Miller, Wright, Mechner Discuss Videogame Graphics

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Miller, Wright, Mechner Discuss Videogame Graphics

Posted by simoniker on Monday June 14, 2004 @05:03AM from the pixel-by-pixel dept.

Thanks to GameSpot for its article covering a panel discussing videogame graphics at the Computer History Museum in Silicon Valley. According to the article: "The panel of designers--The Sims and SimCity architect Will Wright; The Manhole, Myst, and Riven-creator Rand Miller... and Prince of Persia and Karateka designer Jordan Mechner--presented ideas which simultaneously praised the progress made in the past decade and cautioned against relying solely on the bells and whistles those faster GPUs provide." Interestingly, opinions on graphical fidelity differ, with Miller arguing: "We draw every little blade of grass, because we can", but Wright "reiterated his overall recipe to making great games--a less-is-more approach to leveraging and relying on graphics to drive the user experience."

36 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Inevitable comments... by BTWR · 2004-06-14 05:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

This will inevitably fall into a gameplay-vs-graphics dispute, so I'll chime in while there are currently 0 comments:
For me it's simple: The two are not mututally exclusive. Of the two, of course, as I predict the majority of readers will say, I'd choose gameplay over graphics. Civilization II, for example, only has "OK" graphics and still is an amazing game to play to this day. But that doesn't mean that I don't want beauty too.
FOr example, Super Monkey Ball on gamecube. Basically, I've described it as "Sort of like Marble Madness" to people. It is. However, it has GORGEOUS backgrounds and fun details all over which do, in my opinion, make the game better. Is the point still to get the monket from A to B? Yup. Could this have basically been done on an NES? Sure. But would you have seen the monkeys do 360s within the tubes and giggle the whole time? Probably not.
For another example, take a look at the new "Realistic Zelda" that was previewed at E3. The water, the emotion in Link's eyes. That does add to the game. Is it needed? No. I felt emotion in Link in the SNES game A Link to the Past (link praying, link realizing that the game isn't over, it's only halfway there, as he is sent to the dark world, etc). But this is easier and better with graphics.
more enjoyable? You bet...
1. Re:Inevitable comments... by EngineeringMarvel · 2004-06-14 06:27 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It is true that graphics play a big role in the popularity of video games, but to me it has gotten a little out of hand in the last year or so, especially with first person shooters. Every other FPS that comes out is the same style gameplay of Counter-Strike, but with better graphics. I have personally gotten old of CS gameplay and so I moved on to Battlefield 1942 two years ago. Now I have gotten a little old of that, especially after wasting my money on Battlefield Vietnam, which was basically the same gameplay as Eve Of Destruciton (Mod of Battlefield 1942), but with better graphics. In the end, the better graphics was not worth the money. My point is that creating a fps based on another fps gameplay, but advancing the graphics is never worth the money in my opinion. Hopefully Half-Life 2 will add some new dyanmic and different gameplay than games of the past. I know the original Half-Life not only changed the way fps graphics were done, but it also created a totally new type of gameplay. The software designers should stop being lazy and start being iventive again instead of spending all their time on creating new code that only makes something look more real. Whatever happen to the genius people who first created Super Mario Bros, Zelda, Quake, & Half-Life? I refuse to think that all the gameplay types viable to be created in our graphics world have all been used up already. Shoot, I find the original Super Mario Bros (NES) more fun than some of the fps games coming out now.
  
  --
  I couldn't think of anything witty to say, so...you're stuck with this.
2. Re:Inevitable comments... by UberLaff · 2004-06-15 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  There is one thing to be said about great graphics, it shows the production value that was put into the game. The new "Realistic Zelda" with its amazing graphics just shows that Nintendo is putting its time and money into creating a great expierence. Even with the SNES game, for its time it had great graphics. There is something to be said for that. When all is said and done its the gameplay that makes you keep playing the game. Its like a pretty girl, the graphics only attract you at first, then you pray they hold up with time.
3. Re:Inevitable comments... by SteevR · 2004-06-16 17:31 · Score: 1
  
  "Whatever happened to the genius people who created Super Mario Brothers, Zelda, Quake, and Half Life?"
  
  Shigeru Miyamoto is responsible for the first two. He works on the same franchises at Nintendo to this day.
  
