effects that change over time by looking at a single frame. Well, you could if you looked at the frames one after another (frame rate).

If you want to say that graphics is simply the quality of a single frame, without any context to the previous or following frame, then you can do that, but you've created a meaningless term. We view a game as a sequence of images, and the sequence itself is very important. Looking at one frame will not tell you how good a game looks because you need to see it in motion to properly evaluate many different qualities of the graphics.

No one is saying that frame rate is the most or least important factor of graphics, but just that it is an aspect of graphics in the medium of video games.

 

I disagree with your definitions. Presentation is how well the whole game comes together. Presentation is having slick, stylish menu screens instead of simple text-only menus, and a nice, appropriate HUD instead of the programmer-art boxes and decimal numbers crawling all over the screen. Presentation is having a coherent art-style instead of looking like a mismash of off-the-shelf models, and arriving in a nice box with fancy box art rather than a folded bit of cardboard with some hand-written scrawl on it. Presentation adds a sense of class to a game, but has nothing to do with the conveyance of the information that is the responsibility of the graphics. There's no need nor point to redefine 'presentation' to include framerate when framerate fits so perfectly into the graphics definition!

 

Perhaps the word "experience" would be a better term, then. But regardless, the point is if we took something like Crysis, installed it on some massive Core i9 beast with quad Radeon 59xx and all plenty of obcenely fast RAM, and ran it with everything maxed @~80FPS, we'd say "Damn, look at those graphics" - If we down-clocked the whole thing by a factor of 30, we'd still say, "Damn, look at those graphics - It's a shame it's a slideshow". It hasn't broken the "graphics", it's marred the "experience", or the visual presentation, whatever nomenclature you prefer. Hell, even if we saw it in a magazine, we'd say "Damn, look at those graphics" at a whopping *no* frames per second.