Death to Good Graphics!

[sneakypenguin]

Try telling that to Epic Studios. Most of their work is based on creating and improving their game engine, which are then used by other publishers who believe that the better the graphics, the more people will play it. I say that the CryEngine is the top and it shouldn't evolve further. We don't need to see every little leaf blowing in the wind. For that we have pre-rendered cutscenes. As some of you said publishers should just take the engine and improve it without increasing the requirements, and make it unilateral. As right now, it's pretty ok to use the UnrealEngine to make car races (and I know a few that are working on Wipeout mods with the UT3), but not really useful for RPGs and RTS'. Something like an all-versatile game engine would be great. Offer it at a minimal price to studios (to also help indie games, make it a pro version for studios at around 1000$, and the indie/student version, which has some features disabled at 350-500$). While the company that published it, doesn't make games, just keeps on improving the engine. Sounds like a utopia, so now I'll shut up.

In conclusion: I whole heartily agree that the graphics need to stop advancing. If we want realism, we'll just go outside.

Doesn't something like the unreal engine cost around 500K to use? The numbers i've seen bandied about are in the 350-700k range. Hardly 350 bucks lol .
EDIT: actually that was unreal 2 pricing
I don't think cryengine is the top, you can always do better, fully destructible environments, better lighting, better particle effects, even more detail.

I want my temporary escape to look as realistic as possible, not to be bench marked at some standard low setting. For some, nay many, gaming is about the technological aspect of it, I don't play COD4 because the story is good or the gameplay (though it is good) I play it cause when I crouch and see grass waving though my scope as the enemy soldier is exquisitely rendered in high detail I get a rush out of that, and would love to see that aspect of my gaming continue to advance.

 

[PopcornAvenger]

Very thoughtful read. Good graphics IS the "Holy Grail" of developers, often at the expense of gameplay, often accompanied by numerous bugs.

One of my favorite games of all time was Dungeon Keeper. Then they came out with DK2, where they replaced all the beautiful graphics with "cutting edge" rendered versions of all the creatures and enviroment. It was ugly, and it sucked wind.

Broadening the argument, why do developers feel like they have to "improve" a game that already has solid gameplay? So many times a sequel comes out, with a development team that either lost a few members, or a totally new one, and they feel like they have to totally S-can the old gameplay, even when it was stellar, when it was what made the game popular in the first place and begged for a sequel. Populous fell victim to that, like many other games. Of course, most games often have a few specific areas needing improvement. For example, Mass Effect planetside repetitiveness needs a serious overhaul, something I hope they address in ME2. Still, c'mon guys, don't dump the gameplay that made the game fun in the first place!

A very bad sign is when the lead developer walks away from the sequel, something I find ominous as I await Bioshock 2 . . . .

 

[Irandrura]

Wow. I didn't read every comment, but it seems at least 99% of the commenters agree. That has to say something...

Game developers, take heed! It seems to me that a lot of players would like the ability to opt out of the 'graphics race', if they had the choice.

Today, there is no penalty for playing like a retard and no tangible reward for thinking or figuring out stuff. This stupid achievement system is just a transparent, idiotic hoax. Wow, you pressed the jump button 1000 times, good for you. OMG, you drove off a cliff, fell a mile and died horribly 2000 times in a row, in racing game, way to go dude! Here, let me increase this totally arbitrary and meaningless number for you. Now go and brag about how good you are at repeating mindless tasks for no apparent reason.

Oh, achievements have always been pretty pointless. We can measure achievements for ourselves. For example, the other day in Medieval II: Total War, while most of my army was off fighting the Italians, the Germans decided to attack me with three separate armies. I had a single rump army in the area, ferried it down from England, marched straight into the heart of the Holy Roman Empire, defeated two German armies, killed the Holy Roman Emperor in a siege, and retreated, defeating the panicking Germans racing back to attack me as I did so. No little box popped up saying 'achievement acquired!', but I felt like that was an achievement. I marched a rear echelon army to their capital and back, defeating everything they could throw at me with my garrison troops. That was awesome.

Whereas actual achievements aren't really about achieving anything. They're actually collecting mini-games. That's fine - some players love that sort of thing - but really, it's not as if they represent any actual achievement. They're purely arbitrary. (And also one of the reasons I am most definitely not a fan of X-Box Live and all the achievements and such it staples on.)

 

[InProgress]

Doesn't something like the unreal engine cost around 500K to use? The numbers i've seen bandied about are in the 350-700k range. Hardly 350 bucks lol .
EDIT: actually that was unreal 2 pricing
I don't think cryengine is the top, you can always do better, fully destructible environments, better lighting, better particle effects, even more detail.

