Forget about the graphics.

[Matthew Jabour]

With more and more stories cropping up about how production costs are on the rise - Ubisoft only wants franchises because of development costs, Nintendo lost a lot of money going HD, Dead Space 3 needed to sell 5 million copies to survive, and Square Enix is losing money like they're allergic to it - many people have wondered why prices are going up. The answer is simple: unless the game has some totally new mechanics that need to be built from the ground up, most of the costs go into making better and better graphics. In some cases, better graphics are great - hell, it's the only thing Crysis has going for it - but most of the time, they're just a money sink.

So my suggestion is: why don't the game companies just get together and say, 'No more graphics,' and stop working on making graphics better, just keep the graphics the way they are. It wouldn't even need to be the whole industry, either, just one company could start it. Let's say Valve came out one day and said, 'You know what? Our games look fine already. From now on, the graphics we have are the ones we're keeping.' Sure, they'd be ridiculed at the beginning, but everyone would still buy their games. And when their profits stayed steady while other companies steadily lost more, other companies would join them. At first, they'd just be small ones, A or AA companies, but it would grow. Eventually Capcom - which is losing money even faster than Square - would come out and say, 'Well, we see this as a viable alternative to bankruptcy - I mean, we will stand with Valve.' Then Activision - which basically makes the same games anyway - might come out and say, 'Shove those fish up your ass, Microsoft, we'll just continue making the quality experience you love.' Square Enix will resist this change and continue making games with ever-improving graphics. The graphics snobs will praise them, which will make their eventual collapse into bankruptcy that much more tragic. Eventually Nintendo would come out and say, 'Whatever. 1080 is more than enough ps in the first place, we're done.' Then Microsoft - after taking a look at their Xbox One sales figures, comes up and say, 'Well, the market seems to be showing a trend away from realistic graphics, so we will follow suit.' Then Sony, realizing that no games require any fancier graphics, says, 'Sure,' and they will do the same.

And what of PC gaming? They'll probably sneer at all of the developments in this story. 'Consoles have fallen to the casuals,' they'll say. They will then nag everyone on every forum ever about how PC gaming is superior, then pay thousands of dollars so they can mine for diamonds at 600 frames per second. No, wait, that's what they do now. So I'm not sure what they'll do, but what I am sure of is that, whatever they do, whichever path they take, the rest of us will not give a rat's ass.

So, what do you all think? I'm sure you all have rebuttals to my ideas, and I'd be happy to discuss. Please use good grammar, proper spelling, and, if at all possible, haikus.

EDIT: Nintendo went HD, not 3D. Thanks to immovablemover for pointing this out.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

It's less production costs and more advertising costs. Dead Space 3 used the same engine as Dead Space 2. So there's a lot of production cost saved right there. The gameplay is virtually unchanged, just multiplied times two. The graphics are nothing to write home about and are pretty much current industry standard.

Their issue was a massively overblown marketing budget. Lots of games fall victim to this nowadays and it's not the fault of the developers but the publishers who want to make a product more popular than it could possibly be. They think they can do this via throwing millions and millions of dollars on ad campaigns.

The games that actually have great graphics can have less overblown marketing budgets. It's not the millions that go into game development, it's the millions that go into nonsense that is not game development.

Finally, I find that the most graphically intense games are often times the better polished games and are generally enjoyable. They had the money to pour into the graphics and they also had the money to pour into other aspects of the game. Graphics can create unrealistically high marks for a game to make, but I'm less worried about that and more worried about the foolish marketing practices of publishers.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Um...you realize that Valve has been using the same exact graphics engine since 2004 right?

And take a look at Call of Duty, which has pretty mediocre graphics but still sells like hot cakes.

No one is banging on the doors of these companies telling them that they have to have the shiniest graphics in everything.

The same way, the Witcher 2 actually DID have the shiniest graphics ever and it didn't bankrupt CD Projeckt. They made pretty good money on the Witcher 2.

