Slashdot Mirror
Videogame Graphic Advances - Not That Important?
Thanks to the IGDA for its 'Culture Clash' column discussing the recent advances in graphics quality for games, and why increased detail isn't always a good thing. The author, referencing a previously Slashdot-covered article about "unsettlingly funereal" hi-poly face models in games, points out: "Dependence on increasingly real visuals alone to generate emotion will inevitably hit a wall: at some point game graphics will look as good as real life. Developers have an arsenal of emotioneering tools at hand; to limit themselves to just one, however prominent, would be ill-advised", before further warning: "Overfocus on hyper-realistic graphics and modeling, while not a bad idea in a general sort of way, can also impede quality of gameplay."
To say that focussing on graphics at the expense of gameplay is a bad thing is obviously true. However, the reverse is equally true. These days, when I hand over the money for a game, I expect to get a product which not only plays well, but also looks decent.
This doesn't necessarily mean it has to have the latest 3d modelling techniques and uber-realistic lighting; you can achieve decent visuals as much through stylised 2D work as you can through the latest 3d engine. What it does mean is that I don't want to end up with a game which looks like it belongs in the late 90s.
It's true that the pace of advances in graphics has slowed as we get closer to the point of photo-realism. Doom was gob-smacking visually, Quake was very impressive, Quake 2 was fairly pretty and Quake 3 left me frankly unimpressed. However, it doesn't mean that developers should stop trying to push back the envelope. Far Cry gained a lot of atmosphere from its stunning visuals and I'd be surprised if Doom 3 didn't have a similar effect. On the console side of things, the visuals of the PS2 Final Fantasy and Gran Turismo games continue to be among the most powerful arguments against those who say the PS2 can't manage decent graphics.
Dependence on increasingly real visuals alone to generate emotion
Just look at South Park, for example.
The characters are full of emotion expression, even if the graphics are ridiculously simple.
It's more a matter of changing the gaming culture by sensible gamers dissociating themselves from those among us who would pass such games by because they want to look cool, or have other personality failings.
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
The Graphics vs. Gameplay issue comes up on Slashdot a lot. The more vocal group (majority? dunno) seems to think that the gameplay is suffering, because the graphics are getting more attention.
My response to that is....bullshit. Games now have bigger budgets- meaning more people. They take longer to create, meaning more time. Even if graphics are 90% of that time x money formula, just 10% of the total effort that goes into most modern games is far more than what was put into the entire game 15 years ago. First comparison- the Atari 2600 had the game 'Skiing' where you move a square down a white screen with occasional green blobs that you were supposed to avoid. Consoles have games like Amped and SSX. If you can't see the improved gameplay, you are blind. And of course the graphics are like 45^99th times better too.
To me, games are a little like hairstyles. I'm sure you've seen women going around with a ridiculous 20 year old hairstyle. Well, 20 years ago was probably the best time of her life, and she is going to hang on to every part of that era that she can. A lot of gamers are the same way. 'Platformers from the 80s are the best'. Okay...chances are you are over the age of 25, and most modern games intimidate you. So, it's much easier to stick with those games essentially for the rest of your life. Oh, you'll look at them, but soon dismiss them because you understand Kaboom! so much more.
Some people think that Quake was the pinnacle of first person shooters...my guess is that they were in a college dorm (or similar situation) when Quake came out. Now, if a new game comes out, they don't have 20 guys sitting around who want to play (It's called Xbox Live..check it out) and it isn't as much fun. So therefore, the new games just aren't as good. (Even if they do have things like a real vertical plane, smarter enemies, larger/more complex maps, etc etc)
Also, as games mature, they get more complex. The computing power is available to do more, and the graphics cards can handle better/more complex graphics.
Age of Empires was a good game. Age of Empires II was a great game, and Rise of Nations was even better. I still know people who are stuck on the first AOE, and aren't willing to move on. In fact, they look at Rise of Nations, and think that all of the other stuff is un-necessary... Yet, ask someone to go backwards (somebody who played Rise of Nations first) and they will feel that the previous games were absolute crap. Well, some people have a limited capacity for learning new things (games included) and they stick with what they know.
Okay...enough rambling. Thank you for listening. (and for the record, I'm 36 years old, and I hate older games because I LIKE new games with nice graphics and more complex gameplay.)
No reason to lie.
Sooner or later all these high end engines are going to raise the cost of games. Every time these guys go from 10,000 to 100,000 poly models, that's just that much more time spent in a studio trying to get killer models done, and then there's the additional texture work, sound, etc.
... or they're small pro shops looking to make a name for themselves.
The engine might come out of the box to run at these level, but the asset work still requires that much more work to complete.
I'm seeing this all over the place in the (unreal) mod community. People don't want small mods anymore, they want commercial quality games. The problem is - making that quality gets more time consuming, requires more organization, etc. Few mod teams have the steam and those that do can rarely get out innovative work (which IMO, is the job of mods)
I'm actually looking to make use of the 2D aspects of Unreal to lower asset costs.