  Quake is a little tougher. Carmack of course, is still doing graphics programming and is pretty much in charge of Id; John Romero, the Lead Designer, left Id (or was canned?), started Ion Storm, and managed to push a whole company down the drain (though not single-handedly with Daikatana- they had some other flops). I'm not sure where Sandy Peterson (an excellent game designer, responsible for many digital and non-digital gaming classics), who did level design for Doom and Quake, is now, but I'm sure he is employed in the industry. American McGee (another Doom/Quake level designer), as we know, went on to produce American McGee's Alice.
  
  Those that put together Half Life are working on the sequel.
  
  --
  Performing sanity checks on your own beliefs is vital in avoiding poisoned koolaid.
Less is More by swat_r2 · 2004-06-14 05:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Zelda: 4 Swords is a very solid testament to the "Less is More" approach. I had a friend come over and scold me for buying what looked to be a SNES grade title, but as soon as all four of us had our glowing SP's in hand, it was a whole different story.
1. Re:Less is More by BTWR · 2004-06-14 05:21 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  4 swords rocks!
  Now, whenever any of my friends now does something stupid, we call out "Most bothersome!"
2. Re:Less is More by swat_r2 · 2004-06-14 05:27 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I just love how cut-throat it can get, the greed factor just kills me! Yeah, I'm a self-admitted "Force Whore".. Being able to secretly vote at the end of the round is just priceless. I also love how when you die, your forces are scattered and ready for pillaging - you screw people over and it comes back to you ten-fold :)
3. Re:Less is More by Tuvai · 2004-06-14 06:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I wouldn't consider it a "less is more" approach, more another example of nintendo putting concept first, and then building the graphics engine around the atmosphere/gameplay style.
  With four swords they needed a game that would:
  a) allow four people to fit on a small screen easily
  b) allow the action to be continued on a gameboy screen.
  
  Obviously the Link To The Past approach suited it well, but to Nintendos credit they also threw in some of the more impressive moments of Wind Waker and Links Awakening onto this 2D canvas.
  Throw in another case of Nintendos increasingly humorous nods to their own past (see: Wario Ware, Superstar Saga, Mario vs Donkey Kong) and you have a true game of the year contender. It's just a pity that your friends opinion is so widespread these days.
4. Re:Less is More by cbirdsong64 · 2004-06-14 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  What is this secret voting crazyness? Have I not seen it since I've only played with two people?
5. Re:Less is More by swat_r2 · 2004-06-14 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Correct :) I miss that when I have to play 2 player. At the end of each round when the Links are on the pedastal, if you have 4 players you can secretly vote who was "Most Bothersome" and who was "Most Helpful". So the biggest jerk can end up losing out on the bonus :) (of course I'm always the biggest jerk... boo)
6. Re:Less is More by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-14 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  " had a friend come over and scold me for buying what looked to be a SNES grade title, but as soon as all four of us had our glowing SP's in hand"
  
  Ah, so is that what the cool kids are doing these days?
7. Re:Less is More by swat_r2 · 2004-06-14 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Actually I guess it is quite sad, we're in our late 20's and should be doing something productive with our time, like mowing the lawns or re-doing our taxes. I dunno, what DO cool kids do nowadays?
3D Cards not too good for Sim City by volponi · 2004-06-14 05:22 · Score: 3, Interesting

I remember an article [simcity.ea.com] published at SimCity's official site. It is clear that those super 3D game cards are superb in smooth reflections, glass-like layers, and so on.

But they don't make a good job rendering thousands of small renderings -- exactly what SimCity 4 needs.
1. Re:3D Cards not too good for Sim City by Have+Blue · 2004-06-14 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think it's that simple- there are RTS games coming out that will have thousands of 3D animating figures on the field at a time. Rendering buildings can't be far behind.
Too bad for Linux programmers though... by Chemisor · 2004-06-14 05:37 · Score: 0, Troll

It's great that somebody is working on hardware graphics, but since I'm on Linux, I pretty much can't use any of it. Sure, you can use OpenGL and binary drivers, but if you are not in X, you get no hardware acceleration at all, aside from bitblt and a maybe a few simple primitives. So I'm just skimming through all those descriptions, wishing, "boy, I wish I could use this!"...
1. Re:Too bad for Linux programmers though... by amendol · 2004-06-14 05:51 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I too like to use Linux to play games, except I like the fancy graphics, and I get them!. UT2004, Neverwinter, etc. What is the aversion to using X?
  
  I'm happy to use the binary drivers to get the HW accel, but I can at least see the logic of wanting to have opensource drivers. If that's what you wan't, then just use the DRI version of dirvers for supported cards (sometimes less performance, but still OK).
  
