This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

what happened to games? are graphics actually that important?

#1deadlyhunterPosted 12/15/2013 4:29:44 PM
the ps1 had awesome games. my fav was FFIX. awesome story, amazing cutscenes, good gameplay.

now recently games are going down the super complex 3d high rez routes. an example of this is skyrim, which whilst beautiful, i still felt the gameplay left a hell of a lot to be desired, and the story didn't make me care. now i know the graphical quality is high, but i think due to the complex 3D design they don't always look 'best'. an example of this is bastion. games like bastion have demonstrated that 2D games can have amazing graphics and sell well.

but nobody wants that...well thats not true. pokemon has shown so much success every year using a recycled formula year after year. minecraft is still going very strong as well. monster hunter for the psp had a huge following. good gameplay is trumping graphics at every turn.


so my question is why aren't there more games that are highly immersive, have massive replay value and have awesome graphics but of the 2D variety?
i mean it would be a LOT cheaper and easier to make, hell there is the RPG maker software out there and sells.
it would enable the developers to tell better stories without being limited by disc space. gameplay has already been tried and tested such that they know what is popular and not popular and could concentrate on making a hit of a game.


or even if not 2D, why not simpler graphics with awesome gameplay like monster hunter tri for wii?
it seems as though the gaming industry is completely absent of what people want, just producing more of the exact same year after year without any innovation or without addressing 90% of genres with anything decent (yet another cod, another assassins creed, another battlefield, another fallout, another killzone, another forza...)
#2DerPancakePosted 12/15/2013 4:32:15 PM
Hilariously CoD is a gameplay over graphics game.
---
http://i.imgur.com/mng6Lqf.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/mxvh3ut - Taylor Swift: Queen of Pop.
#3Psykic PetrolPosted 12/15/2013 4:37:56 PM(edited)
Not saying you don't have some valid points in there, but you're complaining about games rehasing the same formula over and over by using examples of games that rehash the same formula over and over as counter-examples.
---
How do you ejaculate from plane? I try to press the buttons but I do not find it. Sorry for my bad english - Bean0
#4LordSeiferPosted 12/15/2013 4:39:46 PM
making games with more polygons doesnt mean they have to skimp on stories.

rushing the graphics wont get you better gameplay, its not like one guy is making the entire game. they try to do the best they can on everything generally. if you dont like the gameplay, well then dont play it
---
^ this
#5deadlyhunter(Topic Creator)Posted 12/15/2013 4:43:59 PM
i was using the example of some games saying that graphics isn't everything.

cod doesn't put graphics first, but i was again saying that everything nowadays is a sequel of a sequel with nothing original. i liked the final fantasy games i.e. 9,10, because the gameplay changed a fair bit between games, or became refined, and the story was key.

and i wasn't implying skimping on graphics would make gameplay better. i was saying a game easier to programme allow the developer to focus on the story and gameplay refinement more as, due to more space to do it, less technical requirements, and more time
#6Pal 080Posted 12/15/2013 5:05:56 PM(edited)
I'm having a hard time finding a particular question being asked here but I'll say this...

It would be nice to see more developers using their own in-house engines that they are familiar with so they don't have to spend as much time troubleshooting and bug fixing, and one where everyone on the team (from the games director to the animators and artists and story writers and more) is familiar with the limitations and specializations of their given engine.

The way I see it is there are so many engines being used now that are just bought form someone else or the big thing, constantly being altered and tweaked that no one knows how the frack their supposed to work with it or what it's even capable of, so compromises are made and mistakes are made.

Something like EA using Frostbite on all their recent games was supposed to help this... but that's probably not the best example since EA seems incompetent at releasing working products. The example I like to think of as a great source of inspiration is CD Projekt who have now created their own engine meant for exactly the kind of games that they plan to make.

Everyone at the development firm was involved in this creation process and so now the engine is everything they all want and need it to be, so they can concentrate solely on creating and implementing assets within the engine. Rather than having to constantly re-envision aspects of their product, or cut back on visual flare, or the number of characters featured, or the scope of the world, they can do everything they set out to do.

