Miller, Wright, Mechner Discuss Videogame Graphics

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."

Comments

Inevitable comments...

[BTWR]

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...

Re:Inevitable comments...

[EngineeringMarvel]

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.

Less is More

[swat_r2]

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.

Re:Less is More

[Tuvai]

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.

The game graphics arms race is slowing down

[radimvice]

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.

Re:The game graphics arms race is slowing down

[h0mer]

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.

Re:Too bad for Linux programmers though...

[Chemisor]

> 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.

Re:Gee thanks...

[drinkypoo]

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.