Graphics... An Unhealthy Trend
SmoodCroozn
Join Date: 2003-11-04 Member: 22310Members
Join Date: 2003-11-04 Member: 22310Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">An Opinion About The Gaming Industry</div> <a href='http://ve3dboards.ign.com/General_News/b10496/18832528/p1' target='_blank'>http://ve3dboards.ign.com/General_News/b10496/18832528/p1</a>
After reading this argument, I thought I'd like to enlight my fellow NS'ers on this topic. With 3 new next-next generation consoles headed our way in the fall, prices for games are expected to increase prices. These growing prices, as you can imagine, are due to the rising costs of taking full advantage of the features of the console, most notably, graphics. From 50 to 60 dollars, purchasing games is now critical decision. Now I ask you: Is this the path that we should be going? Does better visuals amount to a better game?
My opinion on this matter is a solid NO. I believe that the gaming industry is destined to fail in the near future. Graphics will be nearly life-like by then and development costs will skyrocket. As a result of this, only a few, deep-pocketed companies (notably EA), will dominate the gaming market. What's more alarming is that, the pattern of this monopoly has started even now, with EA purchasing the NFL exclusion license. This means it will be harder and harder for newer, innovative games to come forward. Games that had major flaws in their first editions could fix those and allow the gamer to have a better experience with it on the sequel.
Maybe it is me, but I notice that many of today's successful titles are sequels. I believe much of the prosperity of the games is due to the fact is attained through their past roots. If you peer into the past, development on games was much more cheaper, meaning more titles with interesting ideas was able to be released AND make a profit. As with any genre in the entertainment industry, every production is a risk, but it does benefit the customer to have a larger variety as opposed to a restricted one.
Cheaper titles does not necessarily mean that the quality has to suffer. If you look at the ESPN NFL 2k series, they received critical acclaim and praise. I believe EA felt threatened enough to justify the NFL purchase. Another reason is that more game titles will be available to the customer, you, which is the most important thing. A game does not have to have the best graphics. Chess is one of the most famous games in the world, yet it does not need to be visually impressive to achieve that goal. Our focus on graphics has led to the downfall of the genre. If you want graphics, purchase a movie, and even that will cost 20 dollars. We ultimately end up shooting ourselves in the foot with increased purchase prices, more repetitive sequels, and declining single player experiences.
After reading this argument, I thought I'd like to enlight my fellow NS'ers on this topic. With 3 new next-next generation consoles headed our way in the fall, prices for games are expected to increase prices. These growing prices, as you can imagine, are due to the rising costs of taking full advantage of the features of the console, most notably, graphics. From 50 to 60 dollars, purchasing games is now critical decision. Now I ask you: Is this the path that we should be going? Does better visuals amount to a better game?
My opinion on this matter is a solid NO. I believe that the gaming industry is destined to fail in the near future. Graphics will be nearly life-like by then and development costs will skyrocket. As a result of this, only a few, deep-pocketed companies (notably EA), will dominate the gaming market. What's more alarming is that, the pattern of this monopoly has started even now, with EA purchasing the NFL exclusion license. This means it will be harder and harder for newer, innovative games to come forward. Games that had major flaws in their first editions could fix those and allow the gamer to have a better experience with it on the sequel.
Maybe it is me, but I notice that many of today's successful titles are sequels. I believe much of the prosperity of the games is due to the fact is attained through their past roots. If you peer into the past, development on games was much more cheaper, meaning more titles with interesting ideas was able to be released AND make a profit. As with any genre in the entertainment industry, every production is a risk, but it does benefit the customer to have a larger variety as opposed to a restricted one.
Cheaper titles does not necessarily mean that the quality has to suffer. If you look at the ESPN NFL 2k series, they received critical acclaim and praise. I believe EA felt threatened enough to justify the NFL purchase. Another reason is that more game titles will be available to the customer, you, which is the most important thing. A game does not have to have the best graphics. Chess is one of the most famous games in the world, yet it does not need to be visually impressive to achieve that goal. Our focus on graphics has led to the downfall of the genre. If you want graphics, purchase a movie, and even that will cost 20 dollars. We ultimately end up shooting ourselves in the foot with increased purchase prices, more repetitive sequels, and declining single player experiences.
