-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"Gamers demand constantly improving graphics". I think that's a myth.
- Thread starter Sad Affleck
- Start date
...
Ever heard of Digital Foundry? Thats enthusiast culture and thats super obsessed with the graphics and specs ideology
Ouch!
Not really, seeing how some of the most successful games available aren't lookers to begin with. Especially on PC, where targeting a wide number of systems is important.
See more traditional MOBAs, World of Warcraft or Minecraft.
There is an audience that wants that. But there is an even bigger one that doesn't mind it. The expectations depend on the franchise and the studio behind the game though. It's not black and white.
see OP, its all your fault
Honest question. Which games in either 2016 or 2017 do you feel were AAA Western publishers trying to fit a game with a notably outsized budget compared to what they should have been doing, and what would you have done instead?
theinternetman
Member
A big part of this is due to the huge sales earned by annually released titles. From a quick Google search, many of the top titles sold year over year are sports and COD. These games necessarily have to push graphical capabilities of consoles to make a splash in commercials, to remind the "average joe" gamer to get the latest release. I don't think it is a mischaracterization to say that the vg market demands high end graphics. Nevertheless, this is America and lootboxes are absolutely a cash grab.
bemusedchunk
Banned
this thread is now a meme.
https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/920671105362341888
https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/920671105362341888
Off-Kilter
Banned
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
He stole my thunder! 😱
The Albatross
Member
When it comes to sales, it's easier for good graphics to make up for shitty gameplay than it is for good gameplay to make up for shitty graphics.
Yes, games like Rocket League, Minecraft, and PlayerUnknowns Battlegrounds have come out and proven to be incredibly successful despite not having good graphics, but these are rare surprises, incredibly clever games with great gimmicks that only come around once in a generation. These weren't runaway retail successes either. It took Rocket League releasing as free for it to hit mass appeal, Minecraft steadily grew over years and years, PUBG as an early release beta title.
Compared to a game that needs to have success for a major studio or publisher, the emphasis on immediate sales is much higher, and that's where having really impressive graphics can bring more eyes to a game than good gameplay can. It took Demons' Souls and Dark Souls years to make the cultural foot print that they did, even despite basically terrible graphics and technical chops for most users. If a game like Tomb Raider or Uncharted released with mediocre graphics, they couldn't rest on their mediocre gameplay, and so a major reason why people started playing those games is because the graphics were so impressive, while the gameplay was fairly lackluster. If Uncharted 1 were being produced by a third party, it likely would have just sort of faded away, but because it had a big marketing budget and it was a valuable new IP by a major 2nd party studio for Sony, they were invested in the franchise and could push through sequels.
Yes, games like Rocket League, Minecraft, and PlayerUnknowns Battlegrounds have come out and proven to be incredibly successful despite not having good graphics, but these are rare surprises, incredibly clever games with great gimmicks that only come around once in a generation. These weren't runaway retail successes either. It took Rocket League releasing as free for it to hit mass appeal, Minecraft steadily grew over years and years, PUBG as an early release beta title.
Compared to a game that needs to have success for a major studio or publisher, the emphasis on immediate sales is much higher, and that's where having really impressive graphics can bring more eyes to a game than good gameplay can. It took Demons' Souls and Dark Souls years to make the cultural foot print that they did, even despite basically terrible graphics and technical chops for most users. If a game like Tomb Raider or Uncharted released with mediocre graphics, they couldn't rest on their mediocre gameplay, and so a major reason why people started playing those games is because the graphics were so impressive, while the gameplay was fairly lackluster. If Uncharted 1 were being produced by a third party, it likely would have just sort of faded away, but because it had a big marketing budget and it was a valuable new IP by a major 2nd party studio for Sony, they were invested in the franchise and could push through sequels.
BrettHeazy
Member
I'd rather read a discussion on Gameplay>Graphics then another lootbox thread though
bemusedchunk
Banned
your intellectual property!!
OGBOBBYJOHNSON
Neo Member
An equal balance is what is key. You can have a beautiful game but it can be absolutely boring after a few days. you can also have a very fun game that just puts you off due to the awful graphics, but when you boot up a game, the graphics are the first thing one notices and can usually be a good indication of what kind of time and effort was put into the game.
