Death to Good Graphics!

[Dorian Cornelius Jasper]

Fallout 3 has all of the things you said make a game less good but it is still an award winning game...

Award-winning yes. But I'm something of a Fallout 1 and 2 grognard and F3 didn't impress me as much as it did others. However, compared to many other big-budget games, especially other first-person games, Fallout 3 did have much, much more content. It's less proof against my point and more proof for Shamus' point that developers need to find a sensible balance between spending on presentation and spending on content.

Note that even Bethesda admits that their visual production values are relatively low compared to other games in the latter half of this decade--ironic considering they earned a reputation for bleeding-edge graphics when Oblivion was released. Graphically speaking, Fallout 3 is actually a little behind the curve and still manages to look presentable, which lines up rather nicely with some points made in the thread.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I fully agree with the article (and i'm a graphics programmer myself, i have worked in a games company and i've made a bunch of "indie" games).

However it isn't the technology that is the problem. Really. If you think about it, making an engine doesn't take much time. What it *does* take time is using the engine. This includes using the tools to create content. And with "tools" i mean both the engine-specific tools (such as the world editor) and the generic tools such as the 3D modelling program and the 2D content creation program (Max, Maya, Blender, Photoshop, etc).

In the company i worked at we had some great art. Technically our engine wasn't anything spectacular, edge-pushing, etc. In fact most of the art worked with your standard diffuse + normal + specular + lightmap rendering, plus some shadows, particles and other "common" effects. Yet the results we had (back then) were amazing.

Why? But because we had about five times more artists than programmers.

Content creation is the bottleneck in game development and this isn't always tied to technology. Sure, in Wolf3D era one could make a good level in a single afternoon. Doom expanded this to a week, Quake... well some people over at func_msgboard need at least a month to create a good looking level. And if you notice, every single one of these games removed some limitation. As we get less and less limitations, we reach more "life like" results for our virtual worlds and these virtual words become more real.

The problem is, the real world took millions of years to become what it is today.

I believe today we have enough technology to display a very convincing imitation of a real world. But to display something, we first have to create it. And our technology on this aspect is far from ideal. For the last 20 years (and more) we use the same principles developed by SGI to create the world content. Triangles. 3D mesh models. Our 3D modelling tools are just extensions to the same tools people used in old SGI workstations. The Quake 1 models were made the same way the Crysis models were made: pushing triangles around. Sure we now have ZBrush and similar tools, but these are just extensions to the basic idea of texture mapped triangles.

Currently the industry tries to solve the problem in a "brute-force" manner: spending more money for more detailed content. I believe this is a short-term solution which already has started showing its drawbacks. The solution lies more on creating new technology which is designed to allow faster content creation than pushing more detail. Currently the goal is to push more detail on the screen without much thought on the content creation speed. I believe this must be reversed and the goal shoul be to create content faster with the detail to be a secondary goal. If we solve the fast content creation issue, adding detail will be a natural evolution of this.

I enjoyed reading that, and I agree with you. I believe this solution needs to be made quickly, because games are beginning to take years at a time to be created, and if they keep on the same track it will only take longer. If FFXII took four years to make, and Killzone 2 took five, what stops the next generation of titles from taking longer with higher risk due to the higher cost, with games costing around 60-65 pounds/dollars the way they are going now?

Shamus is right, optimise what you have, don't venture too far forward. I think it's likely that Sony will never take such a risk of such high calibre again.

Why can't we just accept that graphics are getting better in games and that technology is advancing?
I payed the price for a next-gen console, so I expect the next-gen graphics, nothing less, nothing degenerative.

I'll play the snide bastard once again. You paid for a current-gen console, a games console. Hopefully you bought it for the games, in which case graphics come second in line to gameplay, and surely it should be forgiven if the graphics don't look great, if the gameplay is.

 

[Jumplion]

I enjoyed reading that, and I agree with you. I believe this solution needs to be made quickly, because games are beginning to take years at a time to be created, and if they keep on the same track it will only take longer. If FFXII took four years to make, and Killzone 2 took five, what stops the next generation of titles from taking longer with higher risk due to the higher cost, with games costing around 60-65 pounds/dollars the way they are going now?

Shamus is right, optimise what you have, don't venture too far forward. I think it's likely that Sony will never take such a risk of such high calibre again.

But the only real way to improve and evolve gaming is to take risks of high calibre. It doesn't matter what the risk is.

Again, I bring up the difference in "visuals" and "graphics".

I'm not sure if you'vev played Killzone 2, but KZ2 has amazing visuals as well as awesome graphics. Everything has been paid attention to and has been given detail to the most outstanding degree.

While, yes, it doesn't do too much to innovate in the game of story department, it's still as innovative as Mirror's Edge in it's own way. How many games have paid so much attention to the details, the atmosphere in games? Killzone 2 aesthetic feel to it is it's innovation and I hope more games continue to develop ways to make the game feel that much more immersive.

Of course, that is mostly my personal opinion of Killzone 2, but nobody can deny it's attention to detail and graphical/visual achievment whether they see it or not.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I enjoyed reading that, and I agree with you. I believe this solution needs to be made quickly, because games are beginning to take years at a time to be created, and if they keep on the same track it will only take longer. If FFXII took four years to make, and Killzone 2 took five, what stops the next generation of titles from taking longer with higher risk due to the higher cost, with games costing around 60-65 pounds/dollars the way they are going now?