Comments
<a href='http://www.adom.de/' target='_blank'>Please kill yourself if you find this game unfun.</a>
<a href='http://www.thangorodrim.net/' target='_blank'>If you lived through that, play this one. Kill self if not fun.</a>
<a href='http://www.thangorodrim.net/variants.html' target='_blank'>Don't forget it's Varients! (mods)</a>
<a href='http://www.dungeoncrawl.org/' target='_blank'>Let me dumb-it-down alittle with more hack-n-slash.</a>
<a href='http://chaos.magma-net.pl/doom/' target='_blank'>And then finally this one. A old classic remade. Kill self, blah blah blah...</a>
All five games mentioned above are <i>Roguelikes</i>. They lack any form of true graphics. Pixel shaders and multi-digit polygon models here, you will find not. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
They are also all:
- Free (quite a good deal)
- Have randomly generated areas/events/items
- Difficult
- Based on the original [gameplay mechanics of], <i>Rogue</i>. (though the source has been long-lost.)
Indeed, the costs it would take to make a roguelike would be only the costs of the programming software to make it, and the price of food (read: pizza) consumed durring the phases of construction. They can also be created with alarming speed, where-in many skilled programmers have made a simple roguelike in no more then <i>seven</i> days. (though the above took years to get where they are now)
120 Deutsche Mark
40 Brithish Pounds
60 American Dollars
They became cheaper during the last 2 decades.
If you want expamples i might take my time to scan a really old pc-magazine with price tables <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
some examples
year 1990 (prizes in DM)
Kings Quest 4 130 (amiga)
Guns or Butter 120 (ibm)
Heros Quest 120 (amiga)
Police Quest 2 130 (amiga)
Larry 3 120 Mark (amiga)
Conquest of Camelot 135 (ibm)
A 10 Tank Killer 120 (ibm)
It's all well and good saying that graphics don't really need to advance any further, or that good graphics aren't even necessary for a good game, I actually agree that graphics make not the game a classic, how many more people loved Final Fantasy 7 over the later ones. I would give it a good 75% more liking FF7.
Given my point above, it is for that exact reason that I dislike Doom3. Not because it's a single minded monster-hall-monster-room-monster etc ad nausium shooter. But for the reason that it is so close to the original game, that I feel that all id Software have done is just give Doom a new, specular lighting and parallax mapping-capable graphics engine. I prefer the shareware versions (which I bought years ago) to the new one, and was quite happy when I decided not to buy the new one, just through playing an hour of a friend's copy, at their house. With everything turned to minimum, it just looked like Doom2 with rounded models...
Anyway, I digress. The gaming industry *needs* it's lifelike graphics, as many of today's games just wouldn't sell to the majority, like they do. Games need their graphics, to suppliment the gameplay, and any present story/plot. However, the industry shouldn't just use graphics as a selling point, lest we have an industry full of Doom-alikes. Then their sequels several years later, with precisely the same story, polt, and action, but just looking better...
So yeah, I wouldn't even disagree when you say developement costs make the SP and console market a highly unattractive business - they already have. Most good, innovative games today already don't turn a profit - its only a matter of time until its not tried anymore.
I want better graphics, but I also want better gameplay.
Prices ARE getting too high, though. That's why we have pirating!
This is only true for FPSs, there are plenty of other genres. And even then, only to a certain extent. Does anyone really need pixel shading, or any shading for that matter?
How many millions of polygons is enough? What sized texture is enough? How many textures per are is enough?
The reason that grpahics are pushed so heavily in the games insdustry is that it is easy to market a game on graphics alone. If the pictures on the box look good, then people are more likely to buy it.
As for sequels, theres nothing wrong with them per se, so long as gameplay is actually innovated in some way. Nintendo tends to do this, just look at the latest Donkey Kong game and compare it the original.
Slightly offtopic: Recently, in an effort to stay awake (long story) I begin writing a vertical shooter as a programming exercise. Well, it came along pretty quickly and so now I have something that could almost be considered a game. Since I can't draw for the life of me, even in pixel art, and the solid color test objects I were using sort of looked like it anyway, I decided to theme the game after Atari 2600 graphics. Granted, this was mostly an excuse not to have to make anything look good. Heres a screeny for you to laugh at, just me firing at some test enemies and not hitting any because I was trying to get all three bullet types in the shot:
on a related note, i paid 60 $ USD for this, in 92 or 93, and im proud to say it will still install from the disk.
edit: all the test my webcam didnt pick up:
"EPISODES 1 - 6
Ver 1.4
Created by id Software - Distributed by Apogee, Copywrite 1992 id Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved."
