Someone had to post it.
Anyway, Shamus, you have to interview some developers or something. Get this through their heads.
Death to Good Graphics!
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Someone had to post it.
Anyway, Shamus, you have to interview some developers or something. Get this through their heads.
This is hilarious: because my teach, who works in the industry, has already ranted to us on this exact topic. The industry is at the point where making games costs a ton because they HAVE TO BE SHINY or people think that they're bad. Didn't the Wii prove that stuff can be successful/good without looking like MGS4?
EDIT:
EDIT:
DWARF FORTRESS. AWESOME SAUCE.Woe Is You said:
I'll agree that fun comes first, but I'll also admit that graphics affect immersion. I'm playing the DS version of FFIV specifically because the graphics are decent.
The real problem is, even consumers can't keep up with the technology anymore. My copy of Gears Of War looked wonderful, but considering I don't have an HDTV, it didn't look as good as the developers wanted (Or as good as all their effort should have made it look).
This is definitely an issue, and until developers learn to skirt it, it will hamper the industry.
The real problem is, even consumers can't keep up with the technology anymore. My copy of Gears Of War looked wonderful, but considering I don't have an HDTV, it didn't look as good as the developers wanted (Or as good as all their effort should have made it look).
This is definitely an issue, and until developers learn to skirt it, it will hamper the industry.
*digs out genesis and SF/SF2*Lazarus Long said:The most exciting purchase I've made in many moons was the Ultimate Genesis Collection on 360, because I can play Shining Force again. I'd be perfectly happy parking the tech level for a while if it means gameplay gets deeper. It kind of feels like Bethesda and Bioware are the only ones even trying.
And Starcraft wasn't bad at all, but it'll always take a backseat to MOO2 for me.
I feel a shining force marathon coming on... Zylo needs feeding.
Excellent article Shamus, and I definitely am boggled at the need for developers to always push the bar, seemingly throwing away the hard work they put into an earlier engine. Conspiracy theorists might blame it on ATI, Nvidia, Intel, and AMD since those four make money when bigger better graphics in a game come out. The owners of Alienware probably had a overabundant happiness seizure episode when Crysis came out. But those would just be theories and/or opinions, which I won't and don't want to delve into.
As for companies that do use an engine for new content, seeing what new stuff they can wring out of it, I can think of Epic and Rockstar for examples, besides Valve(which is king in my books, they can lead the content revolution!). The first incarnation of Unreal Tournament which held strong for some time ran on the same engine that gave us Unreal. True that is as far as it goes, but where Epic is concerned that was nice of them, especially since Unreal was the Crysis-equivalent of its time. (I still remember trying to tweak Unreal up to get the juicier graphics and ended up with framerate slowdown that would come back to haunt me with Crysis. Those juicier graphics are so easy on my system now, Unreal actually operates on Red Bull mode. Zoom!) Rockstar used the same engine for GTA3, Vice City, and San Andreas. I think GTA:SA was definitely its peak as they built a new one for 4, which for regular PC's at this time seems to be over the top, but hopefully they will be happy with that engine for a while. I am sure there could very well be more examples of recycled engines, but they are obscured by the next best thing that always comes out. When I saw the recommended system for Fallout 3 I felt a distinct pain of frustration.
We need a content revolution and put the graphics revolution on hold until the content catches up or even passes by.
As for companies that do use an engine for new content, seeing what new stuff they can wring out of it, I can think of Epic and Rockstar for examples, besides Valve(which is king in my books, they can lead the content revolution!). The first incarnation of Unreal Tournament which held strong for some time ran on the same engine that gave us Unreal. True that is as far as it goes, but where Epic is concerned that was nice of them, especially since Unreal was the Crysis-equivalent of its time. (I still remember trying to tweak Unreal up to get the juicier graphics and ended up with framerate slowdown that would come back to haunt me with Crysis. Those juicier graphics are so easy on my system now, Unreal actually operates on Red Bull mode. Zoom!) Rockstar used the same engine for GTA3, Vice City, and San Andreas. I think GTA:SA was definitely its peak as they built a new one for 4, which for regular PC's at this time seems to be over the top, but hopefully they will be happy with that engine for a while. I am sure there could very well be more examples of recycled engines, but they are obscured by the next best thing that always comes out. When I saw the recommended system for Fallout 3 I felt a distinct pain of frustration.
We need a content revolution and put the graphics revolution on hold until the content catches up or even passes by.
Delicious ASCII vision! Spoiler: And I'm old enough to remember that kind of visual on a TRS-80. We've come a long way baby! Let's just don't go too far..Woe Is You said:By "tech", I meant graphics tech in particular. I mean, a game like this (released in 2006, by the way):
...is actually a pretty impressive technical feat by one person. It's just not graphics tech we're talking about but the fact that it's an extremely intricate simulation of a fantasy world.
Shucks. Considering I have spent way, waaaaaay more time on games like:
Dwarf Fortress..
Mount & Blade..
Tripwire Interactive's Red Orchestra and now Killing Floor..
OpenTTD..
Warzone 2100..
Sword of the Stars..
Brigade E5..
7.62mm High Calibre..
..than on games like Call of Duty with all it's fancy graphics, says a lot. At least, to me it does. I must say that World at War was an enjoyable experience, but it has little replay value.
None of the games I have mentioned have anything close to cutting edge graphics, and all run well on my laptop. The eye should definitely have something, but not all of it.
Dwarf Fortress..
Mount & Blade..
Tripwire Interactive's Red Orchestra and now Killing Floor..
OpenTTD..
