Death to Good Graphics!

[Irandrura]

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.

Honestly, I could never get into NWN. The graphics were so blocky and polygonal. BGII looked a lot smoother, and didn't have to re-use textures as much.

 

[duchaked]

I feel like games that have great graphics AND great gameplay are the classic and popular games that people eventually start calling "overrated" =.= kids are so hard to please

 

[Jumplion]

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?

But having a cake that looks like dog shit wouldn't make the cake very appetizing.

Sure, graphics don't make the game, but terrible graphics can put people off of playing a game (at least shitty graphics on modern games that aren't up to today's standards, oldies don't apply here)

 

[Woe Is You]

But having a cake that looks like dog shit wouldn't make the cake very appetizing.

Speaking of which, here's a local delicacy:

Yet it tastes fricking awesome.

 

[Jumplion]

But having a cake that looks like dog shit wouldn't make the cake very appetizing.

Speaking of which, here's a local delicacy:

Yet it tastes fricking awesome.

Never said looks can't be deceiving or that you should judge a book by it's cover, but first impressions are everything, and if the first impression is "My god, this game has the worst graphics I've seen!" well then...you connect the dots if you know what I mean.

 

[crypt-creature]

I've been saying this for years, and really haven't bought any new titles because of it. I bought a PS3, played a few games, and turned around to trade it in and buy back my old PS2 (yeah, it was a huge waste of time and money but a lesson well learned).

Sure, games these days look nice, but I'd rather have a game with a solid story, over a days worth of playable content, and some average graphics (PS2/GC/original Xbox).

But, give me the first two requirements and I'll be happy as a clam.

 

[Sergeant M. Fudgey]

Thank you! It is taking too many programmers to create a game and bind them to making expansions for DLC. I know graphics has always been a driving force in the video game industry but some old dogs like myself think that it is enough. Can graphics be pushed to the point of a star trck holodeck? Sure! But at the same time the amount of work to create that look is getting where the other points of the video game is being lost.

In the end graphics should still be pursued to be improved but video games cannot be that lead runner if video games are going to maintain quality gameplay.

Exactly. Crysis, I've never played it. That's because I could never run it, and I've heard it isn't even very good, it just looks pretty. Honestly though, what do you expect from a design team who can't spell crisis?

 

[Fearzone]

So in short you are saying... do what Blizzard does?

 

[sneakypenguin]

Thank you! It is taking too many programmers to create a game and bind them to making expansions for DLC. I know graphics has always been a driving force in the video game industry but some old dogs like myself think that it is enough. Can graphics be pushed to the point of a star trck holodeck? Sure! But at the same time the amount of work to create that look is getting where the other points of the video game is being lost.

In the end graphics should still be pursued to be improved but video games cannot be that lead runner if video games are going to maintain quality gameplay.

Exactly. Crysis, I've never played it. That's because I could never run it, and I've heard it isn't even very good, it just looks pretty. Honestly though, what do you expect from a design team who can't spell crisis?

In Crysis the graphics where the draw to the game though and that's not a bad thing. When you see that think in all it's glory it's just like damn, graphics alone bring a certain measure of fun.
There are games out there for the crowd that want's quick dev time PSN and XBLA have tons of those. But if you want a "full"game your going to have to wait. And I'm no expert (read I know nadda) but there are still physics engines and working out movments and suchs, I don't think adding extra detail to graphics is the issue I'd say it's the actual animation and physics engine etc that's taking so long to develop.

 

[sabotstarr]

I agree. We are at a point were any new step in graphics production will not help a game, but just make it more expensive, and look a little bit better on the new 90in. Blue ray HD-TV. Just start making good games so that i will buy them, because i'm sick of the same game with a different main character.

 

[FROGGEman2]

I'm currently transfixed on Twighlight Princess, a game which is on the graphically inferior Wii and about 3 years old.

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.

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?

Not really, as the Wii made a definite point at making the Wii NOT stuffed up to the brim with revolutionary new graphics technology...

 

[wolfshrimp]

It's funny because a while ago I had a nostalgia trip with an N64 port of GoldenEye. As a kid I was never allowed a console so to go over to a friends house and play was a special treat. I remember looking at the graphics of GoldenEye or even Halflife and thinking "Wow this is so advanced" and now it just looks grainy. I really loved Morrowind, in fact at some point soon I'm going to start a drooling fan thread about it, the thing is Morrowind had issues, the graphics weren't top notch, there was a lot of repetition in enemies, the spell-casting was awkward but for some reason it was just damn beautiful to play and I invested two years worth of gaming in it, seeing graphical upgrades (both official and modded) being brought in and I still loved the game.