Personally, I could care less. Let's face it, most games that come out, since the very beginning, are somewhere between the level of bad and good. You're just noticing this trend now, since it seems like games are sacrificing graphics for gameplay. The reality is that the games that you long for are few and far betwee, always have been, and always will be. Grab a gaming magazine from '94 and you're bound to read about 30 games that you have never heard of. Why? Because they were mediocre games that couldn't last a year, much less a decade.
The greatest games around blended great graphics with great gameplay and/or storyline, which made them stand the test of time. Graphics themselves will always be a selling point. People want games that look more real, and that's OK. Games should be progressing forward graphically, just as they are.
I suppose the issue here is not that your point isn't true or correct; it's that your point is irrelevant. A great game will have good graphics for the time that it is out, and the other elements that make a game good, great, or simply amazing (que Half Life 2).
This is not nessesarily true. Besides System Shock 2, mentioned above, there were many great games that had sub-par graphics for their time. This happens alot with indi games, and even more with freeware games, look at Jumper and Jumper 2 for examples.
When graphics really add to a game is when they are a good abstraction of the game world, not when they are pretty.
But that will never happen, people eat up the hype. Hell, look at how many people want an NS:Source? What will they get from that? It'll be prettier sure, but will the gameplay be any better? Why bother?
Then of course some believe that the technology will reach a point soon enough where graphical improvements of the previous generation will be unnoticeable, and the return on investment for it will decline, and then maybe, just maybe, we'll start to see some interesting stuff again.
God I can only hope so. It may be the first recorded case of a problem solving itself.
But that will never happen, people eat up the hype. Hell, look at how many people want an NS:Source? What will they get from that? It'll be prettier sure, but will the gameplay be any better? Why bother?
Then of course some believe that the technology will reach a point soon enough where graphical improvements of the previous generation will be unnoticeable, and the return on investment for it will decline, and then maybe, just maybe, we'll start to see some interesting stuff again.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, I think the gameplay could be bettered with additions like vehicles...maybe randomly placed hives and stuff like that (and larger/more diverse levels and level geometry).
FPSs seem to be the major "giv'r more graphics, Scotty!" genre. Many RTS and RPGs don't really hop on the most advanced end of that bandwagon.
Anyway, if you could choose a game that has great gameplay and poor graphics, or great gameplay and great graphics - you'd want the great graphics. This applies fairly well to R:TW/M:TW. M:TW is by far the better game, but if there was a M:TW with R:TW's graphics, I'd be playing that in a heartbeat.
I have games like HL2, Doom 3 (...demo <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ), AvP and Sims 2, but I still go back and play ToeJam & Earl (which does actually have randomly generated eviroments and stunning graphics and sound...for genesis) from time to time, or Sonic (which just doesn't translate well to 3D), or Jurassic Park for SNES (favorite game, all time), or even Journey Escape (woot, Atari). Although, I can honestly say I get bored with atari fairly quickly now (you can't really play it for more than an hour without running out of stuff to do...it just doesn't seem complicated enough...but somehow NES seems like it will never get boring...with stuff like Mario 3, NG, MM, Tetris, etc.). I can still sit for hours playing mario 3, especially with a friend.
Anyway, I can also sit for hours playing Halo 2 over live with my friends. They just come in phases. When I get bored of one I play the other; and if I get bored of that...I program my own game <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> [with high quality photoshopped-esque graphics, picture example is on that <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=89989&view=findpost&p=1413196' target='_blank'>Modern Art post I made</a>].
But what about games with "orgasmic" graphics, and totally crap gameplay?
In retrospect Doom 3 can fall into that area, seeing as how the graphics engine really destroys whatever gameplay possibility there was in the Multiplayer area; usually a key selling area in FPSs.
Let's take it this way:
Play any of the games i mentioned as a link in the first response. It is true that they has absolutely no graphics however, it's gameplay is quite easilly fun. ('great gameplay and poor graphics')
- You wont get to see all the meaty bits fly when you cast *Destruction*, but you'll be able to see (and kill) tons of enemies at once, without it frying your videocard.
Now, lets "upgrade" it and put it into a Doom-1 type engine. Quite simple, since Doom 1 uses a 2D grid for it's levels. It would still retain it's fun value, but now because of some of the graphics (first person now) some of the gameplay has been erroded away; you can no longer see 'small' monsters behind 'large' ones; You couldn't know that there's a rat behind that Balrog, for example. As well, you'd instantly lose a sense of where you are in the dungeon, without a over-view map to aid you. (good gameplay, good graphics)
- Fortunetly, such things can easilly be repaired by having a minimap display and such. Good design can overcome small problems. You'll get to see meaty bits fly when you cast *Destruction*, if only somewhat pixilated.