  But, if you demand to use the text console to play games, or the frame buffer than you have nothing to complain about -- you've gotten what you wished for!
2. Re:Too bad for Linux programmers though... by Chemisor · 2004-06-14 06:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  > What is the aversion to using X?
  
  The ugly API. I write for the framebuffer because I can get a cleaner API there. Not that this is a popular attitude - slashdotters hate the Windows monopoly, but consider it a heresy to not use OpenGL for graphics. Just try saying you still use a console and it's a guaranteed Troll mod.
  
  The second objection is that nVidia binary drivers don't work with the console framebuffer (see their driver FAQ). And for me, given the choice between giving up the framebuffer console and giving up gaming on Linux (which I still don't believe is possible), I will choose the console, no contest.
  
  The third objection is that nVidia drivers work with a specific kernel version; if you upgrade, you are out of luck. Then you'll have to reboot into a different kernel image just to play games, and I can boot into Windows for that.
  
  > But, if you demand to use the text console to
  > play games, or the frame buffer than you have
  > nothing to complain about -- you've gotten what you wished for!
  
  And this response illustrates perfectly the reason people do not switch to Linux in droves. It's so apt, the "you weirdo!" accusation. I thought Linux was the place for weirdos, while Windows only supported conformists, but I guess I was wrong.
3. Re:Too bad for Linux programmers though... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-14 06:52 · Score: 0
  
  Or you can use Windows and quit your bitching. Linux is a toy novelty OS. Windows gets it done. Simple as that.
4. Re:Too bad for Linux programmers though... by Alphanos · 2004-06-14 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Regarding your first objection, I would suggest that if you don't need to do the more complex graphical operations of OpenGL, then you should take a look at SDL. I'm pretty sure that one of the graphics subsystems it works with is framebuffer, but I would imagine the higher-level abstraction might save you some work and make for cleaner code/APIs.
  
  I don't know much about your setup, but I use both framebuffer consoles and the nvidia 3d drivers for X. My card is a GeForce 5900FX Ultra, on the 1.0.5336-r2 driver, and I use the VESA framebuffer driver on (currently) the 2.6.5-mm6 kernel. The two work fine together; I can use graphical links and mplayer in my 1280x1024x16 bootsplash framebuffer consoles.
  
  With regards to your third objection, you may be referring to the recent change in stack pointer size between 2.6.5 and 2.6.6; there is a fix for this problem. You can change back to the old stack pointer size under the 'kernel hacking' section of the kernel config until nvidia has a new driver to support the smaller stack pointers. This doesn't adversely affect your system.
  
  --
  Alphanos
5. Re:Too bad for Linux programmers though... by amendol · 2004-06-15 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  >The ugly API. I write for the framebuffer because
  >I can get a cleaner API there. Not that this is a >popular attitude - slashdotters hate the Windows >monopoly, but consider it a heresy to not use >OpenGL for graphics. Just try saying you still
  >use a console and it's a guaranteed Troll mod.
  
  I'm not saying that you should not use the console. Using the console is fine, and I often do it my self, but if you want fancy graphics --and I believe that that is what you were complaining about-- then you should look to OpenGL (which has drivers that work through X).
  
  The frame buffer is essentially just a pointer to memory. I've seen some attempts to do some hardware acceleration on some cards but the implementation is not good. You can either call an ioctl for each hardware operation, which means an OS context switch every time you do an operation (bad), or you can memory map the graphics card registers and bypass all the kernel abstractions and bang at the the hardware yourself. ie each application that uses the frame buffer can just implement it's own hack at a driver for that card -- this is awful.
  
  There are some attempts at doing this right, I haven't coded for them, but I've looked at them. ie directFB. As a graphics library this seems reasonable, but why re-invent the wheel?
  
  My take on it is this:
  
  "Those who dont understand history being doomed
  to repeat it."
  
  Of course you're free to try and invent something new, make new and better things -- and I've done this myself. I've worked on a game engine for a while now. My approach is to do everything from scratch, with out looking at the standard way of doing things. This way I have at least a chance of coming up with something new. But this does not mean that my engine is better than any other. Usually I find that my implementations, ie LOD algorythms etc. end up being very similar to what others have done.
  
