Support NeoGAF

[Sad Affleck]

Whenever a discussion about the rising costs of games development comes up, one of the most frequent arguments is that gamers put pressure on publishers and developers for cutting-edge graphics and ever-expanding scope. It's been said so many times that most people probably assume it to be true but I disagree. I believe it's a total myth.

First, I don't really understand who these 'gamers that demand top graphics' are. Are we talking about mainstream console gamers? Because I highly doubt that the average joe gives a crap about 4K, high-quality assets and solid framerates. Is it the hardcore console gamers then, the people who might frequent sites such as NeoGAF? But we've been told many times and in no uncertain terms that these people are only a quite vocal but very small minority that is not able to influence the industry's direction. PC gamers maybe? The most popular gamers on that platform can be played on a toaster.

What is then that mysterious gamer group that demands awesome graphics and pushes so hard that the entire industry has to bend to its will to the point that it makes the current games development model unsustainable without lootboxes? What is the make up of that group? Who are they? I believe they don't exist. I believe that the myth about gamers pushing publishers towards bigger, more impressive and more expensive games needs to be dispelled.

In my opinion the only ones constantly pushing for bigger sequels with better graphics and increased scope are the publishers themselves. Their business model is so reliant on creating and milking big franchises through GaaS or constant sequels that they have to find something to show the average gamer and say "this is why you should buy this. It has better graphics! It is open world! It has celebrity voice overs!".

I don't think gamers demand any of that. Publishers are choosing to go down that road because they don't want to be constantly creating new IP, they prefer the safety of a sequel to an already established series. So when they can't come up with compelling reasons for creating an otherwise unnecessary sequel, "better graphics" is the easiest selling point.

TL;DR The problem of ballooning AAA budgets due to the constant chase for better graphics and increased scope if self inflicted. Publishers aren't forced into that model, they chose it because many times it's the only way of enticing you to pay yet another $60 for an unnecessary sequel.

 

[Albino_Yeti]

Gameplay > Graphics every single time.

A lot of people do judge games' quality by their graphics though.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

Publishers have all the data.

 

[ElectricBlanketFire]

Art style can enhance the experience, and thus, make a game better.

 

[Kyoufu]

The biggest complaint I saw in the Battlefront 2 beta thread was that the first game looked better. I wouldn't say all gamers demand better graphics, but clearly some do.

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

On gaf it’s gameplay > graphics. But in reality it’s graphics > gameplay.

 

[_Rob_]

More casual gamers see a flashy ad showing a pretty looking blockbuster game and buy it. In a similar vein casual move goers see a flash blockbuster film trailer and buy a ticket.

It's unfortunate but we are in the minority.

 

[DarkStream]

Not for me, but then again, I'm an "enthusiast".
I always prefer a very strong art design over polygons.

I'm also aware that a lot of people that only play games now and then can be impressed by graphics (in the sense of high detail polygons etc.). Anecdotally speaking.

 

[Lime]

Not necessarily, but Nirolak and duckroll have pointed out how the big publishers really want to push out other developers and mid-tier publishers from getting a share of the market by throwing thousands of workers at massive projects with tons of features and high-end graphics.

This is why they also ask for newer hardware and newer consoles, so that they can exploit the hardware to push the limits even further and push away smaller developers who are unable to compete.

I also think that the marketing and promotion being pushed by publishers create this culture of specs and graphics that consumers then get indoctrinated towards. So you get weird debates about pixels, framerates, and all other kinds of dick-waving between console warriors and outlets making a living on such an ideology (Digital Foundry et al.).

 

[Trago]

The casual crowd love flashy bleeding edge tech. That's not gonna change.

Not necessarily, but Nirolak and duckroll have pointed out how the big publishers really want to push out other developers and mid-tier publishers from getting a share of the market by throwing thousands of workers at massive projects with tons of features and high-end graphics.

This is why they also ask for newer hardware and newer consoles, so that they can exploit the hardware to push the limits even further and push away smaller developers who are unable to compete.

