Good graphics = lack of atmosphere?

[Daragon]

I certainly don't expect photo realism in video games, but in all honesty part of Oblivion's major draw for me (if you can call it that) was the look of the thing. It felt alive - I felt like I was actually running through a forest as I was doing it in the game, exploring a musty old crypt or dungeon as I was doing it in the game, and those lighting effects for the time were quite brilliant.

It's always important in my mind to maintain some degree of visual prowess to immerse you into the experience, but of course at the end of the day the gameplay must come first with everything else second.

['Press Start']

Slightly Off topic but 80s horror films are scarier then modern ones for the same reasons.

Film grain, shots not as detailed and a lack of polish lead to a more sinister atmosphere.

Although another psychological detail is the state of mind we were in when we played those games. Do we revert back to our younger state of mind when revisiting these games/films and even music? Often being younger means we loose ourselves more in the film/game. Or is that rubbish?

Still some games get it bang on, Demon Souls being king for atmosFEAR!

[Atticus]

Interesting thread Modern & photo-realistic graphics work great for some games and genres, but what I will say is the better graphics get the less your imagination has to do.

I love the world of F-Zero in the original SNES game, all the spinny and twinkly bits below the circuits. But as it 'evolved' into 3D and then got more detail in GX it eventually lost it's wonderful, other-worldly atmosphere.

It's a bit of a shame technology dictates the look and sound of games. I do like 'chip' generated sound and music ... but that's maybe a bit rose-tinted. At the same time some modern games and the way they make me feel would be impossible with older technology/visuals.

[rmoxon]

Dosent it all depend on what you consider good graphics?

Surley it aolso depends on the atmosphere the game is going for?

I tend to find that in general most gamnes have graphics that suit their atmosphere.

Veiwtiful Joe wouldnt work with realistic graphics, But Dead Space 2 wouldnt work if it looked like a Cartoon.

Strangley though, the one genre I do think modern graphics hamper the most are racing games. Stuff like Forza and Gran Turismo play great and look photorealistic in many respects but have absolubtley no personality about them, they are cold experiences.

[CrispyXUK]

Realism seems to require a complete lack of style, style is missing from a lot of new games these days.

[Kaido]

I think more developers need to throw visual mind****s in with their attempts at realism... like the anomolies in the STALKER games and monsters in the dead space games are all the more awesome because everything else strives to look realistic whilst those elements are heavily stylistic and play with your mental perception of realistic lighting and physics

EDIT: which is a really simple thing to do in a simulated reality

[Flabio]

The F.E.A.R. games do a decent job of that actually.

[Corranga]

Interesting topic, but I think it seemed to get lost somewhere...

The OP says Goldeneye (N64 era realism) feels really atmospheric compared to COD (modern era realism). Isn't this more about the game play / design etc...?

The way you play both games is very different, Goldeneye is more about sneaking around corners with a silencer and hiding behind crates before popping out and going for a head shot.
In COD, you are hiding only to reload, then spending a clip wasting 20 enemy troops who are coming at you from 6 different directions.
Could it be this tenancy to have so much going on that you never really get a chance to get sucked in?

One thing I recall about both Goldeneye and COD however, is the AI. They both seem to have moments where the enemy comes at you on a stale pre-defined path, almost turning 90 degree corners.
Could it be this realistic look, but unrealistic motion doing it?

Gt5 (and even prologue) looks amazing. Yet when you load up a race in an old poorly modelled car, with a black box shadow below it, it looks crap.
Could it be this realistic look that is immediately compromised and ruined by the poorer aspects of the visuals, pulling you back from the realism where previously your brain was working harder to make it ALL feel real / atmospheric?

[Roddie]

I think a game like REmake debunks this.

[JSR]

The way you play both games is very different, Goldeneye is more about sneaking around corners with a silencer and hiding behind crates before popping out and going for a head shot.

While true, it was not how I meant. I was strictly talking about the visuals. Even if you disregard the gameplay completely, and simply watch the level intros in Goldeneye, I think there is a world of difference.

I think Tig almost nailed it. As the developers have less options of what to show and how to display it in games, they will focus on the most important and characteristic parts. And as they will get more attention, the vision will get communicated to the player so much more easily. And when the visuals are stripped down, you will have less unimportant details to get in the way - details that are only put in to "complete" the image, and are usually interchangeable.

[Brad]

Some modern games have less atmosphere than older games but that's not because they have better graphics. It's just that some developers are better at doing that than others. Most atmospheric game I've ever played is Demon's Souls and the graphics in that are pretty great; better than Pong anyway.

[JSR]

Some modern games have less atmosphere than older games but that's not because they have better graphics. It's just that some developers are better at doing that than others. Most atmospheric game I've ever played is Demon's Souls and the graphics in that are pretty great; better than Pong anyway.

I don't disagree with you here. What I am saying is that with so much more room for polygons and higher res textures, it requires much more work and vision from the developer to make it have as much impact. That's why I think a higher percentage of games from the mid-nineties managed this better than most games today. Demon's Souls is one of few.

[nakamura]

I certainly don't expect photo realism in video games, but in all honesty part of Oblivion's major draw for me (if you can call it that) was the look of the thing. It felt alive - I felt like I was actually running through a forest as I was doing it in the game, exploring a musty old crypt or dungeon as I was doing it in the game, and those lighting effects for the time were quite brilliant.

It's always important in my mind to maintain some degree of visual prowess to immerse you into the experience, but of course at the end of the day the gameplay must come first with everything else second.

Despite its 'realistic' look, nothing about Oblivion was realistic. Certainly not in this day and age. It is pure fantasy and very stylistic.

[eastyy]

Despite its 'realistic' look, nothing about Oblivion was realistic. Certainly not in this day and age. It is pure fantasy and very stylistic.

i thought morrowind had a better atmosphere ...thats just a personal feeling though as morrowind felt more alien and i preferred that

[dataDave]

I think a game like REmake debunks this.

That's a very well made game though, as is Dead Space.

Let's compare Final Fantasy XIII to VI (just to repeat myself for the 100th time). Story and gameplay aside: On one you have humanoids talking bollocks, acting cheezy and over dramatic... on the other you have chibi jumping up and down, acting cheezy - but talking believable bollocks within the realms of that environment - where's the drama? I imagine that up myself, how I want it.

This is also what I argue to the hordes of people begging for a FFVII remake, please don't go there - it could never be as good as what I had in my mind when playing it the first time. Believe it or not I was actually imagining in my mind a style very similar to Advent Children to accompany my play, and this is what I try telling people who are new to games but won't touch the old stuff because of "****" graphics - which to me is like not reading books that don't have pretty pictures in. For classics like this the graphics are only to be used as an aide and not to be taken for granted like they are now.

Strangly enough I had a dream last night about Silent Hill 2, and I've yet to play it. A game that would have **** graphics by today's standards but has got to be the most defining 'atmosphere' game I've yet to play.