  On Linux, it is great to have freedom to do what ever you want, and you do, but it is also good to have some persistant, cross-platform, secure standards which you can build on top of. If you come up with something new, which is several orders of magnitude better than what is already there, then maybe the comunity should look at suffering the pain of switching.
The game graphics arms race is slowing down by radimvice · 2004-06-14 06:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Both Jordan Mechner and Rand Miller based their entries into computer game design around elaborate, cutting-edge graphics. The popularity of Prince of Persia (and Karateka originally) was because Mechner used primitively-rotoscoped sprites to create fluid character movement. Myst, of course, was the first CD-ROM that allowed you to navigate through a pre-rendered CGI environment. In my opinion, neither piece was particularly innovative or fun to play as a game because the focus was on storytelling and visuals. Now that computer graphics are getting closer and closer to photorealism and it's getting harder and harder to differentiate a game on graphics alone, the industry is beginning to shy away from them as their main focus (as evidenced by the middle-ground position taken by the designers in this article). Of the three designers here, only Will Wright will make an impact in the future because he's the only one that was actually creating innovative games from the start. The others were just low-budget filmmakers working in an underdeveloped medium.
1. Re:The game graphics arms race is slowing down by h0mer · 2004-06-14 06:48 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I do agree with you about Myst, but your comments about Prince of Persia are misguided. Yes, the fluid animation was good eye candy when it was first released, but it also broke some new ground in gameplay elements.
  
  All of the platform games I can remember before PoP would let you jump instantly from a ledge as long as a couple pixels of your character's feet were still on the ground. PoP changed this by requiring forethought, you would only make a running jump by pressing jump a tile before you actually were going to jump.
  
  PoP spawned its own type of game, the puzzle platformer. Out Of This World, Flashback, Blackthorne. In fact, considering the planned action and trial-and-error gameplay, I would be so bold as to say that PoP is the spiritual ancestor of the modern "stealth" genre.
  
  --
  
  I'm on top of my game like I'm standin' on Xbox.
2. Re:The game graphics arms race is slowing down by Frenchy_2001 · 2004-06-14 06:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Better rendered or animated graphisms help a game to get better *UP TO A POINT*. At the time Prince of Persia (the first one) got released, you had ugly stiff characters The prince, by comparison, seemed so fluid in his movements... the game looked and felt great because of that. Game play was good too (commands) although not revolutionnary. The new Prince of Persia (Sands of Time) renew with this formula. The 3D modeling and the fluidity of animation, coupled with a perfect control set makes a great action game. It looks good, play well and is well dosed, so that you can play it in 10-15 minutes sessions. Once again, not a revolution, but a well done game. The problem with graphics, is that we are hitting a plateau. Nowadays, rendering improvements are only incrementals and do not bring much to a game anymore, so as said, emphasis needs to be put on gameplay. We will see if Doom3 or HL2 can contradict this (great game thanks to superior graphisms?) or if they will come with a solid gameplay too (or just fall short of the great expectations and fail).
3. Re:The game graphics arms race is slowing down by Blakey+Rat · 2004-06-14 07:21 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't even agree with the grandparent about Myst.
  
  Name a game that had Myst-like gameplay (regardless of the graphics quality) before Myst itself? I can't think of a single one. Now, you may not *like* the slow pace and puzzles of the game, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't innovative.
  
  --
  Comment of the year
4. Re:The game graphics arms race is slowing down by radimvice · 2004-06-14 07:40 · Score: 1
  
  Name a game that had Myst-like gameplay (regardless of the graphics quality) before Myst itself? I can't think of a single one.
  
  How about Zork. Or Adventure, for that matter. They're all part of a genre called Interactive Fiction, and I personally don't have much interest in them.
5. Re:The game graphics arms race is slowing down by CodeMonkey4Hire · 2004-06-14 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Was 7th guest out before Myst? It has similar gameplay. I believe they both came out in the mid 90's, right?
  
  I couldn't find the dates on a quick google (partly because most game sites are banned by WebSense here at work).
  
  --
  
  Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
6. Re:The game graphics arms race is slowing down by May+Kasahara · 2004-06-14 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking 7th Guest as well. A quick search on Google brought up the date 1992 as its year of release. Myst was released in 1993...
7. Re:The game graphics arms race is slowing down by eudas · 2004-06-14 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  wow, i had forgotten about Out of This World and Flashback.
  thanks for reminding me. :)
  
  eudas
  
  --
  Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
8. Re:The game graphics arms race is slowing down by Trixter · 2004-06-15 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  "I would be so bold as to say that PoP is the spiritual ancestor of the modern "stealth" genre."
  
