Current-Gen Graphics are Making Me Hate Gaming

[TheRealCJ]

I've been noticing a weird trend, people. For the last few months or so, I've been playing multiplayer and single player games on and off. A weird pattern emerges:

I can play a game like Team Fortress 2 for hours on end, I once played it for nearly 10 hours straight without stopping once. (Yes, I'm a loser). I played Plants vs. Zombies for even longer. Katamari Damacy? I played the whole thing through in a single run.

However, when I play a game like Modern Warfare 2, or Bad Company 2, I find that I can only play for maybe 2 hours straight before I get bored, or uncomfortable.

I realised why: All the games I have trouble playing for long periods all have the same "brown is real" colour schemes. And they really, really annoy me on a subconscious level.

Does anybody else find this?

 

[Dags90]

No. I don't play many modern first person shooters though, so that might have something to do with it. This really doesn't have much to do with "graphics" as much as it does "art direction".

 

[Sleekgiant]

Well you can just not play the games then.....

Me I don't care about graphics.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Well you can just not play the games then.....

Me I don't care about graphics.

No, the problem is I Like those games. I just can't play them for very long at a time.

 

[Aerodynamic]

No, I can play any game for about 2-3 hours before I get bored of it, regardless of the graphics or how good it is.

 

[DeadMix]

It doesn't bother me enough for me to stop playing, but yeah, the art direction in these supposedly "realistic" games looks like toasted shit.

 

[default]

The 'realism' portrayed in these 'realistic' games can get a bit hard on the eyes, and to be honest is just plain boring. Whereas a colourful, stylistic art style envigorates the imagination and is quite refreshing for the mind and eye.

I can only play Assassins Creed for about an hour before I get bored, but I could play Zelda: Twilight Princess for hours, it's just so beautiful. If my time as an artist has taught me anything, it's that realism and accuracy are over-rated.

 

[SturmDolch]

I find Bad Company 2 to be quite colourful actually... I'd say it's more of a blue-toned game than a brown-toned.

I'm a bit different. I like to have realistic graphics. If the game is cartoony, it usually won't hold my interest as long. It's one of the main reasons I won't be getting The Old Republic.

 

[Dags90]

If the game is cartoony, it usually won't hold my interest as long. It's one of the main reasons I won't be getting The Old Republic.

I seriously hope they fine tune some of the character models at least. The male models are way too leggy, it just looks silly.

 

[Emilin_Rose]

My only problem with fancy graphics is that people stop focusing on storyline and characters.

An example would be twilight princess v majoras mask:

I loved majora's mask a lot. the characters were well rounded, the plot was solid with no real flaws, the gameplay was fun, and i found myself sympathizing with some of them a bit. Tatl, like navi before her, was helpful when you were confused and didn't know where to go.

twilight princess characters seemed to have one defining personality trait and that was it. Midna, when called upon, would tell you the basic plot of the game at whatever point you happened to be in. Telling you everything you already know and not actually helping you to get anywhere. While the controls and graphics were nicer, everything that made zelda such a great game series, even through the sludge that was windwaker, 90% sailing, the characters, the personalities, the focus on an engaging story with at least some characters you actually liked, were gone. I have no problem with a current gen game that actually cares about characterization. Fire Emblem, Fragile Dreams, Eternal Sonata, and the Heartgold/Soulsilver all put at least some emphasis on their characters, while games like Halo stick the player with the equivalent of a stick to hit the enemies with, with no real personality of its own. The old 360 game Turok was particularly guilty of this. Most modern games you just dumbly wander through killing anything that moves. Some people say its so that you can project yourself onto the characters, but that's not the case either, since the game generally has a specific way you're supposed to play it, so if you'd rather befriend or surrender to the enemy in a cunning plot to get into their facilities and release other prisoners or whatnot, you can't. You just have to keep shooting things. And what if you're a blackbelt in karate with a hobby of knifethrowing on the side? you use the gun anyways. There is no real way to make yourself able to project onto these characters, so the excuse is a point of mootness.

If i wanted a game about me i'd go to sleep and then wake up when my brain started working properly, because all i do is lay in bed and play games. Not an exciting experience. Maybe i'm old fashioned, but i want a character, with a motivation, backstory, and several layers and tidbits of personality that make them seem like an actual person, rather than a wooden baseball bat they expect you to swing for no other reason than because they say so.

 

[Jaythulhu]

Well, one small thing... they're not "current" generation graphics. They're about 10 generations of hardware prior to current capabilities. Most likely because the console crowd has made developers stick to them for quick easy cash, instead of with us pc gamers pushing the boundaries of what can be done digitally.

The only hope I have of seeing "current" generation graphics is in Crysis 2, but as that's also being released and dumbed down for the console, I suspect that it'll be just another lazy port with graphics stuck at pre-2005 levels.

The new millenium really has been a letdown for those of us who enjoy technological superiority and can remember when developers used the best that available to make their games, and scaled them back for the low-powered and aging consoles later.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I'll admit, that actually is one of the things that I like more about playing Halo than I do about playing Modern Warfare, is that it's colorful. Or at least more colorful than MW or MW2.

My bigger complaint with modern graphics though would be that they're increasing the costs of gaming by stagering amounts, ultimately making the creation of innovative gaming experiences more difficult, and causing the higher costs of less innovative games to be passed on to the consumers. I'd happily go back to original xbox graphics with modern gen processing if I could.