Also this. Go big or go home.

 

[EloquentM]

On gaf it’s gameplay > graphics. But in reality it’s graphics > gameplay.

No it’s not. It’s whatever agenda fits each poster and trust me you’ll hear about it in a gaf thread if a AAA doesn’t look up to snuff.

 

[UncleSporky]

Publishers wielding teams of hundreds to push the most realistic 4k crazy graphics possible and I'm just sitting over here playing Stardew Valley and Golf Story. I mean they're not even cream of the crop artistically.

 

[nivorae]

Art style can enhance the experience, and thus, make a game better.

art style and graphics are not the same

 

[Jawbreaker]

On gaf it’s gameplay > graphics. But in reality it’s graphics > gameplay.

I don't know if that's fair to say. I don't think graphics mean much if your game isn't at least just as appealing. The Order: 1886 is a good example of that.

 

[krazen]

On gaf it’s gameplay > graphics. But in reality it’s graphics > gameplay.

In that case the biggest sellers would be the prettiest sellers and that's rarely the case. MAYBE during the COD bro era we can argue that the 60fps was a big deal but even then the graphics fidelity didn't compare to the other AAA titles around that time.

 

[JordanN]

On gaf it’s gameplay > graphics. But in reality it’s graphics > gameplay.

This.

Who bought the ugly multiplat games on the Wii instead of PS3/360? No one.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

I disagree. I think the majority of casual gamers put a lot of stock in how a game looks. Certainly moreso than framerate. Perhaps not to the extent that we've seen sometimes (hair strands having physics) but certainly if we're talking about a preference between medium and ultra graphics. Ask what people like about Horizon: Zero Dawn and I think the majority of answers would start with the visual fidelity.

Alternatively if Horizon: Zero Dawn had average graphics I don't think it would have had anywhere near as much praise against it by the average gamer.

 

[LycanXIII]

On gaf it’s gameplay > graphics. But in reality it’s graphics > gameplay.

For WWE fans it's neither.

 

[oti]

You: I feel like gamers don't want better graphics.
Publishers: We don't feel anything, we've got the data.

You don't think this multi billion industry researches this extensively?

 

[Audioboxer]

PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds isn't exactly blowing the world away with graphics, is it? Minecraft... is Minecraft.

Gameplay is always king. No one needs to purposefully unleash shittastic visuals on the world, but not everyone needs to try and be ND/PD either.

If you're deciding to rocket your development budget through your ass for visuals, maybe best rethinking that if you aren't projected to sell more than 2~5m copies.

 

[VichoCardenas]

As others have said, yeah, seasoned gamers know it's gameplay above all else, but people tend to forget that videogames nowdays are not here to cather us, the "hardcore" audience.

AAA gaming is aimed at the casual players, they are impressionable, and the first thing they see to evaluate a game and lend the money is what they get visually from it. That's why you don't see big and good indie titles making millions. They maybe are the perfect gameplay experience, but since the marketing and looks aren't there, people will prefeer the flashy option, regardless of their contents.

 

[AstroNut325]

Wtf...no. People, especially casuals, are always going to amazed by improved graphics. Heck, even on this forum, how many knocked Destiny 2 for its graphics? A lot!

 

[James Scott]

Graphics make a game easier to sell, but it’s possible to make a lot of money on games that don’t look cutting edge (see 3DS and iPhone games)

Switch is showing how people are more accepting of lesser visual quality if there’s good art and good gameplay behind it

It is probably considerably harder to sell a game on its gameplay when people can’t try it, tho. So I understand why a lot of AAA just fall back on it

 

[Nirolak]

PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds isn't exactly blowing the world away with graphics, is it?

Gameplay is always king. No one needs to purposefully unleash shittastic visuals on the world, but not everyone needs to try and be ND/PD either.

It does have much better graphics than its competitors.

 

[Marcel]

Pixel count is important to people the same way gamers cared about how many bits were in the name of a console back in the day. It's important to marketing that you're the best and have a huge pixel count. Big numbers make people feel like powerful little consumer mathmagicians.