  You'd very REAL damn bold to say that, since there was nothing stealthy about PoP. You're conveniently ignoring *actual* stealthy titles from around that time, like Covert Action and The Great Escape.
  
  Prince of Persia was a great game for its time, but it was not stealth in any way.
Gee thanks... by MMaestro · 2004-06-14 07:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

"We draw every little blade of grass, because we can"
Gee THANKS! And my friends keep asking me why their less than 6-month old, top of the line PCs have trouble playing games with all the settings turned up. You CAN draw every little, individual grass and then give it its own individual animation and whatnot, but that doesn't mean me, as a gamer, is even gonna be able to run the game in the first place. Some developers need to understand that less is more sometimes.
Admittedly there are some cool cases (in Soldier of Fortune 2 in one of the jungle parts, they used the grass to hide a tripwire connected to explosives) but after a certain point in the game, often times it goes unused after that point. (In C&C:Generals the game shows you its game engine capability by freeze framing and then rotating the camera around a guy sent into the air by an explosion. Cool, now show replay that again with 500 guys being sent into the air. What do you mean you're not gonna do that again? Wth? I gotta make my own scenario if I wanna see that? Oh forget that!)
1. Re:Gee thanks... by fireduck · 2004-06-14 07:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  don't forget to read the rest of that sentence in the original article: "We draw every little blade of grass, because we can," said Miller, apparently unconvinced such allocation of team resources is absolutely necessary. While it doesn't go into what exactly was said, I think it's clear from the tone of this section that devoting massive amounts of energy to graphics means less energy devoted to gameplay.
2. Re:Gee thanks... by drinkypoo · 2004-06-14 08:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Maybe I'm just missing something, but why are you worried about your friends asking you why they can't play with all the settings turned up? That's like asking why the windows are rattling with the volume turned all the way up. Turn that shit down, einstein. Your argument can be boiled down to saying that games shouldn't even support high quality graphics when they still support lower quality graphics because you're tired of fielding ignorant questions from people who clearly have some incentive to keep asking you - probably because you encourage them by answering them every time they ask.
  I don't have the best PC ever, and I can't play most new games at full detail and high resolutions, but that doesn't bother me. To me, it improves the replay value because when I upgrade my PC sometime down the road, it's like a whole new game. Meanwhile, turning down the graphics quality doesn't stop me from playing the game right now. (Having lower resolution, on the other hand, does tend to get you fragged a lot in FPSes or similar, because someone else can see you before you can see them.)
  This is, in essence, a feature (and I am not using that word euphemistically) of PC gaming. If you don't like it, move over to the console gaming world. I hope you like gamepads...
  The only problem with high quality graphics is when they spend too much time/money on visuals and not enough on gameplay. But, the simple solution to that problem is to just not buy games like that.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re:Gee thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-14 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  is even gonna be able to run the game in the first place
  
  Yes very good, see you can run the game just not with all the settings turned up.
  
  Helloooo that's why they have settings, so you can turn off what you don't want/need.
  
  This bitching is just stupid. Let the developers throw in everything they can as long as you can tune it down who cares? You just sound bitter you can't push the game to the limits on your older PC.
4. Re:Gee thanks... by MMaestro · 2004-06-14 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  less than 6-month old, top of the line PCs
  why are you worried about your friends asking you why they can't play with all the settings turned up?
  I donno, maybe because they're computers are less than 6-months old like I said? Thats like saying, 'well you have a rocket car but you can't expect it to faster than a pickup truck because they use the same gasoline.' The moment you start telling people with top of the line hardware to turn down their settings is the moment you tell people to expect crap for their money.
5. Re:Gee thanks... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-06-15 19:07 · Score: 0
  
  umm. its not how old it is, its the quality of the hardware they bout, the interaction between os, drivers, and hardware, core and ambient temperature, and a few other factors. just cuz they bout a machine 6 months ago doesnt make it not shit.
  you can buy a complete piece of shit today, and it will run like *gasp* shit. they do get crap for their money if they buy crap. not a revolutionary concept here.
  
  oh, and designing games to be not quite playable on the absolute latest hardware on the best settings isnt bad design, its called future planning.
  go back to consoles, asshat!
But I do! by Chemisor · 2004-06-14 07:14 · Score: 1

> Or you can use Windows and quit your bitching.

But I do! I play games in Windows, I print from Windows, but I work in Linux. If you are happy with requiring users of Linux to reboot into Windows to do anything, well, quit your bitching about nobody using Linux on the desktop.