Though in this industry there are few (large) companies as closely knit as CD Projekt so I think this kind of studio wide collaboration is rare and hard to achieve. All this being said I don't know much about the nitty gritty of creating games so I may be way off base, but it seems like every major release (except CoD) has a new engine backing it, or a very old and heavily altered one, and it seems like it'd get very complicated over time.
---
"If we can hit that bulls-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate"
#7DiviDudePosted 12/15/2013 5:03:19 PM
Gaming has always emphasized graphics in this way, so in that regard nothing has happen to games. Even the PS1 was drooled over for its graphical capabilities. Funny that you mention FFIX, which was lauded at the time for having the best PS1 graphics at the time, and one could easily criticize it for having "a recycled formula", especially after FF8 tried to shake things up.

"Back in my day" complaints aside, I do agree with your point; none of my favorite games were known for their great graphics. In fact, games like System Shock 2 and Deus Ex were known for their *bad* graphics.

There's a tradeoff between amount of content, quality of content, and graphics/presentation. I wouldn't complain if developers starting taking resources away from graphics and putting them into content.
#8LordOfLegaciesPosted 12/15/2013 5:03:57 PM
deadlyhunter posted...
1. pokemon has shown so much success every year using a recycled formula year after year. minecraft is still going very strong as well. monster hunter for the psp had a huge following. good gameplay is trumping graphics at every turn.

2. so my question is why aren't there more games that are highly immersive, have massive replay value and have awesome graphics

3. but of the 2D variety?

4. i mean it would be a LOT cheaper and easier to make

5. it would enable the developers to tell better stories without being limited by disc space.

6. gameplay has already been tried and tested such that they know what is popular and not popular and could concentrate on making a hit of a game.

7. it seems as though the gaming industry is completely absent of what people want, just producing more of the exact same year after year without any innovation or without addressing 90% of genres with anything decent (yet another cod, another assassins creed, another battlefield, another fallout, another killzone, another forza...)


1. That's because they're formulas that work. Why would they change it and risk games not selling as well when they're already making a whole bunch of money?

2. Skyrim has all of those things. Gameplay is definitely subjective but you're kind of putting your foot in your mouth here.

3. 2D graphics have gotten very tired for the most part. Lowering the standards of modern graphics wouldn't change anything.

4. They're called indie games. There are definitely some great ones out there, but a huge majority of them are complete garbage. Being easier to create and playing the get out of jail free card by calling it "artsy" tends to make the developers lazy.

5. That's silly. There's nothing stopping devs from making a good story even with top of the line graphics. Crysis was created more than six years ago and it still holds it's own today with some of the best graphics out there, and it had a pretty interesting story. Fallout: New Vegas' story was great too.

6. That's right, it is all tried and tested. They know exactly how to make a hit game, and so they do that. Again you're kind of putting your foot in your mouth there.

7. No, the gaming industry knows exactly what people want as I have already stated. They keep making CoD, Fallout, Assassin's Creed, etc because they know they're going to be hit games. They've yet to be wrong with some exceptions obviously, but they still get boatloads of money and there's no arguing with that.
---
The moderation staff and system on this website are both absolutely terrible.
#930aught6Posted 12/15/2013 5:04:29 PM
deadlyhunter posted...
i was saying a game easier to programme allow the developer to focus on the story and gameplay refinement more as, due to more space to do it, less technical requirements, and more time

That's not the way game development works.
---
| i7-3930K | MSI BB-XP II | GTX 680 4GB X2 | CORSAIR DDR3 32GB | TT Grand 1200W | SG 240GB SSD | WD 4TB HD | Fractal XLR2 |
#10DiviDudePosted 12/15/2013 5:09:48 PM
LordOfLegacies posted...
Crysis was created more than six years ago and it still holds it's own today with some of the best graphics out there, and it had a pretty interesting story.


What? Crysis is like the textbook example of a pretty game with nothing else going for it, especially not story.