But back on topic - the high end nature of the graphics keep increasing the production costs, which eventually are going to have to increase product cost.
Wind Waker is a game for a certain type of person.
Not all of us who don't like the game blame it on cel-shading. I rather enjoyed XIII, and find Tales of Symphonia to be quite interesting.
But Wind Waker just wasn't my thing. I played it past the first island, and that was about it. I didn't enjoy the presentation; I don't mean graphics, I don't mean cel-shading, I mean that the presentation of the game didn't appeal to me.
As an example, I didn't think the little boy on the first island with the snot dripping out of his nose was cute or funny; I thought it was gross, and unneeded. And the "frenchman" you play the Battleship-esque "kill the squid" game with; while yeah, the whole "ka-booom!" thing was funny, I didn't find it charming or engaging.
I realize I'm in the minority; I also think The Adventures of Link were excellent, and that the series pinnacle was Link to the Past. I also enjoyed the sections of Ocarina of Time where you played Adult Link, but I feel the series has been going downhill starting with OoT.
That's fine; I'm okay with other people liking the game. Just don't claim that anyone who says otherwise is a 15 year old or of stunted intelligence.
-lw
Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
We used to play game for their abstractedness! Games would take us to weird and wonderful places that couldn't ever exist in reality! You young 'uns today have no imagination! Everything has to be real. Well dag nabbit, real is boring!!
Now fetch me my cane.
I play Half-Life Counter-Strike. Every map in the game consist of crates/boxes which are square-shaped. These are the few places where people can hide.
Now, the new game-engines out there seem to sport many new elements like trees, vehicles, grass, bush, etc. Which by the way makes us have to look really carefully for an enemy when we play. This really removes the "action aspect" of the game.
Mind you that when people make small arenas in real-life games, they often remove these complex things that slow down the gameplay.
Games based on high quality graphics isn't going anywhere soon. Action movies still pull in viewers no matter how crappy the plot/acting is. I'll admit that I highly doubt that any game based on eye candy alone will ever be the number one selling game, much like that of the video industry I doubt an action movie will ever be the number 1 grossing movie.
They are niche markets so to speak and will always draw people. If you look at the video industry the number 1 grossing movie of all time is Titantic, and the number 1 selling game of all time is The Sims. Both of them I personally don't care much for, but the fact that they have such a broad based market allows them to do well.
I do admit though, Graphics have reached a point of diminishing returns, that being the amount of time spent on the graphics doesn't make it all that much better to the eye. This allows games that aren't based on state of the art graphics to catch up so to speak to the game engines that are based on eye candy.
Basically what I mean is that the eye candy market isn't going anywhere, rather more games which aren't based solely on eye candy are filling the needs of eyecandyaholics!
Having worked for a gaming company and in the game industry for over ten years, gameplay and graphics go hand in hand. Yes, good graphics will improve sales but it will not make the game. I think most of us are smart enough to know that while eye candy is dandy, being real is the deal. But there is a lot more to developing a decent product.
There are four important factors in a games success:
1: open sourced/editable for improvements and new version (i.e. battlefield1942 morphing into desertcombat or starwars's galactic conquest, nethack)
2: gameplay that can extend beyond the original campaign(dynamic campaigns, add-ons)
3: good customer interaction and support for the game community (ie.combat mission, halflife, quake)
4: product that does something new or is not scared of rattling the conservative right (Grand Theft Auto).
The fourth will garner attention as free marketing. Rockstar used it for GTA:Vice and it worked brilliant.
Put those into a game, you've got a home run every time.
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things. - Peter F. Drucker
Saying 'CG isn't good, look at how many people fail to make it look right' is a little like saying 'The invention of PAINT has failed! Look at how many bad paintings there are!" The technology is there, and those gifted and skilled enough can create terrific things, but the technology in the hands of a hack will create abominations.
I think the poor use of graphics technology is just a symptom of a more general, and obvious, problem with the gaming industry (and other industries as well):It's hard to make something good. It's hard to do something creative and innovative and 'well-done', and if you can make money stringing crap together and selling it with a gimmick, people will do it.
Game-makers, not having a sure-fire way to make good games, want a gimmick that will guarentee some sales. If they can throw in some cheesey visual effects, make a sequel to a tired series, or attach a game to a successful movie/TV franchise, they will, because these things are easy, whereas making the game good would be hard.
Wow, I was going to reply with something similar to what you wrote. But you said it better than I would have anyway.