Shamus is right, optimise what you have, don't venture too far forward. I think it's likely that Sony will never take such a risk of such high calibre again.

But the only real way to improve and evolve gaming is to take risks of high calibre. It doesn't matter what the risk is.

Again, I bring up the difference in "visuals" and "graphics".

I'm not sure if you'vev played Killzone 2, but KZ2 has amazing visuals as well as awesome graphics. Everything has been paid attention to and has been given detail to the most outstanding degree.

While, yes, it doesn't do too much to innovate in the game of story department, it's still as innovative as Mirror's Edge in it's own way. How many games have paid so much attention to the details, the atmosphere in games? Killzone 2 aesthetic feel to it is it's innovation and I hope more games continue to develop ways to make the game feel that much more immersive.

Of course, that is mostly my personal opinion of Killzone 2, but nobody can deny it's attention to detail and graphical/visual achievment whether they see it or not.

But that's it though, why are developers in general going to take risks to evolve gaming if they could go bankrupt on a single game a la Haze? (you wouldn't believe I had to google that, I had forgotten that title already) If games get more expensive, things like this would become the exception and not the rule.

Detail wise yes it is painstakingly detailed, but it's hardly the peak of this generation. Optimisation means you can get even more than that without venturing away from this generation's hardware. It's all well and good to improve and evolve gaming when you're a developer who has a bottomless budget, but that idea isn't so appealing when you're a business trying not to go bankrupt on a single title.

This in my opinion could affect the kind of games that these devs are putting out, hence the great deal of crap/similarity in content recently, because the grizzled space marine worked for the guy before them.

P.S. it's 4:47 here so forgive me if that didn't make sense, please let me know if it didn't.

 

[Disembodied_Dave]

This is something I've been saying for years.

Hell I still think Quake 2 looks good. (especially since I can finally run it on the highest settings.)

 

[0p3rati0n]

If it aint fun, it aint fun. Graphics do not MAKE games fun. They can only augment it, but graphics that augment fun usually are considered bad graphics.

then there would be more people buying Wiis >_>

 

[Dorian Cornelius Jasper]

The slight degrading aspect of the graphics was a worthwhile sacrifice that made Fallout 3 a great game. I think that more game developer's should pay attention to Bethesda's infinate wisedom when it comes to making great games.

Then in the end we've come to an agreement.

 

[StarStruckStrumpets]

Death to Good Graphics!

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

Read Full Article

I'm sorry, but am I the only person who thinks we don't need to move graphics on any further at all? I mean, I think they're absolutely excellent now, why do people persist on raising the bar? I just want to keep things level, don't create new software, stick with the kit you have and make a good story...

(Congratulations Mass Effect >.>)

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I don't understand why everyone seems to be obsessed with game length.

Having longer hallways, unnecessary cut-scenes, and more of the same enemy in the same rooms doesn't make a game "better", nor does it imply more "value".

But having a variety of levels and missions, more options and improved game mechanics does make a game better and gives it more value for money.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I don't understand why everyone seems to be obsessed with game length.

Having longer hallways, unnecessary cut-scenes, and more of the same enemy in the same rooms doesn't make a game "better", nor does it imply more "value".

But having a variety of levels and missions, more options and improved game mechanics does make a game better and gives it more value for money.

Agreed, but it seems that all too often "professional" reviewers will only mention the length of the game, not what it entails.

For example, a first person shooter could be around 3 hours long, and they will say something along the lines of "for 3 hours, this game is not worth your $60".

On the other hand, they could be reviewing an RPG, and say something along the lines of "the main story clocks in at around 80 hours, so you are definitely getting a lot of bang for your buck". But... They don't point out that 60 of those hours are pointless grinding and 10 more are annoying minigames.

I guess I just want more specifics in my reviews in general, honestly.

No doubt 3 hours of quality is better than 10 hours of crap, I mean I finished CoD 4 in about 4 hours and it's still one of the best fps I've played in a while.

The fact that games are getting more expensive means that people want a much fuller game with a worthwhile length. At times a 3 hour game may as well be a £40/$60 demo. It becomes instant gratification that just wasn't worth the money in the end, kind of like fast food. To me, this must be why reviewers talk about game length the way they do.

If you bought a game priced at what it is now, and it lasted you two days, would you not feel cheated?

 

[Jamous]

I think most ppl prefer innovative ideas and good value for money to JUST blinding graphics. A mix of the two is preferable.

 

[Fingerprint]

"Yes, there are mainstream game reviewers out there who are obsessed with graphics and spend their non-gaming hours masturbating to the NVIDIA product catalog."

That made my day, the trouble is its so true its almost scary. There is nothing wrong with innovation - how can we get the mainstream developers to realise that. (Mirrors Edge was a step in the right direction, even though the game was pretty average. But at least it was trying to be something different.)

 

[Kiutu]

If it aint fun, it aint fun. Graphics do not MAKE games fun. They can only augment it, but graphics that augment fun usually are considered bad graphics.

then there would be more people buying Wiis >_>

Well graphic whores are still around and the Wii has alot of trashy games actually. Seems like wanna-be developers enjoy using the Wii as a system to experiment on and lots of garbage comes out of it. While browsing my local Gamestop I decided to see what Wii games were available out of curiosity. Alot of it were lame party games or odd...things. I would not call em games though.