The reason companies like Square Enix and Capcom are losing money isn't because they're "wasting" money on making the graphics the shiniest they can possibly be, it's because they're wasting money in general. Their company management is awful which is why those companies are losing money hand over fist. Of course they don't want to ADMIT that the reason they are losing money is because they're fucking incompetent, so they blame it on "we had to spend more money than was in the budget because people were demanding better graphics."

 

[Tom_green_day]

I used to say I didn't care about graphics, but games like M&B Warband and Oblivion really take me out of a game compared to even (relatively) mediocre graphics like Fallout 3, Far Cry 2 and GTA4. I think there should be a minimum band, but I'd rather have a game with mediocre graphics that ran fast, than a game with good graphics that took hits.

 

[Lygus]

Extreme GFX and stuffed level design (think Destiny demo)? No, unless it serves an actual purpose and adds to the freedom (think Deus Ex level design. It's an example of perfect resource management). Eye-candy shouldn't be what's preferred.

Games industry needs more GAMEPLAY programmers, instead of GFX programmers. IMO, players need more freedom (= bigger areas to explore, etc.), choice on the storyline (The Witcher 2 is a great example of two completely separate story pipelines and 16 different endings) and... that's basically it. I'd prefer an environment reacting to my actions and foliage like in Crysis instead of shiny graphics with super-high-res textures to satispy 1440p or 4k res. crowd.

Interactivity is the way to go. FO: New Vegas, STALKER, and other modern games did it right. The Witcher 3 is a wonder yet to come, IMO. Awaiting with great anticipation.

As for "corporate failures (= games with "low sales") - it's the suit's (EA, Ubi, etc.) fault. They spend too much on marketing coverings and expect everything to repay at least double. Wrong, you idiots. Cut your consumers some slack.

The Witcher 2 was made with a budget of ~$8.5m. This shows how fake AAA game budgets corporations state are.

 

[Strazdas]

forget about graphics? i cant. i like pretty pictures. it is by no means the most important part, but dont udnerestimate graphics.

And the majority of money is not graphics, its advertisement and DRM stuff really.

Besides, basically what your saying is "Stop doing the easy job and do thehard one, but i will still pay you the same". that wont fly with companies.

AAA budgets are becoming the new money laundering machine i fear.

mediocre graphics like GTA4.

finally someone who does not glorify shitty GTA4 graphics. high-five!

 

[carlroscoe]

I think graphics plays an important role in games. Not only kids but adults too get attracted towards graphics and select the game that has more colorful and clear graphics.
software patents [http://www.patentsusa.com]

 

[DazZ.]

And what of PC gaming? They'll probably sneer at all of the developments in this story. 'Consoles have fallen to the casuals,' they'll say. They will then nag everyone on every forum ever about how PC gaming is superior, then pay thousands of dollars so they can mine for diamonds at 600 frames per second. No, wait, that's what they do now. So I'm not sure what they'll do, but what I am sure of is that, whatever they do, whichever path they take, the rest of us will not give a rat's ass.

And yet it's also the PC gamers that are making games with ascii graphics popular.

 

[Guy from the 80's]

Make better games and sell more. Its as easy as that.

the rest of us will not give a rat's ass.

I'm sure thats mutual.

 

[DoPo]

I think graphics plays an important role in games. Not only kids but adults too get attracted towards graphics and select the game that has more colorful and clear graphics.

I think you mean art style here, one can have very good visuals without necessarily having to stress test their video card. Mirror's Edge looks gorgeous, and it's all because of the polished and bright colour palette, then there are Journey, Okami, Mark of the Ninja, XIII - all games I really like the looks of. Neither is Skyrim or the latest Cry engine but neither needs to - hi def textures, anti-aliasing, HDR, and other graphics effects can only do so much. And to be frank, I don't like how Skyrim looks. I don't hate it, but it's just...plain or something. Nothing to really write how about aside from the picture being crisp.

And yet it's also the PC gamers that are making games with ascii graphics popular.