Warzone 2100..
Sword of the Stars..
Brigade E5..
7.62mm High Calibre..
..than on games like Call of Duty with all it's fancy graphics, says a lot. At least, to me it does. I must say that World at War was an enjoyable experience, but it has little replay value.
None of the games I have mentioned have anything close to cutting edge graphics, and all run well on my laptop. The eye should definitely have something, but not all of it.
I've been saying similar for years. I remember getting annoyed by adverts for games that only contained about 3 seconds of playable in-game footage as opposed to cut scene majesty.
I'm currently transfixed on Twighlight Princess, a game which is on the graphically inferior Wii and about 3 years old. I think the graphics are still important as they can help with the immersion. I felt part of Ocarina & Twighlight, but not Wind Waker. I still loved WW, but I didn't feel the same connection due to the graphics. They were gorgeous, however they just never clicked with me.
I think it's what you do with the graphics. They don't have to be budget bustingly intense, just made with a bit of care and attention. If a game still plays like a dream then that's a hell of a lot more important.
I'm currently transfixed on Twighlight Princess, a game which is on the graphically inferior Wii and about 3 years old. I think the graphics are still important as they can help with the immersion. I felt part of Ocarina & Twighlight, but not Wind Waker. I still loved WW, but I didn't feel the same connection due to the graphics. They were gorgeous, however they just never clicked with me.
I think it's what you do with the graphics. They don't have to be budget bustingly intense, just made with a bit of care and attention. If a game still plays like a dream then that's a hell of a lot more important.
Also, the point about games not running on some PC's is very true. I stopped buying PC games because I knew that no games would run on my (relatively new, but not massively tech'd up) PC. The last one was Age Of Empires 3 and I had to turn all the settings right down.
So there are many games I've lost out on. As I fall slightly more into that 'Casual' market, I'm not going to keep up to date with the latest sound cards just so I can go spend more money on a game. I know for a fact I'm not the only one.
So there are many games I've lost out on. As I fall slightly more into that 'Casual' market, I'm not going to keep up to date with the latest sound cards just so I can go spend more money on a game. I know for a fact I'm not the only one.
HAH! I love *They just happen to be shooters*Extravaganza said:
Assassins Creed in my opinion was a great game, and it had great graphics. But do good graphics make a game good-looking? I mean, take Rayman 2: Revolution. Made at the very beginning of the PS2's empire, it had pretty bad graphics. But the art direction, and how the graphics were used, made the game beautiful. Its bold use of colour, the explosive environments, all of this led to one of the best-looking games of its time.
Shotgun making a thread for this
I think that a prime example of this article being true is Killing Floor (and I think I saw mention of it a couple times while I skimmed through). Recently released on Steam, the game has graphics that could easily run on a PS2 or X-Box (not 360), and it's a very fun game in spite of the graphical inferiority.
Twilight Princess isn't even a Wii game, remember. It's a GameCube game with a Wii port. The graphics are the same; the port is exactly the same in all respects save the control scheme, and taking place entirely in mirror-Hyrule because it's assumed most players can't sword-fight left-handed.AndyVale said:
Put it this way: Twilight Princess ought to be graphically inferior to most Wii games. And yet it definitely holds its own. Says something about the revolutionary new graphics technology, doesn't it?
I'm gonna pick a game purely based on its history of fun, and its current problem with its graphical level being too high... GTA IV (Yes, I know it's mainly because the PC port was shoddy, but bear with me, that's not gonna be my point.)
Here would be the ideal test.
When GTA V comes out, Rockstar should release two versions, one looking twice as detailed as GTA IV on its highest settings, and another one with Vice City/ San Andreas level graphics, but make the lower one $10-20 cheaper.
Lets see how much the customer is willing to pay for shiny screen candy, or whether they just want to enjoy the game.
Here would be the ideal test.
When GTA V comes out, Rockstar should release two versions, one looking twice as detailed as GTA IV on its highest settings, and another one with Vice City/ San Andreas level graphics, but make the lower one $10-20 cheaper.
Lets see how much the customer is willing to pay for shiny screen candy, or whether they just want to enjoy the game.
Typos, I have them. <_<Irandrura said:That symbol means 'less than 120'.Playbahnosh said:For this game, the entry level is not a $2000 rig, but an IQ of <120. Love the irony
Irony, huh?
Some older games are better because they focused less on graphics and more on things which are important like gameplay for instance. Nowadays a lot of games suck because they spend too much time making them look pretty.
AWESOME! I just downloaded Dwarf Fortress and I'm currently trying to learn the system--wow, that game is complex.samsonguy920 said:
Also, regarding excellent RPGs like Baldur's Gate 2, I hold with everyone's comments. I always thought it was very strange that Bioware decided to switch to a 3D engine for Neverwinter Nights: not only did BG2 play a lot better, I thought it had much better graphics. It's old, but the art in it is still lovely.
Valve has taken that approach with their games, the specs have increased very little since Half-life 2.
Graphics are a very good example of the law of diminishing returns. You are putting more people to work on graphics but the additions each one is making is significantly less then when their are only a few.
People don't need better graphics, they like unique graphics, like those in Zeno Clash.
Graphics are a very good example of the law of diminishing returns. You are putting more people to work on graphics but the additions each one is making is significantly less then when their are only a few.
People don't need better graphics, they like unique graphics, like those in Zeno Clash.
Graphics are like the little decorations on a cake. They can make it a more enjoyable experiance, but they can't make a nasty sandy tasting brick any tastier. If it's a good game, it shines through it's bad graphics: NWN anyone?