Spyder_Monkey
Banned
You just said they don't.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Profits being higher due to a massive increase in digital revenue doesn't contradict the fact that production costs due to better visual fidelity, more complex gameplay systems, longer game length, longer dev times, and bigger dev teams, etc, are higher across the board. Both of those are things that are happening at the same time.
Lights and Waves
Member
The exposé
Lootbox threads are essentially commons in the GAF Discourse lootbox whereas "Pokemon Leaks Influenced the U.S. Election" is a legendary
FutureLarking
Member
I actually appreciate IQ more than crazy effects, as long as the baseline image is "good enough".
Like, Twilight Princess HD I actually prefer over a lot of better looking games just because of it's great 1080p native presentation with some AA. It's clean and too the point, and doesn't try any tricks.
Like, Twilight Princess HD I actually prefer over a lot of better looking games just because of it's great 1080p native presentation with some AA. It's clean and too the point, and doesn't try any tricks.
Considering that games like minecraft and PUBG are wiping the floor with those graphic intense games in terms of sales this argument doesn't hold up.
Audioboxer
Member
It's up to publishers to let us know as and when games don't meet their sales expectations and for us to speculate why based on what those sales expectations are. I'm assuming some of the current conversations are coming off the back of Visceral shutting down and the DS2 budget announcement, more than other specific examples.
I mean Square has stated Tomb Raider was a commercial failure. I think Alien Isolation and Sunset Overdrive were also deemed commercial failures. Mass Effect Andromeda didn't exactly hit the ground running, but its issues were more talent than overspending. It should've/could've sold more going on past releases and expectations. The game just failed with its content.
The alternative to not consider some of the budgets of these games in comparison to their profits is what? To think AAA development is fine as is? People are arguing constantly it isn't. So I would say what is the alternative to what I'm suggesting for some development? Just keep spending more and more and simply hope more gamers buy your game? Ignore some genres of games to only make sports and FPS games?
Devs and pubs can carry on doing as they please, I just think it's the case some of the choices in the AAA market can be self-inflicted and not simply something to blame on gamers.
the-pi-guy
Member
I don't think it's so much that people are "demanding" better graphics. I agree that most people don't demand better graphics.
Developers are making better graphics because it's one of those easy things to impress people. You can show graphics quality in pictures which is easy to show in commercials, bill boards, other kinds of advertisements.
You can't show gameplay in a lot of these, you can't show sound always, etc.
But graphics are easy to show, and therefore the easiest way to impress.
Developers are making better graphics because it's one of those easy things to impress people. You can show graphics quality in pictures which is easy to show in commercials, bill boards, other kinds of advertisements.
You can't show gameplay in a lot of these, you can't show sound always, etc.
But graphics are easy to show, and therefore the easiest way to impress.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Someone should make a compilation of how nearly every e3 demo has long panning shots meant to show off how much effort was put into the visuals. It's hard to spend show off how systemic and complex your core gameplay is in 5-10 minutes compared to showing off the visuals.
It's almost like those are exceptions to the rule....
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
No OP, it's not a myth. After hearing how stagnant the PS3 era and the 360 era went on for so long that people wanted better graphics, yeah, I think we seen how much people wanted that upgrade based on the sales numbers for both. Secondly, I think there was a public poll that asked this same question....I actually think it was a Sony poll and the results heavily showed people care about graphic.
Some people believe a $60 title that shapes itself as a AAA need to have better graphics.
There's people who heavily dislike indie 8 bit games because of graphics.
People buy sports games every year and demand better player models because of graphics.
It has never ever been a myth that graphics wasn't this thing most people want. It has nothing to do with agendas or whatever the wind blows because the fact is, people do care about graphics. Games where the gameplay allows the player to dismiss the graphics are the exception....but 9/10 the thing that grabs people the most, the thing that's showcased in the marketing is the graphics.
Some people believe a $60 title that shapes itself as a AAA need to have better graphics.
There's people who heavily dislike indie 8 bit games because of graphics.
People buy sports games every year and demand better player models because of graphics.
It has never ever been a myth that graphics wasn't this thing most people want. It has nothing to do with agendas or whatever the wind blows because the fact is, people do care about graphics. Games where the gameplay allows the player to dismiss the graphics are the exception....but 9/10 the thing that grabs people the most, the thing that's showcased in the marketing is the graphics.
