Poll: More poly less play?

[Martin Toney]

So my good men and women of The Escapist, my subject of discussion is this. With the Advent of hyper powerful in-game engines coupled with modern rendering wizardry, do you think that we will see a decline in what you would call good games? Do you share my fears that creators will focus to much on looks and neglect content, or do you think this will make our beloved designers work doubly hard to impress us with blazing visuals and heart wrenching story? I may be an Xbot but I was blown away by "Beyond" at E3. Is Beyond the first of many great things to come, or just a power play. Share your thoughts and keep it friendly.
Peace out.

 

[Vanitas likes Bubbles]

To a certain degree they do matter but only for games that try to have a realistic feel. Look at Minecraft for example. Simple graphics but very entertainment. As a Kingdom Hearts fanboy I'd be disappointed if Square drops the whole smooth character models for a more realistic character model for KH3...... if they make KH3.

 

[Mysterious Username]

I think visuals do have an impact on the overall experience, but actual gameplay content is more important.
Honestly with how great graphics have become they tend to matter less for me. In fact I'd say aesthetics tend to blend way too much no a days. Games with what are traditional "bad" graphics by current standards actually tend to stick out sort of.

 

[AndrewF022]

hmm, its interesting no doubt. But I think graphics and story will always play second tier to gameplay (as they should). So I don't think we'll see a decline of 'good games', although thats really up to personal interpretation of what a good game is at the end of the day. I think that the more technical barriers that are lifted, the more possibility there is for innovation, games can do things today that were unheard of 10 years ago. The problem is at the moment, the economic climate has forced a low risk, high return policy on most publishers (not to mention their nickel and dimeing at every turn so they don't have to, but thats another story haha) , and the people who can afford to take the risks are the ones who can't afford to take full advantage of the advances anyway.

Give it some time I reckon, next generation hopefully we'll see some really cool stuff.

 

[Gibboniser]

Aesthetics can heavily compliment the experience, but it cannot support it on its own, that's my take on it.

 

[Vegosiux]

Aesthetics can heavily compliment the experience, but it cannot support it on its own, that's my take on it.

Thing is, polygon count has nothing to do with aesthetics. Polygon count is about raw processing power to render the image, that doesn't necessarily translate into something that looks good.

 

[Gibboniser]

Aesthetics can heavily compliment the experience, but it cannot support it on its own, that's my take on it.

Thing is, polygon count has nothing to do with aesthetics. Polygon count is about raw processing power to render the image, that doesn't necessarily translate into something that looks good.

A very valid statement. I would argue though, that aside from certain art styles, say, such as Rayman, the greater the polygon count and other such improvements, the better it looks, and this is what the OP is asking, will the focus on looking good -aesthetics- subtract from good gameplay.

 

[porpoise hork]

There is nothing more irritating to me than plunking down $50-60 on a game that looks absolutely amazing, but then sucker punches you in the nuts with a measly 4-5 hours of actual story mode game play.

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

Hand over fist I dispise games that are only made for pure visual spectical. Now if it was a tech demo, I'm down with that. With a game though, I expect more then a silver river of polygons and textures.

Not that having more polys is a bad thing which allow more complex geometry but if it's not needed then they shouldn't bother.

 

[Ryotknife]

i rather have a game with lower graphics with great gameplay/story than vice versa.

that said, it would be nice to have both. although games with a more cartoony graphics do age better. i can see myself playing kingdom hearts and Valkyrie chronicles a decade from now. in fact i think there should be more cell shaded type games.

 

[Martin Toney]

Good to see everyone has their own opinion, I'm even more happy to see that you all tend to agree with the notion of, "good visuals don't equal good product". So am I the only one who seems to take offence when my lifelong hobby and lifestyle is being rapidly boiled down to QTE that look nice? Don't get me wrong, I personally think quick time events have a place in games. But looking at the lovely visuals of Resident Evil 6, i was disheartened to see Leon enter a circle of zombie/american-asian ganados only to pull the right trigger and have them all finished of in a high polish 4-5 second animation. Devil May Cry 1-2-3 (not so much 4) looked amazing, but challenged us. Now days all I see is polish and animation with QTE everywhere, I'm worried visual flair will soon outsell solid gameplay.
Pipe up and let's hear your thoughts.
ps: it's early morning here in Ireland, my apologies if I don't get back to you soon.

 

[TheCommanders]

It won't be that much longer before graphics peak. Once you attain total realism, the focus will be on making that easier to achieve. Once that's done, then games will have total freedom to use the tools available to make a great game that also looks great. So for a few years, gameplay might suffer a bit, but in the long run, it will all balance out. All complaining about it now will do is draw out the process and make it take longer.