I have an OK-ish laptop, it can run FarCry 2 on medium settings but I turned the resolution to save frames, doesn't bother me, I played and enjoyed. I play, Rainbow 6 Vegas 1&2, Crysis and CoD4 on medium settings and frankly I don't mind, it still looks good, plays smoothly and I'm enjoying what I play. But I try the PC-version of GTA San Andreas or World at War or sometimes MoH Airborne (played fine on the demo and every time I tried to get to the second level BLUESCREEN!!!) and the dreaded chug-chug-chug of jerky gameplay starts even on low settings. I play only on a laptop that has no chance of upgrading its graphics card so I make do with what works, I'm now backtracking over titles I know will work for entertainment. The inconsistency of games and their performance really gets me. And the length, it is true is awful. Even on sandbox games I feel the only way there is any length to some of the missions is because they have you perform the same action ad verbatim several times (Just Cause was the most transparent of those) and that's not really playing fair.

By the way if anyone wanted a better experience from World at War- try MoH Pacific Assault, I'm not overly a fan of MoH games but after World at War I looked on it much more favourably.

Keep commenting folks, maybe some savvy developer is watching and will take the hint

 

[badsectoracula]

I am a developer and i'm 100% sure that most other developers agree with these comments and the article (besides who wants to spend four years making a single game which will only last a few hours? - but with today's content needs it is hard to not spend these years).

Unfortunately it isn't the developers who make such decisions, but the publishers and marketing guys who live in their own world (which practically means, they wont read this article and comments). Its basically a "you either make better visuals than or we wont fund you; and good luck surviving" case.

 

[whyarecarrots]

The power of graphics is not what's important, but I think style can really make a game great (see Okami and Madworld).

Team Fortress 2 as well: I personally think it's one of the best looking games I've played in recent times, largely because of the interesting art design and brilliant character animation. Yes, it may not be technically as graphically good as something like Crysis or Fallout 3, but it's artistic strengths, which more than makes up for it's technical deficiencies.

My view on graphics is that, as long as they don't hurt the immersion and/or enjoyability of the game (fallout 3 character animation I'm looking at you), I'm not really that bothered by them. Having played the first Half-Life recently, even graphics that old did not get in the way of me enjoying the game. I think Shamus is right in saying that 2004 level is a good place to keep it: Half Life 2 is still a great looking game, and the engine still more than holds up today.

 

[Overlord Moo]

I totally agree with you on everything there, especially the 2004 tech idea.

I have a PC which I tend to play older games on, and it could just about run Doom 3 at a decent graphics level, but really struggles with newer games, to the point where I now need to upgrade to be able to play things at higher detail levels.

There is one example of following your model, and thats Valve. They continued to use the Source engine to bring out a variety of games, to maximise the amounts of people who would be able to play, and therefore maximise the amount of money they can make.

As usual, Valve is pretty much the only game company that really understands how the games industry works and how it's going to evolve.

You took my thoughts exactly. They've been using the same engine since 2004, and it still looks great due to the small updates they continue to make - without increasing system requirements.

And they give all their updates for free.

Thank you Valve, one of the only honest publishers/developers around.

 

[Overlord Moo]

I am a developer and i'm 100% sure that most other developers agree with these comments and the article (besides who wants to spend four years making a single game which will only last a few hours? - but with today's content needs it is hard to not spend these years).

Unfortunately it isn't the developers who make such decisions, but the publishers and marketing guys who live in their own world (which practically means, they wont read this article and comments). Its basically a "you either make better visuals than or we wont fund you; and good luck surviving" case.

Damn marketing department.

 

[munx13]

I totally agree with you on everything there, especially the 2004 tech idea.

I have a PC which I tend to play older games on, and it could just about run Doom 3 at a decent graphics level, but really struggles with newer games, to the point where I now need to upgrade to be able to play things at higher detail levels.

There is one example of following your model, and thats Valve. They continued to use the Source engine to bring out a variety of games, to maximise the amounts of people who would be able to play, and therefore maximise the amount of money they can make.

THIS. My pc can't run any game thats made in 2007 or later (exept HL2:E2 and other source games), yet I still have fun with it, mainly because of valve's games (and mods of course)

 

[Tharwen]

I just completed cod 2 again. It's a fantastic game despite being released in 2006 and having no ragdoll and very pointy models. The textures are blurred and smudgy and the smoke from grenades is just lots of flat textures, but I still enjoyed it enough to play it through once on each difficulty.

EDIT: Almost forgot: SUMMONER!!!

 

[in_95]

I wholeheartedly agree. I have just bought Quake 4 for my computer and the game runs like a dream- hi res, no slowdown at all, smooth frame rate all the way. I also tried Dawn of war 2, and even with all of the graphics options turned to the absolute minimum (which made it look a lot like Dawn of war 1) the game still chugged and sputtered like an old engine. Even on the loading screen, for some unfathomable reason.

Source, Doom 3, Unreal 2- these were and are still fantastic engines, so what if they can't do "expansive outdoor settings"? You can still do a damn good looking game for my 2 year old computer. One that hopefully also has a compelling story and gameplay, too.

 

[Irandrura]

Not really, as the Wii made a definite point at making the Wii NOT stuffed up to the brim with revolutionary new graphics technology...

And this is why I love Nintendo.