 

[AgentNein]

Well, one small thing... they're not "current" generation graphics. They're about 10 generations of hardware prior to current capabilities. Most likely because the console crowd has made developers stick to them for quick easy cash, instead of with us pc gamers pushing the boundaries of what can be done digitally.

The only hope I have of seeing "current" generation graphics is in Crysis 2, but as that's also being released and dumbed down for the console, I suspect that it'll be just another lazy port with graphics stuck at pre-2005 levels.

The new millenium really has been a letdown for those of us who enjoy technological superiority and can remember when developers used the best that available to make their games, and scaled them back for the low-powered and aging consoles later.

Doesn't sound like you appreciate what game makers do when actual limits are imposed on their craft. It can be a beautiful thing, you tend to see it towards the autumn of every console generation. When they simply can't rely on the wow factor of the graphics and have to give us some substance. It's sad when the last truly great (not just great looking) PC game that wasn't indie developed was freakin' Half Life 2 six years ago.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

I think what bothers the most about a lot of modern graphics is the lack of innovation. I don't mind the darker style of graphics as long as it's done well. Penumbra is perfect example of this. That game is really dark, yet the graphics are interesting because of the extremely well done lighting engine. And the graphics actually play a huge role in the gameplay as well, they make the game immersive and frightening.

And what ever happened to variety? Why can't a game have some parts with gloomier depressing visuals, and then some colorful parts? That's one of the things I always loved about GTA 4. Sometimes it was bright and sunny, sometimes it was rainy, sometimes it had a really dry, barren look, sometimes the car and street lights lit up the night. It had variety, just like *ZOMG* real life.

 

[Estocavio]

Graphics are not in direct proportion to quality.
I doubt that more need be said.

 

[Jaythulhu]

Doesn't sound like you appreciate what game makers do when actual limits are imposed on their craft. It can be a beautiful thing, you tend to see it towards the autumn of every console generation. When they simply can't rely on the wow factor of the graphics and have to give us some substance. It's sad when the last truly great (not just great looking) PC game that wasn't indie developed was freakin' Half Life 2 six years ago.

No, I don't appreciate what developers do when working under a restricted and limited environment, especially when the choice to do so is naught but a cynical way to slop out another half-finished product and rake in some quick bucks. I grew up in an era when developers cared more about their games, the gamers who'd be playing them, and pushing the boundaries of what could be done in ALL aspects of gaming, rather than cashing in.

To choose to sit in a stagnating pond when a fresh running river is right next door is a fools' move, no matter how much existentialism one attaches to it.

 

[TheLaofKazi]

nope. i like games with unique graphics, but i find great beauty in these "brown is real" games.

beautiful.

That game actually has a fair amount of color in it judging from this video:


And the thing that really sets it apart from a lot of the other darker colored games out there is the smoothed, polished graphics and the animations. I fucking hate the animations in the Modern Warfare 2, they look robotic and sped up. And there's tons of effects on screen at once, the heavy motion blur, the streams of dust being blown by the wind, the sun peering in through the door and reflecting off your gun. The blurring gives the environment a great sense of depth, and there's tons of small details in the environment. The explosions really make your screen shake, and it looks smooth and organic, and not like a stale, pre-made animation. And your gun sways naturally.

It's a dark game, but it's really well done.

 

[AgentNein]

Doesn't sound like you appreciate what game makers do when actual limits are imposed on their craft. It can be a beautiful thing, you tend to see it towards the autumn of every console generation. When they simply can't rely on the wow factor of the graphics and have to give us some substance. It's sad when the last truly great (not just great looking) PC game that wasn't indie developed was freakin' Half Life 2 six years ago.

No, I don't appreciate what developers do when working under a restricted and limited environment, especially when the choice to do so is naught but a cynical way to slop out another half-finished product and rake in some quick bucks. I grew up in an era when developers cared more about their games, the gamers who'd be playing them, and pushing the boundaries of what could be done in ALL aspects of gaming, rather than cashing in.

To choose to sit in a stagnating pond when a fresh running river is right next door is a fools' move, no matter how much existentialism one attaches to it.

I do agree, in a perfect world devs would be able to really push boundaries in every category of quality all of the time. With the increasing cost of competing with the big guys in the gaming world though, I've frankly come to resent what this tech arms race is doing. Companies are putting so much of their budget into making really fancy looking games, they can't afford to take chances. This is why games like Spelunky, or Karoshi 2.0 would never come from those companies pushing graphics envelopes.

 

[Jaythulhu]

I do agree, in a perfect world devs would be able to really push boundaries in every category of quality all of the time. With the increasing cost of competing with the big guys in the gaming world though, I've frankly come to resent what this tech arms race is doing. Companies are putting so much of their budget into making really fancy looking games, they can't afford to take chances. This is why games like Spelunky, or Karoshi 2.0 would never come from those companies pushing graphics envelopes.

Doesn't even take a perfect world, just one where developers are forced back on the pc as their development platform. We had that world less than 10 years ago, and it wouldn't take much to go back. However, getting the drooling masses to not buy whatever overhyped rehash of wolf3d is thrown at them in protest of the poor state of games and development, is probably a task that's beyond anyone at this point.

 

[Georgie_Leech]

What I'm upset at is the tendency to put so much of the development into graphics over the other gameplay elements. I'd rather the most effort be put into the aspects of the game you can only really feel if you catually get the game. I want characters with personality; I want choices, even little ones; I want a storyline more complex than "kill everyone not on your side."