Marketing is all about creating a demand and then selling something that meets that demand. Graphics are the most easily demonstrable differentiator between games: you just need a screenshot. Gameplay is much, much harder to quantify and hard to demonstrate outside of demos.
Games are also a relatively new form of entertainment, as compared with films, and there are large gains to be made with graphics.
On a slightly different note, it's interesting to see the power of "brands" in gaming. For big-budget Hollywood productions (the equivalent of AAA games), the trend in recent years has been for sequels rather than new IP. Same with games: I think your average non-enthusiast punter cares more about a game being called "Call of Duty" than the nuances of anti-aliasing, but they nonetheless expect good graphics.
Games are also a relatively new form of entertainment, as compared with films, and there are large gains to be made with graphics.
On a slightly different note, it's interesting to see the power of "brands" in gaming. For big-budget Hollywood productions (the equivalent of AAA games), the trend in recent years has been for sequels rather than new IP. Same with games: I think your average non-enthusiast punter cares more about a game being called "Call of Duty" than the nuances of anti-aliasing, but they nonetheless expect good graphics.
I guess I'm not understanding what the perceived problem is here.
AAA publishers make a mix of high cost AAA blockbuster games and lower budget (usually digital, sometimes $40) games. The former has a large graphics expectation, so they go after that in their products.
Indies and AA publishers try to fill in the gaps in the market with cheaper titles like Nier or Divinity: Original Sin 2. On occasion these are $60 releases that go on sale quickly, but are low enough budget to recoup costs anyway. The others are digital-first games with lower price points between $10-$40 generally.
What's the audience not being served here? People who want $50 million, but not $70 million AAA games of a specific variety?
The thing is, the game industry have been on a race to have better graphics for decades, but now production costs are at the skies and they just can't find a balance between investment and return because making games is too damn expensive.
The industry poisoned the consumers with this desire for graphics because that's what they've been selling for years. Now they should accept the consequences or try to change this "super-duper graphix culture". I don't think they can at this point.
The industry poisoned the consumers with this desire for graphics because that's what they've been selling for years. Now they should accept the consequences or try to change this "super-duper graphix culture". I don't think they can at this point.
Great post. It'd be astonishing, yet somewhat refreshing, to hear a big publisher say "the graphics are good enough on this game; we could have made some marginal gains, but instead we put those resources into great content and gameplay".
You can't have everything, and the current model is unsustainable; something will need to give. Course, it'll probably be an increase in game prices.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
This implies that the rise in digital revenue hasn't already been a major help to alleviating the issue of rising production costs. GAF keeps complaining about MTs, season passes and lootboxes, but good lord are they a major success.
Audioboxer
Member
The problem is when in trying to serve whatever market it is they are aiming for, they either vastly overspend or set projections that are unrealistic. That is what often leads to studios getting canned, downsized, or being deemed as failures. Some of that seems to be a pressure that everything can be turned into a AAA GaaS experience, when some things just do not fit their genre well to "always online/MP/MTs" or whatever it is. How are you supposed to put loot boxes or MTs in Until Dawn? Therefore, it's probably not a good idea to give Until Dawn a budget of $100m. A SP horror game. Unless Until Dawn was one of those Sony titles they were happy to break even/make a small profit or loss on. Or in the case of graphics in general specifically, again spending within your means/projections as it's not going to be realistic everything can look like Horizon Zero Dawn.
The problem isn't so much for the gamers here, it's for the health of the industry and big publishers managing their projects better. Or I guess what it may come down to, some developers having to stay far away from certain publishers if they aren't making games that are a strict and narrow breed.
Preach it
stargateheaven
Member
Square enix are the ones who think all we care about is graphics.
Gravy Boat
Member
Go into any thread about indie games and you'll see that it's not a myth.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
A ton of studios have invested heavily in upgrading the renderers for their engine because A)they know the audience and B)because new tech is exciting for them.
I guess my feeling is that, like, this doesn't seem to be causing a problem overall.
Let's take your example of Until Dawn.
Sony made Until Dawn as a horror game with a big budget. It had kind of ho-hum sales even though they were above expectations, so Sony signed the studio to make four VR games (including one Until Dawn branded one) instead. Of the three announced at E3, two of them are horror titles (The Inpatient and Hidden Agenda), so we're still getting a bunch of nice looking horror games out of them now, and they're at a more reasonable budget.