OK, be honest, there aren't as many ASCII games around. Really few, in fact. But there are loads and loads with 8bit pixel art. And a lot of them look good, too. Erm, also since there are so many of them, a lot of them, just..."look", I suppose and aren't anything special. At any rate, you are correct - there aren't many games that put the pressure on your video card. Really, very few, compared to the vast numbers of the ones that don't. There are probably a dozen or so games at any one time that can be used as a benchmark test, the rest don't require much more than an average setup to run to a satisfying degree.

 

[evilneko]

I think you'll find that a lot of people at least say they don't care about the graphics. What they really mean though is as long as the graphics don't detract from the game, they're fine.

However, do you realize that even if the detail level were kept the same, companies would still be spending tons of money on graphics? I mean, unless you want every game from a particular developer to look the same as assets get re-used over and over again...

Maybe what should be done is release a game with a certain level of graphical fidelity, and release a complete high-def pack as a cheap DLC--charge for it to subsidize the art production. Obviously it'd have to be higher quality than Bethesda's free one.

 

[Something Amyss]

OK, be honest, there aren't as many ASCII games around. Really few, in fact. But there are loads and loads with 8bit pixel art. And a lot of them look good, too. Erm, also since there are so many of them, a lot of them, just..."look", I suppose and aren't anything special. At any rate, you are correct - there aren't many games that put the pressure on your video card. Really, very few, compared to the vast numbers of the ones that don't. There are probably a dozen or so games at any one time that can be used as a benchmark test, the rest don't require much more than an average setup to run to a satisfying degree.

Of course, there's also the fact that a lot of these games still require a lot of graphical power and are merely emulating an 8 or 16 bit look.

 

[Snotnarok]

Everyone cares about graphics, every wii/3DS owner said how much graphics don't matter and now Ocarina of Time gets a slight touch up? They squeal in delight and buy the game for 40 bucks. The same thing with Wind Waker, which just irritated me since the original still looks amazing and everyone seems to be eager to throw 60 at a touch up of a cell shaded game.

But point standing, everyone even the Wii owners who used that as a defense to the wii still cave when the graphics look better.
Everyone cares about visuals, it's just a matter about how much.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Because then they'd have to do something with the actual game before they could call it an improvement, and as you know that's more effort than some people are willing to put in.

I'm happy with current gen graphics at their best, especially when it's stylised. But CoD changes little enough as it is. Without graphics they'd be hard pressed justifying the yearly sequels at all.

 

[DoPo]

Of course, there's also the fact that a lot of these games still require a lot of graphical power and are merely emulating an 8 or 16 bit look.

Well, yes, while disproportionate, the load is still smaller than many other games. They should still happily run as long as you have a video card, including just an integrated chipset. Well, setting aside the fact that the Intel ones are rather horrid, they would probably not impede the game noticeably.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

And what of PC gaming? They'll probably sneer at all of the developments in this story. 'Consoles have fallen to the casuals,' they'll say. They will then nag everyone on every forum ever about how PC gaming is superior, then pay thousands of dollars so they can mine for diamonds at 600 frames per second. No, wait, that's what they do now. So I'm not sure what they'll do, but what I am sure of is that, whatever they do, whichever path they take, the rest of us will not give a rat's ass.

hey, PC gamer here. nice way to generalise a massive group of people!

What exactly have I done to you?
When have I ever preached about graphics?
when have I spent 1000's on my PC?
Am I not also a gamer? Do development costs not also effect me? Why not give a rats ass about what i do as a gamer?

C'mon, since we're all the same, show me examples of when I've done any of this? Answer my questions above

 

[SinisterGehe]

Graphics are usually engine side thing and most game studios buy their engines as a license. A lot of the graphics technology now days go to optimization and new kind of packing, more content to less space.

Also you clearly have no clue how graphics, animation and environment design works. You can not speed these up, it always takes time and resources. - Unless you want every game to look alike because of reused and shared resources.

The money now days go to pointless celebrity voice-actors, licenses and marketing. The companies that push out these new titles and franchises have grown so huge that the money and resources needed just keep them running is insane. Specially when people apparently want new COD or BF every year, also market nowadays cries out for titles to come out in 12 months of it's announcement - or the buzz dies out on it.