I want my temporary escape to look as realistic as possible, not to be bench marked at some standard low setting. For some, nay many, gaming is about the technological aspect of it, I don't play COD4 because the story is good or the gameplay (though it is good) I play it cause when I crouch and see grass waving though my scope as the enemy soldier is exquisitely rendered in high detail I get a rush out of that, and would love to see that aspect of my gaming continue to advance.

Well, not all people think alike.

As for the CryEngine being the best, I don't believe that either. I used it as an example because it's well know, and it's on all consoles, unike the latest version of Unreal Engine which has destructible enviroments, realistic lighting and so on but is only for Xbox 360 (I think; from what I've seen, they said that they're not going to update the PC version of the engine).

The prices are taken from the top of my head without prior research to see what they cost.

 

[Playbahnosh]

Oh, achievements have always been pretty pointless. We can measure achievements for ourselves. For example, the other day in Medieval II: Total War, while most of my army was off fighting the Italians, the Germans decided to attack me with three separate armies. I had a single rump army in the area, ferried it down from England, marched straight into the heart of the Holy Roman Empire, defeated two German armies, killed the Holy Roman Emperor in a siege, and retreated, defeating the panicking Germans racing back to attack me as I did so. No little box popped up saying 'achievement acquired!', but I felt like that was an achievement. I marched a rear echelon army to their capital and back, defeating everything they could throw at me with my garrison troops. That was awesome.

Wow, nice I was talking about that exact same thing. Achievements or more precisely "totally random shit that is amazing" is one of the best things in a game. Two years ago, I was playing StarCraft with my friends on LAN, 2v2, and our team was sucking badly. At the end, my teammate got eradicated by the combined army of our two opponents, and I could only see the huge wave of units converging on my base and the evil glee on faces of the two guys. But they were unaware of my trap, as they though all my units perished defending my teammate's base. As soon as the two armies were inside my totally empty base, happily stomping on whatever left of it, I pressed the unburrow button. I laughed like a maniac as 100 hydralisks emerged from ground, and tore the combined army to shreds in mere seconds, with the sound of two jaws hitting the pavement in unison. Then I took my army of hydras and mowed down their bases in minutes, encountering only minimal, hastily cobbled together defenses and panicked "shiiit, shiit, fuck, FUUUUUCK" screams from the other side of the room. My victory was EPIC beyond belief. I still have the replay somewhere

Now THAT is an achievement, and not collecting 100 thingamabobs or performing some arbitrary and meaningless stunts in a row.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Wow. I didn't read every comment, but it seems at least 99% of the commenters agree. That has to say something...

Game developers, take heed! It seems to me that a lot of players would like the ability to opt out of the 'graphics race', if they had the choice.

But developers know that even though we say story and gameplay is more important we usually don't believe it.
Would we have loved mass effect if it was based on the Kotor engine?
Would assassins creed have been popular if it looked like ninja gaiden(xbox)
Would COD4 have been as epic powered by source?
Truth is for a lot of gamers graphics contribute a LOT to the gaming experience, go watch a trailer for uncharted 2 or something like GoW2 graphical prowess is a major selling point to both titles. This isn't a bad thing, it doesn't make these bad games in gameplay or story(developers don't just sub story with graphics( a bad story with good graphics is still a bad story without), it's just a different way to approach gaming.

 

[Doug]

On topic: anyone with eyes can see, that graphics are overhyped. Gameplay, art and story is the key. Hell, when Darwinia came out, it looked like a fucking fossil compared to 2005 graphics (when it was released), but I still consider it one of the best games as of today, ...

Hmmm... I thought Darwinia was abit of a rip off frankly. Only 6 levels, if I recall rightly, and very little reason to replay. Ok, they gave you a map editor too, but really, it was abit naff for £20. Gameplay and graphics where nice, the story was interesting, but there was just so very little of it.

 

[Playbahnosh]

On topic: anyone with eyes can see, that graphics are overhyped. Gameplay, art and story is the key. Hell, when Darwinia came out, it looked like a fucking fossil compared to 2005 graphics (when it was released), but I still consider it one of the best games as of today, ...

Hmmm... I thought Darwinia was a rip off frankly. Only 6 levels, if I recall rightly, and very little reason to replay. Ok, they gave you a map editor too, but really, it was abit naff for £20. Gameplay and graphics where nice, the story was interesting, but there was just so very little of it.

