What are we complaining about?

[Jumplion]

Comming off directly from this thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.69238], at first I aggreed with some people there. Story and Gameplay seemed to be overshadowed by graphics. But then, I wondered, what game (besides Crysis) was being sold specifically by graphics? And then we get the "Dazzling visuals" and "The most photorealistic game ever" on the back of boxes, but I did an experiemnt to validate that.

I have 10 games right now.
I looked at each of the game's boxes and checked to see if there was any type of bragging about visuals.
Two of those games had them. Here's the exact wording:
Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction: "Combining dazzling visuals with all-new gameplay and an epic storyline..."
Oblivion: "Next Generation Graphics;
Unprecedented visuals, including lifelike twons, dungeons, and realistic forests."

R+CF was barely a mention in the whole paragraph, so if you count that out only ONE Of my games had a whole section dedicated to the bragging of graphics.

Go ahead and do the same thing, go to your collection of games and look at the back of the boxes and tell us how many had a mention of visuals.

I ask you, what the hell are we complaining about? No game, aside from Crysis, comes to my mind when I think of games that were sold purely on graphics. All of the interviews were just mentioning the graphics for a little bit, while moving on to tell us about how the game works with it's mechanics.

Just to further emphasize this:
Haze was sold off of the Drug use, not graphics.
Assassin's Creed was sold off the historical setting and climbing around, not graphics.
CoD4 was sold off of Multiplayer and shooting Arabs, not graphics (yet we complain about all the brown and gray).
Fable 2 is being sold off of the dog's AI, not the graphics.
Crysis was sold off of the Graphics capabilities.

It seems that developers are trying to sell off of gimmicks and "innovations" rather than "Graphics".

What are we complaining about guys? I used to understand, but now I don't.

EDIT: And then, we start complaining about the "good ole days" about how games barely had a story at all and then we say that "Graphics are overshadowing Story/gameplay!". Schisophrenic much?

 

[SargentToughie]

Because at this point in the console development stages, graphics don't really matter, I've actually stopped calling them graphics, it's more of the art style that a game decides to present itself in

 

[Jumplion]

Because at this point in the console development stages, graphics don't really matter, I've actually stopped calling them graphics, it's more of the art style that a game decides to present itself in

Lol, that reminds me of an argument me and my friend had.

He said the graphics in GTA4 "sucked" because of all the brown and gray and I agreed with him, but I said instead "It's not the graphics that suck, it's the art direction because you can adjust the graphics (with brightness and contrast options)" and then we got into a huge fight about what's "Graphics" and what's "Art Direction" haha, good times

 

[Amnestic]

Go ahead and do the same thing, go to your collection of games and look at the back of the boxes and tell us how many had a mention of visuals.

Oh well if you insist. 18 games.
Ones which mentioned graphics explicitly:-
Condemned: "Unprecedented high-definition graphics and meticulously crafted surround sound plunge you into a world of violent crime." That was it's own bullet point, but was coupled with sound.
Lost Oddysey: "Photorealistic visuals and cinematics intensify the tension and tempo to take you beyond traditional RPGs." Again, was it's own bullet point.

If anyone cares for me to list the other games: Armoured Core 4, Timeshift, Dynasty Warriors: Gundam, CoD4 (Collectors Edition), Orange Box, Mass Effect (Collectors Edition), GTA4, Forza Motorsport, Crackdown, Condemned 2, Assassin's Creed, Beautiful Katamari, Blue Dragon, Warriors Orochi, DMC4 (Collectors Edition), Halo 3 (Limited Edition).

What are we complaining about guys? I used to understand, but now I don't.

Complaining for complaining's sake? If a game sacrifices gameplay to make itself look better, obviously that should be complained about, but often it's not the case whichever way you look at it. It does happen, but most game designers (hopefully) know better.

 

[Jumplion]

Go ahead and do the same thing, go to your collection of games and look at the back of the boxes and tell us how many had a mention of visuals.