Ok, one step further...
HL2/Doom 3 engine hybrid. Real-time lighting, bump mapping; the works. But having such PWNING graphics <b>severely</b> limits how many high-quality enemies can be shown on-screen at one time. Sure, you'd be able to look at multiple giant rats, but when you go deeper into the dungeon you can find these things called Vaults. Vaults hold TONS of monsters and treasure in them. And, since we've upgraded the graphics engine to such pwning levels, if the player was to stumble across a vault he'd <i>NEVER</i> be able to enter it, because his video card would fry the instant he looked inside. (poor gameplay, great graphics)
- Computer-intensive features will have to be either sripped-down to the bare minimum (completely reworked, basically) or removed from the game entirely... But you'll get to see the meaty bits fly in all it's bump-mapped glory when you cast *Destruction*, if only on a single target.
One thing that's irritating is that over the years people have lost the definition between artwork and technology. ye olde 2D games usually always had fantastic artwork which more than made up for the fact that the graphical techniques were old.
One major problem of the big graphics bandwagoning that's poisoning the games market is the loss of some of the older and well-loved genres like side-scrolling beatemups, 2D platformers and scrolling shootemups.
It'd be easy to give these games a graphical 3D treatment while still retaining the classic gameplay elements but 3D graphics aren't just all the rage; they want to make the gameplay experience 3D as well... even if the game suffers for it :/
A few months back, I had a few fits of laughter due to a comment of a friend while he was playing Sonic the Hedgehog on Sega Genesis. The comment was basically that the game was experiencing video lag, and it was.
Let's face it, if you go and play Doom I now, the game feels like it's rendering at 1000 fps or something. Our modern day video rendering technology has completely destroyed what was top of the line even 3 years ago. Go back 10 years and it's like asking a bulldozer to move a book 5 inches. Back 10 years ago though, those games were laggy and buggy, with FPS drops when 10 monsters were on the screen. Stop acting like somehow only now these problems exist with games. There was a time when it was an amazing feat to even break 60 fps in Quake I.
Now, in all honesty here, most people like looking at something natural, smooth, and life-like for their entertainment. The visuals of a game are important to most people. As visual technology continues to develop and improve, games will follow because people want it. Breakthrough graphics aren't the most important part of a game, and most people know that as well. That's why Doom III didn't make it to pretty much any one's Top 5 list of games this past year; breakthrough lighting and a few scripted scares can't save a game with mediocre plot and gameplay.
Game Developers understand that a game must have a combination of visuals and gameplay to draw the crowd. Some game developers will put too many eggs in the "graphics basket" and make a crappy game that doesn't sell. Some game developers will put too many eggs in the "gameplay basket" and make a great game that's crappy looking, and therefore doesn't sell.
So once again, the point is moot. 3D graphics are going to keep improving until we move to hologram technology, and games are going to be following in their past, attempting to give people a better gaming experience through sight and sound, as well as through great gameplay. The games you will remember will give you the best of all of these.
Plenty of such games exist, they are typically produced by independant developers and are often quite innovative. Take a look: <a href='http://www.gametunnel.com/html/index.php' target='_blank'>http://www.gametunnel.com/html/index.php</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The games you will remember will give you the best of all of these.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not the case at all. I remember plenty of games that had pretty poor graphics even for the time they were produced. "Most people" will follow flashy graphics, yes, this is an unfortunate reality that the rest of us have to put up with. But "most people" wouldn't know a good game if it bit them in the ****, case in point: Halo, people baught it even though it sucked. Or NS 1 (which was an entirely different game I assure you), which only a few people played whilst CS continued to hole the "most popular game ever" award..
1. Marketing. There are hundreds of thousands of examples where superior marketing has made an inferior product succeed over a superior one. If people know about something, and the name is put in their head in a very unique way (and advertisers are becoming much more creative) then the product will do MUCH better than a standard ad campaign.
2. You have big companies v. startups. Right now, we're staring at basically EA and Lucas and VU (vivendi universal, they own Blizzard and Sierra, as well as houghton-mifflin, universal studios, and some tv network) and a couple other giants competing with groups like Garage Games and other small startups.