Ok, here: Darwinia wiki entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinia_(video_game)]
Look at the system requirements, I dare you! It's a game made in fucking 2005! With a recommended system req. that was barely enough to run GTA3 as a slideshow, which came out 4 years earlier. Now go and look up the development costs. Darwinia was made with only a fraction of the costs of ANY modern day game, not to mention development time.

The sheer manpower, money and time spent on, say, Unreal 3, could've produced more than 100 Darwinias. And that's an understatement.

I rest my case.

 

[Irandrura]

My victory was EPIC beyond belief. I still have the replay somewhere

Yes. That is exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. When it's a surprise or comes from nowhere, it really helps.

 

[sneakypenguin]

Games aren't shorter now than they were in 1992... far from it.

Yeah I never understood the whole "games are getting shorter" sentiment. I mean how many genesis psone N64 took like 2 hours to beat. Yeah there where some long RPG's but I don't recall your average platformer/adventure/FPS taking 6-8 hours to beat.

 

[UtopiaV1]

Death to Good Graphics!

Shouldn't we all just get over the graphics thing, already?

Read Full Article

Awww, you're a secret luddite aren't you? It's alright, i still love those old point-and-click adventure games, but then again I do love seeing the latest graphics features in action, and one of my pet hobbies is making new games runnable on my nearly-obsolete machine... it's like a puzzle, for framerates!!!

 

[Doug]

On topic: anyone with eyes can see, that graphics are overhyped. Gameplay, art and story is the key. Hell, when Darwinia came out, it looked like a fucking fossil compared to 2005 graphics (when it was released), but I still consider it one of the best games as of today, ...

Hmmm... I thought Darwinia was a rip off frankly. Only 6 levels, if I recall rightly, and very little reason to replay. Ok, they gave you a map editor too, but really, it was abit naff for £20. Gameplay and graphics where nice, the story was interesting, but there was just so very little of it.

Ok, here: Darwinia wiki entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinia_(video_game)]
Look at the system requirements, I dare you! It's a game made in fucking 2005! With a recommended system req. that was barely enough to run GTA3 as a slideshow, which came out 4 years earlier. Now go and look up the development costs. Darwinia was made with only a fraction of the costs of ANY modern day game, not to mention development time.

The sheer manpower, money and time spent on, say, Unreal 3, could've produced more than 100 Darwinias. And that's an understatement.

I rest my case.

OI! Don't get hissy at me. I said I thought it was a rip off to the customer, not the dev team. I meant it had fuck all content. I meant that although it was fun whilest it lasted, it lasted only an afternoon. So there, I rest MY case.

 

[Jumplion]

watch this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKTAJBQSm10] as a preemptive. Just saying, watch this, it shows alot from both sides of the visual spectrum.

I prefer to call them "visuals" rather than "graphics" as the way in context they are used are completely different from each other.

"Graphics" implies the amount of technology power in the screen. Things like how many pixels to squeeze on the screen to the amount of polygonol textures on a rock and such. Crysis is an example, but even that game falls to the later category.

"Visuals" implies on the aesthetic viewpoint of the game. This ranges from polished textures, the atmosphere of the game, the feel of it, and even the animations and interaction with the game.

All games can improve from better "graphics", how much they can improve varies, but even more games can improve from better "visuals".

There is a huge gap between these two words when people complain about how graphics are "ruining the industry" and crap like that. Quite frankly, games aren't any shorter or longer than from the past. It took me a week to beat RE5, playing every day, but I was exploring the nooks and crannys of the maps to see what I could find. And I'm still only on the 12th chapter of Valkyria Chronicles.

Improving graphics/visuals is about as "damaging" to the industry as improving story or gameplay. Graphics is 1/3 of the game, while story and gameplay take up the other 2/3.

I don't get where everyone is getting the notion that "graphics are killing the innovation of the industry!" when there are so many other factors besides graphics that are into play, most notibly that we're in a recession. Not to mention the cost it must take to get professional writers and scriptors, animation directors, Q&A testers, ect...... Improving storytelling or gameplay isn't cheaper than improving graphics, and it's probably even harder to improve those. And then if we concentrate on, say, story, then the gameplay and graphics will be neglected and we'll have people whining that "story doesn't make the video game, gameplay does!" which we already have anyway.

Sure, some developers do spend alot of time on graphics/visuals, but quite frankly I don't see that as a bad thing at all unless they get extremely excessive, like Crysis, but even then it's an advancment! Of course publishers want a more guaranteed game that will make money, so just slap in some proven-good gameplay and you can work on the visuals.

Saying that graphics are "killing" the industry is like saying bigger or slightly colorful fonts are killing the book industry, only that graphics/visuals help improve the experience.