Oh well if you insist. 18 games.
Ones which mentioned graphics explicitly:-
Condemned: "Unprecedented high-definition graphics and meticulously crafted surround sound plunge you into a world of violent crime." That was it's own bullet point, but was coupled with sound.
Lost Oddysey: "Photorealistic visuals and cinematics intensify the tension and tempo to take you beyond traditional RPGs." Again, was it's own bullet point.

If anyone cares for me to list the other games: Armoured Core 4, Timeshift, Dynasty Warriors: Gundam, CoD4 (Collectors Edition), Orange Box, Mass Effect (Collectors Edition), GTA4, Forza Motorsport, Crackdown, Condemned 2, Assassin's Creed, Beautiful Katamari, Blue Dragon, Warriors Orochi, DMC4 (Collectors Edition), Halo 3 (Limited Edition).

What are we complaining about guys? I used to understand, but now I don't.

Complaining for complaining's sake? If a game sacrifices gameplay to make itself look better, obviously that should be complained about, but often it's not the case whichever way you look at it. It does happen, but most game designers (hopefully) know better.

So, yeah, 2 out of 18 games 'aint bad

And developers do know better than to scrafice gameplay for graphics, but for some reason people can't see that the developers know that because
A) Most of them have actually made more than 3 games
B) They always try to go for good gameplay, storyline second, and graphics third.
but that doesn't mean that they can't spend some extra time on graphics.

But yeah, let's keep bitching until something else comes up. That should be fun.

 

[SargentToughie]

But yeah, let's keep bitching until something else comes up. That should be fun.

that's why you've created this thread... is'nt it?

 

[Jumplion]

But yeah, let's keep bitching until something else comes up. That should be fun.

that's why you've created this thread... is'nt it?

Hmmm, i guess you're right. How ironic.

 

[.J.a.T.]

I checked all my PS2 games, I have about 20 of them or so, that's a pretty impressive pile of games next to me... I think there are some under the couch too...

Anyway, total of 2 games bragged on graphs, wow. only 1% of my PS2 games were sold by graphs

Then I checked my 360 games, 5 of them. 2 of the games had the label "next gen graphs." gee, thats 20% instead of 1% thats a pretty bad score, no? Oblivion was already named there, but PREY was not, I think it got a low score... It's not that bad of a game though. But I'm getting off topic.

anyway, yeah, games are sold by graphs a lot today... Ironical is that I don't really care for graphs, if I can make out the target and tell if it's a friend or foe, It passes.

End Post.

 

[Amnestic]

wow. only 1% of my PS2 games were sold by graphs

Your maths could use some work. 2/20=10%, not 1%. So that's 10%->20% in comparison.

 

[tiredinnuendo]

For the record JAT, 2 out of 20 is 10%.

Just FYI.

- J

 

[super_smash_jesus]

The game box itself may not be the selling point to graphics per se, but how often do you see a comercial for a game that just shows a picture of the box?? I am saying that even though the box says nothing about its graphic capabilities, the underlying advertising is from people that see the commercial or clip on youtube of gameplay and say, "holy hell, the graphics are so amazing, I am going to buy it". Rarely do you see a commercial or clip showing what the story is about, or what the game has to offer other than visually. Movies are capable of showing story lines in their trailers and previews, I am not sure why games haven't hit that point yet (especially with all of the cut scenes in most games these days, you would figure it wouldn't be that difficult)

To sum it up, I am right to complain, and will continue complaining until I get a brain aneurism from yelling too much.

 

[Amnestic]

The game box itself may not be the selling point to graphics per se, but how often do you see a comercial for a game that just shows a picture of the box?? I am saying that even though the box says nothing about its graphic capabilities, the underlying advertising is from people that see the commercial or clip on youtube of gameplay and say, "holy hell, the graphics are so amazing, I am going to buy it". Rarely do you see a commercial or clip showing what the story is about, or what the game has to offer other than visually. Movies are capable of showing story lines in their trailers and previews, I am not sure why games haven't hit that point yet (especially with all of the cut scenes in most games these days, you would figure it wouldn't be that difficult)

To sum it up, I am right to complain, and will continue complaining until I get a brain aneurism from yelling too much.