The small startups have proven their ability to make fun, innovative gameplay, while adhering to the last-generation or current-generation graphics. Their problem is that they lack the resources to market effectively their games. (see 1.)
The "gorilla" companies (reference: 900-pound gorilla joke) are true businesses in the full meaning of that phrase: Their main purpose is twofold -- to increase their stock value as much as possible, and to make as much profit as possible. To this end, just as most all other large companies, their workers are squeezed as tightly as possible, new products are generated based on the methods by which they may generate the greatest income for the least expense, changes in current products are operated the same way, and customers' wants are disregarded so long as they do not preclude purchase of the product.
Since adding better graphics is the easiest and cheapest way, as opposed to innovating with storyline or character depth or controllability, to increase the value of a game, it is considered the best, profit-wise. In turn, this also requires the consumers to invest in more powerful computers to operate these games, which is good for the graphics-card manufacturers (who give support back to the game companies)
You may look for solutions to this problem if you so desire. I merely provide information on the situation as it sits, since I am ideologically proscribed from suggesting solutions to problems which cannot or should not be solved.
In another decade, there won't be any way to improve graphics technologically. We'll be at the limit that the human eye can see, with completely realistic animations, graphics, physics, etc. Then, whichever company has better graphics design, rather than more futuristic effects, will have better graphics. It will be such an equalizer, that games will start to be judged by how good their gameplay is, with graphics taking a back seat.
Yes, I will admit that the Ravenholm squence in HL2 had me jumping whenever the door creaked (it wasn't shut properly, and twas rather windy last night). And I felt that the graphics helped that, by creating the atmosphere of a realistic, FPS view of the Resident Evil series. Those kinds of moments are where graphics *can* increase the gameplay. The whole Ravenholm chapter is designed to be adrenline pumping, and fear inducing. Much in the same way that Vampire: Bloodlines had me scared, but Bloodlines did it via the medium of sound. 1am, Ocean Hotel sequence, 5.1 headphones on, EAX set to max.
You try creeping through a haunted hotel, falling through floors, and having random items of furniture thrown at you...
However, I feel that this topic is missing the fact that it isn't just graphics and gameplay that dictate if a game is to be deemed "great" or otherwise. The fundamental flaw in just taking 2 variables in a game, and having that as your measure is that each component of the game, be in a sensory, or an emotional component, has a situational place.
Coming back to Introversion Software, I bought a copy of the £9.99 Uplink. No graphics, rudimentary background music, but they were appropriate, because the game is almost like a semi-simulation of the world of hacking. I can't imagine someone hacking into the bank, with a fully orchested score, and parallax mapping going on around their attack through the bank's firewall. The gameplay is the target for Uplink.
Take Doom3. Leading-class graphics engine, good score in the background. Appalling gameplay (my opinion). But then again, Doom3 is all about the cinematic graphics engine that id developed.
These kind of x vs y topics are all well and good, however, when used in a context that doesn't account for other variables, well, the arguments will be subtly limited in their points...
You also have to consider the technolgy of making graphics has improved since then. Im positive making a 3d modle for half-life 2 was alot harder 10 years, and more expensive than it is now.
at the same time, alot of modling will be worked off base modles as well.
If you good at 3d modling and already have a consept modle in your mind or on paper, you can hammer out a decent one in about 8 hours.. Some will argue this, but youll spend more time on the creativty part, and figuring out how you want it to look, rather than doing the 3d building itself.
You also have to consider the technolgy of making graphics has improved since then. Im positive making a 3d modle for half-life 2 was alot harder 10 years, and more expensive than it is now.
at the same time, alot of modling will be worked off base modles as well.
If you good at 3d modling and already have a consept modle in your mind or on paper, you can hammer out a decent one in about 8 hours.. Some will argue this, but youll spend more time on the creativty part, and figuring out how you want it to look, rather than doing the 3d building itself. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's different now, not just in regard to the detail of models. You also have to make more models to be up to par. If you had a game with 1000 barrels throughout it, you only had to make 2 models and repeat them. Now, you're expected to make 10 models. Eventually, you'll be expected to make a unique model for every single barrel. This holds true for other objects scattered throughout a game, NPCs, etc. Even if it takes 1/2 the time to make a model, if you're making 4x as many models, it will take 2x the time.
HEY, HEY, 16k!!
I love that video - seen it before; still, love it. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
~ DarkATi