More broadly, we get tons of horror games in general ranging from bigger budget titles like Resident Evil 7 to mid-sized titles like SOMA to one person operations like Five Nights At Freddy's. I'm not sure category 1 and 2 offer hugely different presentation to the end user, so even if the former were to disappear, that audience would still be well served.
Does it really matter that Until Dawn isn't getting a sequel in this scenario?
I demand competent and cohesive art styles. Realism is fancy but I get over it quick. A good art style lasts a lot longer. Crysis was top notch when it came out, but I barely care to remember it and it's been achieved many times over now. I'm always going to remember Okami, the various Mario titles, etc.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Stop treating realism and art direction as if they're two different concepts!
jonscrambler
Member
I wish we live in a world where Cuphead or Stardew Valley are the best selling games but we are not. the best selling games are the big budget GTAs CODs and Battlefields
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Graphics matter because it's the "easiest" way publishers have to differentiate themselves from competing product.
When you're releasing a shooter and you're fighthing against dozen of other game, the easiest thing to set yourself apart of that crowd is graphics.
It says more about the mindset of publisher than about gamers because if you're game is compelling, diffferent enough and interesting for you consumers it's going to sell well, there's countless exemple proving this.
It is the hardest way to turn a profit though.
When you're releasing a shooter and you're fighthing against dozen of other game, the easiest thing to set yourself apart of that crowd is graphics.
It says more about the mindset of publisher than about gamers because if you're game is compelling, diffferent enough and interesting for you consumers it's going to sell well, there's countless exemple proving this.
It is the hardest way to turn a profit though.
Audioboxer
Member
The thing with Sony though is as I posted earlier they will let some of their games come in at a loss. My point in bringing them up, or UD specifically, is other developers might not have that luxury under another publisher. It can sometimes be as ruthless as make profit or face the axe. If a game is actually good (high Metacritic score and all that jazz), and sells well all things considered, but gets deemed a failure and makes a loss where are we going to point fingers? I just don't think in situations like that it's all that fair to blame gamers. Only 3~4 million of you bought the game? You don't deserve SP games! Eh, sometimes the numbers you reach are what the reality is for that type of game/market, so really, budgets have to be set accordingly if profit IS what the main focus is.
They made NieR: Automata though.
I think the issue overall is that publishers want to sell games that have mass appeal, in order to make the most money they can. This usually pulls various publishers to push for games in a small subset of genres, as they only want to risk money on genres and games that have already proven returns. When all of your major publishers are creating games in the same genre and they want to milk those franchises for as long as possible, gameplay innovation must come slowly in order to justify new entries, which means that graphics will be the primary differentiatior that makes their product stand out amongst the competition (and to their existing fanbase).
I think people downplay how much graphical innovation in games actually betters games overall though. Immersion is a huge part of what makes game unique and cool. Though visuals don't ultimately define the merit of a game, anything that gives you a greater since of immersion goes a long way towards heightening the enjoyment of your experience. Another added benefit of ever increasing graphical fidelity is that all aspects of visual presentation have to be refined as everything stands out more.
Overall, I would like game technology and game visuals to continue to advance, but not in the manor things are currently moving. The push for richer experiences has outpaced game creators' abilities to fund the creation of those experiences.Games are getting too expensive to produce because the quality barrier is so high.
I think people downplay how much graphical innovation in games actually betters games overall though. Immersion is a huge part of what makes game unique and cool. Though visuals don't ultimately define the merit of a game, anything that gives you a greater since of immersion goes a long way towards heightening the enjoyment of your experience. Another added benefit of ever increasing graphical fidelity is that all aspects of visual presentation have to be refined as everything stands out more.
Overall, I would like game technology and game visuals to continue to advance, but not in the manor things are currently moving. The push for richer experiences has outpaced game creators' abilities to fund the creation of those experiences.Games are getting too expensive to produce because the quality barrier is so high.
CloudyTuba
Member
I do say graphics continue to get better. I'm not saying it isn't happening, games are looking wonderful this gen in ways that are not insignificant.
But you can't seriously claim it's as drastic as SNES to N64, for example. Which was the entire point of what I said.
Jaguar Victory
Member
I completely disagree. I think we've made great advances in graphics this gen and there is still so much more to go with textures, lighting and animation. Of course all of that is out the window if the game isn't good.
Similar threads
- Locked