 

[Glass Rebel]

I don‘t care that much about graphics and the only games I pay full price for are middle-range games like NieR Automata, Yakuza 0, indies and whatever pops up on 3DS.

I think devs should make more games for me instead.

 

[Trago]

For WWE fans it's neither.

 

[GodofWine]

I agree, total myth. PUBG ain't pretty, OW is bright but graphically pretty simple (runs on anything..almost anything).

Better controls, better enemies, better AI, , bigger worlds, better worlds, physics, better performance (does frames = graphics in this conversation).

A 4K / 30fps of remastered PS3 and PS4 / XB1 titles on next gen consoles is not 'the future' , i hope.

 

[BanjoLayleeYookaKazooie]

I mean your title is you saying you dispute the notion that "gamers" are demanding improved graphics but your main point is that the average-Joe doesn't mind... with the average-Joe obviously not being a "gamer". Seems contradictory.

Just from my experience places like this have for as long as I can remember placed a huge emphasis on graphics. Not just your typical 'AAA' games from EA, Ubisoft and Bethesda either, it's even managing to dominate the conversation around more niche and budget games like Xenoblade Chronicles 2 and over the last couple of years Star Fox Zero got a massive amount of criticism in this area, arguably justly because it was far from impressive, but it was also a budget title and people's expectations were kept far from in check even knowing that.

If for example Anthem looked less than stellar I would feel very confident in saying that thread would have been several thousand posts longer.

TL;DR I disagree, it's a real thing for sure.

 

[JCX]

The biggest complaint I saw in the Battlefront 2 beta thread was that the first game looked better. I wouldn't say all gamers demand better graphics, but clearly some do.

Gamers who spend time on internet forums arguing about gaming are not representative.

 

[VariantX]

Looking back at all those wishlist for sequels, I don't see requests for better graphics more so than consistent presentation. As in having all the textures look consistently as good as each other. I think gamers want more features far more than graphics so that they get more out of their time with their purchases overall.

 

[EloquentM]

Gaf is not some bastion of gameplay over graphics lol, and Idk where this sentiment is coming from. Discussion about a games visuals permeates nearly every thread regarding reveals, previews, betas, sequels (splatoon, destiny 2, battlefront 2) etc. on AAA games. If anything I’d say both visuals and gameplay are similarly relevant to the interests of people on this forum.

And then when we talk about casual gamers with regards to consoles it’s always been about better graphics for them.

 

[border]

I guess you missed all those thread where people cried and whined if some version of a game was running at 900P or a dynamic resolution.

Or the months of complaints that Destiny 2 was an expansion pack because it wasn’t better looking or running at 60’FPS.

 

[rudger]

Publishers have all the data.

They can have all the data they want, but it doesn’t mean they’re reading it correctly. The fact that costs keep increasing and they have had to move to multiple methods of generating revenue to make up for said costs should show that they are not getting anymore efficient at making profitable games.

Plus if you look at sales, it’s fairly apparent that the best looking games are not inherently the top sellers. Hell, the 3ds still sells decently.

 

[Hanmik]

On gaf it's gameplay > graphics. But in reality it's graphics > gameplay.

you mean:

Own a Switch: Gameplay > Graphics
Own a Xbox One: Gameplay > Graphics
Own a PS4: Graphics > Gameplay
Planning on buying a Xbox One X: Graphics > Gameplay
Own a PC: Why not both?

 

[rochellepaws]

It's clearly not true for the whole market or mobile and handheld gaming would have never been such a success. The Japanese market especially seems to care very little in that regard when we saw some of the biggest franchises like Dragon Quest take graphical steps backwards from the PS2 to the DS.
There just seems to be this one bubble of western AAA companies intent on pushing games to the visual standards of movies at the cost of gameplay, performance, the consumers wallet and whatever else needs to be sacrificed. They are businesses after all and I'd presume this is simply because there is a category of consumer who will buy whatever looks pretty and impressive regardless of it actually playing well.