Oh? Googling the DMC 4 and Mass Effect TV adverts showed me that both of them focused on story. Admittedly DMC4's story is a little wank to begin with, but they get the gist of "One guys quest for survival and self discovery, rivalry with his 'legacy(Dante)'" out there. Mass Effect was almost entirely story. You're this guy, you have to stop a rogue agent and his army from destorying the universe. Of course it had clips from the game, but games are a visually based media, of course it would.

And you could be specific as to how the game would show you what it has to offer, besides visually? Considering it's a video advert? Really now that's just silly.

 

[Danny Ocean]

True, but it's really what people read into the lines that the developers throw them, that lead them to believe it was sold on a particular aspect.

For example, advert X is released by, say, EA, for their new game 'Plumber Wars'.
Forums A and B both post the ad, and the members respond differently.
Forum A says, "wow, look at those graphics!"
Forum B says, "wow, look at that storyline!"

An Ad often doesn't say anything about the graphics, but the fact it's a visual ad allows that to be read into it. I mean, they take camera angles from the most awesome looking perspectives.

That's all very vague. I need to go eat a dictionary, brb.

 

[Jumplion]

The game box itself may not be the selling point to graphics per se, but how often do you see a comercial for a game that just shows a picture of the box?? I am saying that even though the box says nothing about its graphic capabilities, the underlying advertising is from people that see the commercial or clip on youtube of gameplay and say, "holy hell, the graphics are so amazing, I am going to buy it". Rarely do you see a commercial or clip showing what the story is about, or what the game has to offer other than visually. Movies are capable of showing story lines in their trailers and previews, I am not sure why games haven't hit that point yet (especially with all of the cut scenes in most games these days, you would figure it wouldn't be that difficult)

To sum it up, I am right to complain, and will continue complaining until I get a brain aneurism from yelling too much.

Really? Because so far, whenever I or some of my friends see a commercial for a game, or gameplay footage for a game on something like IGN they all go "Holy crap, this is going to be awesome!" and maybe take notice of the gameplay which is why they go all crazy for it. Then they go for graphics, and then story because we usually don't know much about the story until then.

You don't see developers in interviews or demos saying anything about graphics, they always talk about the gameplay, community, bits of the story, and then MAYBE they talk a bit about the graphics but talk about them as if they're a part of art direction or artstyle like "We wanted to give you a feeling that this is a dystopian future".

All of these people complaining about how "graphics don't make the game!" and how "developers are spending more time on graphcs!" are probably delusional (or I could be the one delusional) because if they actually looked at the interviews, demos, and even the back of the game boxes they would know that developers always talk about the gameplay and rarely graphics.

Besides, nowadays it seems that games are trying to be sold off of gimmicks.
Left 4 Dead is showing this "4-player co-op Zombie survival game!" gimmick sort of thing.
Mirros Edge is showing the "First-Person running parkour!" gimmick.
Dead Space is hyping up all of this "tacticle dismemberment" gimmick.
Fable 2 is claymoring over the Dog's AI.

I highly doubt that developers are trying to sell their game off of graphics (besides Crytek).

 

[Amnestic]

An Ad often doesn't say anything about the graphics, but the fact it's a visual ad allows that to be read into it. I mean, they take camera angles from the most awesome looking perspectives.

So you're saying video games adverts should only show things from average perspectives? Movies often advertise the best parts of the film so as to get more viewers. I don't fault them for that, and I take all adverts with a pinch of salt. I fully expect a video game advert to show off crazy perspectives. That's why, if I'm intrigued by the advert, I'll look for/wait for a a gameplay trailer. Any advert is misleading. I don't honestly believe that wearing Lynx deoderant will cause scores of women to clamour after me. People who can't recognise that are...well, I can't stop them from being disappointed, but I can warn them should they mention it. If you expect video game adverts to be 100% realistic for what to expect from the game itself, then you're delusional, as the whole marketing advertisement thing has been anything but realistic in respect to the product/service they're trying to sell.