AAA game development has come to a cold war like stand-off. Start supporting Indies and smaller companies and wait for the market to crash, blue screen and reset itself.

 

[thesilentman]

I feel that forgetting about the graphics won't help a bit as they are vastly more important than people make them out to be.

With more and more stories cropping up about how production costs are on the rise - Ubisoft only wants franchises because of development costs, Nintendo lost a lot of money going 3D, Dead Space 3 needed to sell 5 million copies to survive, and Square Enix is losing money like they're allergic to it - many people have wondered why prices are going up. The answer is simple: unless the game has some totally new mechanics that need to be built from the ground up, most of the costs go into making better and better graphics. In some cases, better graphics are great - hell, it's the only thing Crysis has going for it - but most of the time, they're just a money sink.

"Most of the costs go into making better and better graphics."

Can I have some sources please? It's a logical step, I'll admit, but I think that you're discounting advertising, paying for motion capture, and other aspects which require money. More of it.

So my suggestion is: why don't the game companies just get together and say, 'No more graphics,' and stop working on making graphics better, just keep the graphics the way they are. It wouldn't even need to be the whole industry, either, just one company could start it. Let's say Valve came out one day and said, 'You know what? Our games look fine already. From now on, the graphics we have are the ones we're keeping.' Sure, they'd be ridiculed at the beginning, but everyone would still buy their games. And when their profits stayed steady while other companies steadily lost more, other companies would join them. At first, they'd just be small ones, A or AA companies, but it would grow. Eventually Capcom - which is losing money even faster than Square - would come out and say, 'Well, we see this as a viable alternative to bankruptcy - I mean, we will stand with Valve.' Then Activision - which basically makes the same games anyway - might come out and say, 'Shove those fish up your ass, Microsoft, we'll just continue making the quality experience you love.' Square Enix will resist this change and continue making games with ever-improving graphics. The graphics snobs will praise them, which will make their eventual collapse into bankruptcy that much more tragic. Eventually Nintendo would come out and say, 'Whatever. 1080 is more than enough ps in the first place, we're done.' Then Microsoft - after taking a look at their Xbox One sales figures, comes up and say, 'Well, the market seems to be showing a trend away from realistic graphics, so we will follow suit.' Then Sony, realizing that no games require any fancier graphics, says, 'Sure,' and they will do the same.

While I do have to admit that you have a point, it falls flat because I highly doubt that any of those companies would agree on it. You did touch on that, but note one thing: those companies all make different types of games. Different types of games can use different art styles and graphics to make it all happen.

What I find surprising is that no one considers the effect that graphics may have on your game experience. Graphics did tell me one thing, and that was don't continue Dwarf Fortress for now. The graphics are in ASCII, but it made me put off the game and not pick it up later. Whereas with Cave Story, which didn't hurt my eyes and made me want to continue as it presented itself nicely. What was the difference between the two? One game used pixel art properly to intrigue me, while the other tried to use ASCII characters and failed. Note that this is my opinion, and this notion of "appealing to a group of gamers with graphics" is valid.

I'll also add that art style is covered under graphics, as that's the way the art style is realized. Different shaders, polygons and textures can realize different games and can superbly compliment them if done well.

Graphics (and art style, which should be unique and realized by the execution of graphics in a certain way) helps with presentation. It's important. Making the graphics better and better, while it does drain money quite fast, does have an impact on the majority of gamers. We here on the Escapist are a minority, and while that's fine, publishers aren't really looking at us as the main target. They're looking at the gamers who fire up a session of Call of Duty at a party. They're looking at gamers who play with friends in the same room.

Does that mean that they should quit trying to aim for a market by not caring about graphics? No. Even though I fundamentally disagree with the way that publishers work in the industry, they still have a goal to repay all of the costs that went into the game. I can't blame them for resorting to pushing better graphics and DRM, even though it is quite frankly shit.