I wish people could remove the nostalgia glasses and really compare the games. I'm sorry, but just because people play nethack doesn't prove that crappy graphics mean better gameplay. I don't see why the author is complaining. Let's get graphics as real as possible until it hits the "wall" of being absolutely realistic (and I really doubt it will be as quick as they think). Now that we hit that wall, will graphics never change again? Will game play suddenly improve? Of course not. People will take graphics in new UNrealistic directions. Good games will have good gameplay, bad games won't. Why argue against improving graphics? I guess his argument is overfocusing on graphics will cause gameplay to be worse. Well, duh! If they overfocus on marketing, that will hurt gameplay. If they overfocus on their family life, that will hurt gameplay. What a dumb statement. Articles like these make me wonder how these people get hired. There is really no analysis, just a rehash of what other uninformed people like to complain about.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
Games have increasingly getting more and more complex over the years, and thankfully so have the graphics associated with them. The higher production values are noticeable, and the entire affair is more engaging than it's ever been. While highly simplistic gameplay can be great, no one mentions that it's also damned hard to pull off so one doesn't get bored of it.
Does that mean that all old games are junk? Definitely not, but classic games that can hold one's attention indefinitely like Tetris are flukes. They aren't the norm, and on balance the majority of games being produced today are far better than their predecessors.
I think I can see the point of where realistic graphics harms the gameplay.
For one thing, many icons, target reticles, markers etc. used to assist aiming or lead snowboarders through a better path clash with the real graphics. I have an easier time accepting these helpers if the surrounding graphics is stylized to an extent.
Another thing is the game designer's control over the environment. If the environment is more realistic you have a harder time setting up something as bizarre as a mario carousel platform.
Another thing that may not be directly gameplay related is that if all games are perfectly realistic there is a chance that it would be hard to tell games apart from their look. Right now you can look at two screenshots and usually tell if they belong to two different games.
I don't think it is an argument between good and bad graphics, I think it is an argument between graphics styles, and a well made cartoony style game is not worse than a well made realistic style game.
The last thing I can think of is that games are created with limited resources and time, and if too much time is spent refining the art less time will be available to tune the game, even though different people generally art and tune there is file access requirments and changes in one department requiring changes in the other that prevents these departments from working in paralell.
Not necessarily. You could just paint in the shadows into the background and when a character stands in the shadow you just use a darker palette to render the sprite, signalling to the player that you are now hidden. The advance in graphics technology just makes the effect better-looking.
There are many games that fall outside of the four factors.
Myst, Far Cry, Baldur's Gate, Splinter Cell. They don't have customization, open source, or anything breakthrough like you list; They just executed an existing genre really well.
Myst was just an adventure puzzle game, with [at the time] mindblowing graphics, and really well executed puzzles.
Far Cry is just an FPS with mindblowing graphics and really good physics. The story, the multiplayer, even the gameplay is pretty good, nothing terribly special.
Splinter Cell is a good stealth shooter with good gameplay but not spectacular, once again graphics and level design make the game.
Baldur's Gate series was just a great story, mediocre graphics, average gameplay
On the flip side there are games that have one or more of the four things you list, but aren't great (there are no sure homeruns) because they executed poorly. Tons of me-too RTS that have dynamic campaigns, lots of sucky editable FPS, and even more badly made "controversial" games.
The only one that I think does make for a successful game is number 3, but often that is more something that happens as a result of a good game. It doesn't matter how much a dev supports the gaming community if the game is bad.
I think the items you list can take a good game and make it a great game, ie Neverwinter Nights, or take a great game and make it genre defining. But none of those things really "make" the game either.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
In my opinion, there are multiple uncanny valleys that gasmes can fall into. Graphics is only one of them and the most obvious of them. The other two things that have uncanny valleys are AI and physics.
One of the problems that people are having now is the ability to make characters in the game behave in a realistic fashion. In older games, you had things that behaved in such an artificial manner that it didn't jar our expectations. Now that we're trying to make games more realistic, creating characters that act like humans, we're going to find the ways they fall short of actual humans rather jarring, for the same reason that we find the zombies of modern games disturbing. We're wired to react to people socially. We can deal with artificial things easily enough, but someone that acts like a weird human will push mental buttons that clearly artificial things won't.
Likewise with physics. I think one of the reason a lot of very old games do very well in replayability is that they had totally unrealistic physics. Of course they had totally unrealistic worlds so we weren't jarred by the fact that things did not obey the normal laws of physics. Why did the things in Centipede or an early platformer act the way they did? That's just the way the world worked, and that was that.
Now we're trying to create games with realistic looking worlds. And people wonder why they can't pick up a rock and break open a window. Or move aside crates blocking a hallway. Games are getting more real, and that means we're sliding into the Uncanny Valley again as our expectations rise up to demand realism and what we are wired to expect.
Eventually things will get better, as we get good at creating synthetic digital actors who can express a range of emotions, and artificial personality programs that process player-NPC interaction and generate appropriate NPC reactions, and we have libraries that automatically model the physics and behavior of realistic objects.
Incidentally, even as the polygon count goes up, I don't expect the artistic cost to go up proportionally. I do expect the artistic tools to get better over time. An artist who wants a forest scene will just tell the computer to create a forest and he'll be able to tweak parameters and make a few manual adjustments over time. Just because an object has a zillion polygons doesn't mean an artist has to specify each one by hand. I do expect the demands on artists to level off.