Forum A says, "wow, look at those graphics!"
Forum B says, "wow, look at that storyline!"

If they both want that, why fault them? People like looking at nice things. Shocking fact of humanity I know, but I assure you it's entirely true. If a game has good graphics, one should appreciate them. I object when graphics are put in front of gameplay or story, but that's very, very rarely the case.

I saw the Final Fantasy XIII trailer a few months back, when it was first released. Had the requisite nerdgasm as a Final Fantasy nerd. I noted the beauty of the graphics, but also noted that the combat system appeared to be something entirely new. I was more intrigued by the combat system, despite the fact that showing off the graphics was a larger part of the trailer, which as I've said, I expect.

 

[Danny Ocean]

I think what I was trying to get at is that, due to most forms of advertisement being visual, they don't need to write about it.

What's the phrase?

A Picture Says One Thousand Words.

 

[Unknower]

I've noticed people like to be hypocritical in their complaining. Like, I've seen some people complain that "That part in that game just showcases the physics engine! It's just a tech demo!" but ofcourse in their favourite game similar part is "innovative" gameplay.

By the way, my Crysis box also mentions gameplay, multiplayer and story. Sure, graphics were a biiig selling point, but not the only one. Though the story did suck.

 

[Jumplion]

I've noticed people like to be hypocritical in their complaining. Like, I've seen some people complain that "That part in that game just showcases the physics engine! It's just a tech demo!" but ofcourse in their favourite game similar part is "innovative" gameplay.

By the way, my Crysis box also mentions gameplay, multiplayer and story. Sure, graphics were a biiig selling point, but not the only one. Though the story did suck.

Well, yeah, duh >_>; I mean does the box have a whole bulletin dedicated to the graphics/visuals like my Oblivion box did? If you count up all the backs of boxes that have a small mention of visuals of any kind, you know the boxes that people are saying they see "Next-gen graphics!" and "photorealistic visuals!", then if you're results are anyway similar to mine then there really isn't that much mention of visuals or anything. Most of my boxes told the story or gameplay, that's it.

But yeah, everyone's pretty much a hippo-crite without know it. I'm probably one to.

 

[Najos]

I don't think the problem is that "Developers and publishers are trying to sell a game by promoting the graphics!" I think a lot of developers and publishers are putting other elements in the backseat while graphics are focused on.

This isn't to say that EVERYONE does it, but a lot of games in recent history have had this problem. Look at Oblivion, it is a great game because of the sandbox elements and the graphics. The gameplay is TERRIBLE. Combat is horribly boring in that game and it shouldn't be. You can easily tell the devs were given plenty of cash to spend, had lots of previous experience with very similar games, and didn't seem to be rushed to finish or anything. Why was combat ignored so much? Probably because they knew their shit would sell just because it was an Elder Scrolls game and it did look pretty fucking sweet.

Now, does that mean all games are doing it or it works everytime? Of course not. Is it something to complain about? Nah. Is it something to complain about complaining about? Definitely not. We'll all do it anyway, even me. Because what's an internet gaming forum without complaining?

Edit: Also, OF COURSE THEY PUT THAT SHIT ON THE BACK OF THE BOX! Every game should have "Awesome graphics, gameplay, story, multiplayer, sex scenes!" on it.

 

[Jumplion]

Edit: Also, OF COURSE THEY PUT THAT SHIT ON THE BACK OF THE BOX! Every game should have "Awesome graphics, gameplay, story, multiplayer, sex scenes!" on it.

The "look at the back of the box" experiemnt was more of a punch to the people who are saying that they see "next gen-graphics!" and "Photorealistic visuals!" on the back of the box even though I bet they never even looked at it.