I believe that this whole time, we still haven't properly conveyed to publishers what we really want. I sincerely think that either the publishers need a change in staff, or they just need to see the examples of what we want in games. But trying to cut down graphics and saying "NO, GRAPHICS ARE TEH DEVIL" isn't the way to do it. If anything, graphics are probably the best thing about games besides the gameplay itself, and we should be furthering them, not condemning them because some publishers think it's a good idea to make everything brown.

I suggest that all gamers should have an open mind, and actually convey this, because that is one of the problems that the gaming community has: the failure to calmly convey a certain line of thinking without throwing a hissy fit first.

And what of PC gaming? They'll probably sneer at all of the developments in this story. 'Consoles have fallen to the casuals,' they'll say. They will then nag everyone on every forum ever about how PC gaming is superior, then pay thousands of dollars so they can mine for diamonds at 600 frames per second. No, wait, that's what they do now. So I'm not sure what they'll do, but what I am sure of is that, whatever they do, whichever path they take, the rest of us will not give a rat's ass.

Stop with that now. That's a very broad generalization. I can definitely say for myself that I don't care that I play on 6 year old PC and play things older than time itself (my favorite game of all time is Mario 3 for god's sake). PC gaming isn't all about graphics and how shiny things look. Ever played Sunny? Cave Story? Iji? Limbo? Awesomenauts? Amnesia? They were all about how the game presented itself and made me want to play it.

I do realize that I did mention that graphics can turn me off. But graphics can also allow me to find greater joy in a game. Shadow of the Colossus, Journey, Flower, the Ratchet and Clank Future Trilogy, Assassin's Creed 2 and Dark Souls all allowed me to enjoy the game more because of the graphics used. All of those games used the graphics to further the experience I got and make me enjoy it better.

 

[Matthew Jabour]

And what of PC gaming? They'll probably sneer at all of the developments in this story. 'Consoles have fallen to the casuals,' they'll say. They will then nag everyone on every forum ever about how PC gaming is superior, then pay thousands of dollars so they can mine for diamonds at 600 frames per second. No, wait, that's what they do now. So I'm not sure what they'll do, but what I am sure of is that, whatever they do, whichever path they take, the rest of us will not give a rat's ass.

hey, PC gamer here. nice way to generalise a massive group of people!

What exactly have I done to you?
When have I ever preached about graphics?
when have I spent 1000's on my PC?
Am I not also a gamer? Do development costs not also effect me? Why not give a rats ass about what i do as a gamer?

C'mon, since we're all the same, show me examples of when I've done any of this? Answer my questions above

You are also a gamer. So are the thousands of your brethren who nag everybody on every conceivable forum. If what I say doesn't apply to you, that's probably because I'm not talking about you.

I never said you were all the same. The ones who shout out 'PC gaming Master Race!' on every remotely videogame related news story are the ones I refer to. They're driving me crazy. You, personally, are not, so it stands to reason that you are not the one I'm referring to.

 

[Zipa]

I hate to be ''that guy'' here OP but I don't think you put much though or research into this ramble. For one as others have pointed out Valve have used the same engine since 2004, they just modify it as needed which is much cheaper and more cost effective. They are only now working on source 2 almost 10 years after the first made its debut.

The unreal engine has operated in much the same way for many years to, it is used by a great many of games and companies as its cheaper to license it from Epic. Hell the 3DS runs on Unreal 2.5.


I think that the industry has bigger problems than graphics like say idiots in charge of companies who piss money away on ineffective advertising and then complain that they don't make their money back, especially as the target demographic for such things always seems to be dude-bros now regardless of the game and the advertising reflects this.

It doesn't matter how fine your horror or RPG or RTS game is if you market it to the wrong people.

That is just one thing that there is a problem with, there are a lot more for sure but graphics are not a big part of it if at all.


Oh and you shouldn't stereotype us ''sneering pc gamers''maybe if you listened once in awhile you will find that some of us are decent actually nice people who don't give a shit about the stuff you accuse us all of.