With all of that said, I do agree that some publishers do tend to focus alot on the graphics/visuals sides, but whatever innovations they can bring to the visual table can only improve with examples like the Euphoria engine and new lighting techniques to help the game become more immersive.

 

[PumpActionJesus]

Graphics dont make a game, take Warcraft3 for example. Acording to my Xfire ive spent near 6000 hours on it and i bought it when it was released yet i can still go on it today and find it to be as fun as the day i took the plastic wrapping off xD.

I admire games with graphics and love taking in the beauty thats been created for my pleasure (The Cry- games being a prime eg)yet i tend to rarely go on them atall after the first time and now they just sit on my games shelf.

Prime example of a brilliant game with bad graphics..Ultima Online- been playing that for 9 years with its awful 2Dish graphics and its still the most in depth wonderful Mmorpg that i have ever played, Apart from maybe SWG and ive been on WoW,EQ1/2, FF11, warhammeronline, Planetside, lotro + the crappy free ones.) so i can atleast say ive played the variety.

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

I think I shall now drop to my knees and worship my newest God.

All Hail Shamus!

But seriously, this makes SO much sense. High graphics=harder to make, even harder to run and even more of a headache to fix if it breaks.

I remember Command and Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath used to butt-screw my graphics card until I bumped the graphics to their lowest setting and prayed five times towards EA Studios.

 

[Jumplion]

Graphics dont make a game, take Warcraft3 for example. Acording to my Xfire ive spent near 6000 hours on it and i bought it when it was released yet i can still go on it today and find it to be as fun as the day i took the plastic wrapping off xD.

I admire games with graphics and love taking in the beauty thats been created for my pleasure (The Cry- games being a prime eg)yet i tend to rarely go on them atall after the first time and now they just sit on my games shelf.

Prime example of a brilliant game with bad graphics..Ultima Online- been playing that for 9 years with its awful 2Dish graphics and its still the most in depth wonderful Mmorpg that i have ever played, Apart from maybe SWG and ive been on WoW,EQ1/2, FF11, warhammeronline, Planetside, lotro + the crappy free ones.) so i can atleast say ive played the variety.

See, I have a problem when people say "graphics don't make the game" and then point to an old game to prove their point.

Of course graphics wouldn't make the game for older games because those graphics were cutting edge at the time! You cannot say that graphics don't make the game when you point to an old game that has crappy graphics by today's standards.

I can't say "graphics don't make the game!" then point to Sonic the Hedgehog on Genesis because those graphics were amazing at the time. Of course graphics don't make the older games because we don't have graphics like that anymore so it's easier to focus on the gameplay aspects and stuff.

However, if you use a more current example, like, say, the newer Sonic Unleashed, then you can say "graphics don't make the game" because it's current with the graphics of today. If for some reason the Sonic Team were focusing entirely on graphics (which they probably did...), then you can say "graphics don't make the game" because the current graphics right now can't be put aside as "old".

I'm sorry if I'm not making much sense, this sounded better in my head when I was typing it...

 

[alen456645]

I find that game play is much more important then graphics but also to say that it isn't fun to play games that have graphics that are so terrible that you don't know that the images are. So I think personally that a fair balance needs to be make instead of shitty games with amazing graphics. They make good games with alright graphics.

 

[Boaal]

Gameplay is the reason why games like diablo 2, starcraft, the original Mario games, the original zelda games, goldeneye, timesplitters and a whole load of other titles from before the great graphics race, are still adored, played continuously and held in high esteem by people all over the place. Graphics are nice, there's no denying it, but it's really not the core element of a game.

If we had games in reality that consisted of us standing around or going from one place to the next, with the only draw points being to stop and admire a tree or that random barrel fire on the corner of a street, how far would they get? That's why people invented cards, sports etc. Not to stand there and look at the pretty scenery or people, but to have fun playing the actual game!

 

[Xan Krieger]

I was talking to a young guy who had recently spent a few thousand dollars upgrading his PC to play games. I asked him what he liked to play. He said "I mostly play games for the graphics. So, like, Crysis."

I just stared at him. All I could think was "You spent thousands of dollars... so the games you don't really care about would look a bit better?"

As a person who plays Crysis at high detail the only reason I upgraded my comp was an attempt to keep up with the ever evolving world of video games. I wish they'd stick to older graphics engines (empire total war could have worked with Medieval 2 or even Rome total war graphics) because then like everyone else has said more people could play it. Doom 3 is a great example. When it first came out few people could max it out on settings but now five years later I would assume many people can. The Doom 3 engine looks great and there is no reason games couldn't have kept using it.