 

[Grygor]

It won't be that much longer before graphics peak.

People have been saying this for over a decade, and it's as wrong now as it was then.

 

[TehCookie]

The visuals have a great impact on a game, but the game doesn't need the most polygons and photorealism to look good. Gameplay is the most important and to me the only bad graphics are when you can't tell what is going on. If I need a rusty key I'd rather see a glowing ball of light across the room then have to search a realistic room to find a realistic rusty key that doesn't stand out.

But looking at the lovely visuals of Resident Evil 6, i was disheartened to see Leon enter a circle of zombie/american-asian ganados only to pull the right trigger and have them all finished of in a high polish 4-5 second animation.

Also so much this. It may look cool but I want to play the game, not watch it.

 

[TheCommanders]

It won't be that much longer before graphics peak.

People have been saying this for over a decade, and it's as wrong now as it was then.

I'm not talking months or even years. It's gonna be about a decade before graphics reach as near realism as to make no difference. As a matter of fact, we can do that now, but it's not feasible in a game because of the limits of technology. Right now, the issue is making software that can render the types of effects you see in high end animated films in real time, and to release hardware at a reasonable price that can handle this aforementioned technology. And if the people you refer to were talking about the same thing I was, they were pretty much correct. Ten years is not a long time. It just feels so to us, because gaming is evolving so fast. Look at the difference between games ten years apart as opposed to, say, films ten years apart. It's developing faster, because it's developing along with technology, which grows at an exponential rather than linear rate.

 

[evilneko]

Sigh.

Didn't we have one of these in just the last week or two? I swear. -_-

 

[Grygor]

It won't be that much longer before graphics peak.

People have been saying this for over a decade, and it's as wrong now as it was then.

I'm not talking months or even years. It's gonna be about a decade before graphics reach as near realism as to make no difference. As a matter of fact, we can do that now, but it's not feasible in a game because of the limits of technology. Right now, the issue is making software that can render the types of effects you see in high end animated films in real time, and to release hardware at a reasonable price that can handle this aforementioned technology. And if the people you refer to were talking about the same thing I was, they were pretty much correct. Ten years is not a long time. It just feels so to us, because gaming is evolving so fast. Look at the difference between games ten years apart as opposed to, say, films ten years apart. It's developing faster, because it's developing along with technology, which grows at an exponential rather than linear rate.

Even a decade is way to optimistic of a timeframe.

As far as real-time technology goes, we can realistically model the way solid objects receive light from a given source, and we can simulate subsurface scattering fairly well for slightly translucent surfaces like skin.

Current tech has a noticeable deficit concerning general illumination, especially where dynamic lighting is involved, and though upcoming tech like Unreal Engine 4 promise improved general illumination, they'll still be short of reality, especially in the traditional shortcomings of realtime 3D lighting models, shadows and curved-surface reflections.

Refraction on current tech looks incredibly unrealistic - there's still a long way to go on this front.

Finally there's the issue of organic-body animations. Realistic skin creasing and muscle deformation are still quite a ways off, which is especially noticeable with the way modern games love to show us human faces in close-up.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

I wonder how many people of those that say graphical quality means nothing to them, play their games on the lowest settings possible to ensure maximum frame rate.

 

[The Abhorrent]

Didn't we have one of these in just the last week or two? I swear. -_-

Maybe, at least within the last month [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.374520-Poll-Discussion-Would-you-sacrifice-HD-graphics-for-bigger-and-longer-games]. Speaking of which, the general consensus has been that people are willing to give up HD graphics if it means more content can be put into games; speaking from a cost-benefit perspective, that is.

There were a couple provisions, though:
- Good asthetic design is still a must; games can look fine without HD and/or photorealistic visuals, but going without those is no excuse to get sloppy with the art design (heck, it's arguably more important without HD). There's no way to cater to everyone's tastes still, but the provision still stands.
- Quality content, not padding. Games are made longer just for the sake of being longer, that'd be a waste. Just without the expense of HD visuals, games with a longer tale to tell can be made at all; pacing is another thing to keep track of, and holds more importance as the game gets longer.

 

[Vegosiux]

I wonder how many people of those that say graphical quality means nothing to them, play their games on the lowest settings possible to ensure maximum frame rate.

I actually tend to knock settings down for that, like all the time. Shadows go first, then antialiasing if necessary. I don't have to move past that to ensure a smooth run, usually, though (and I like to keep the FPS close to my monitor refresh rate, there's no point in raising it above that, now is there).

Okay, admittedly, I'd disable shadows even if that offered no increase in performance, because they're simply an eyesore, I just don't like having them around, at all.