 

[Canucked]

I care about graphics. Doesn't have to be top of the line, cutting edge, but pretty and visual art.

It's a visual medium, what you're looking at will always matter.

 

[Thud]

In reality it is probably a mix of creators wanting to improve and consumers getting higher expectations.

 

[Jangowuzhere]

Look at Marvel Vs. Capcom: Infinite.

Capcom decided to do the sequel on a budget, and it's obvious the visuals suffered as a result. Despite the superb gameplay, the game has been universally panned for its dated visuals and presentation. The talk of the graphics has overshadowed every other aspect of the game. The sales were pretty bad in the end.

I don't think gamers expect top of the line graphics with every game. However, when it comes to most sequels, gamers do expect bigger and better with everything and that includes the graphics.

 

[Lothars]

I guess you missed all those thread where people cried and whined if some version of a game was running at 900P or a dynamic resolution.

Or the months of complaints that Destiny 2 was an expansion pack because it wasn’t better looking or running at 60’FPS.

Yeah exactly. The vast majority of gamers demand better looking games.

 

[josecitoxnyo]

You: I feel like gamers don't want better graphics.
Publishers: We don't feel anything, we've got the data.

You don't think this multi billion industry researches this extensively?

Exactly.

 

[Trago]

I guess you missed all those thread where people cried and whined if some version of a game was running at 900P or a dynamic resolution.

Or the months of complaints that Destiny 2 was an expansion pack because it wasn’t better looking or running at 60’FPS.

At the start of this generation, there were countless posts about power, resolution, multiplatform differences, etc.

 

[Audioboxer]

It does have much better graphics than its competitors.

That isn't the basis of the topic though. You can create games as good looking as within your means as possible. The topic seems to chase the myth that you can't sell your games unless it's the new Michael Bay of graphical showcases. The Uncharted's, FF15's, GTs, Horizons, God of Wars and others will always exist. As well as whatever insane open world Rockstar spend $100~200m on. If your studio cannot afford to reach those heights, scale down. Plenty of games far uglier than those titles sell more than them.

I'm currently sitting playing Dragons Dogma, a game that wasn't even a looker in its time with black bars, shite framerate, muddy textures and what else.

TL;DR The problem of ballooning AAA budgets due to the constant chase for better graphics and increased scope if self inflicted. Publishers aren't forced into that model, they chose it because many times it's the only way of enticing you to pay yet another $60 for an unnecessary sequel.

 

[CookTrain]

On gaf it's gameplay > graphics. But in reality it's graphics > gameplay.

Console screenshot thread, PC screenshot thread, driving game comparison thread...

On GAF the pretense is gameplay > graphics, but the reality isn't much different than anywhere else. People like pretty things and there's an ever-present market for it. Look at new hardware releases, for example. While it would be nice if all that grunt was put to work on gameplay features, obviously that's not the case.

Fortunately, I think games are at a point of looking "good enough" these days (even at the budget end) and easing off the pedal a little would probably be fine.

 

[Plumpbiscuit]

It's a total myth. Just look at games like Rust, PUBG, H1Z1, Minecraft, etc. People don't want big, awezom real life grafix.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

Own a Switch: Gameplay > Graphics
Own a Xbox One: Gameplay > Graphics
Own a PS4: Graphics > Gameplay

Tales from my ass?

 

[Finale Fireworker]

On gaf it's gameplay > graphics. But in reality it's graphics > gameplay.

And even on GAF, people make huge pile-on "downgrade" threads and lambast developers for games not looking as good as the trailers.

So while I would like to agree with the OP, I just can't. Too many players are not sensible consumers. They are obsessed with the cutting edge, even if they don't know what that means or what goes into it.

The biggest problem is that people who constantly judge a game by their graphics cannot even reach a consensus of what good graphics are. I've known people who think Arkham Asylum had the best graphics of 2009 (beating Mass Effect 2 and Uncharted 2). There are people who thought Wind Waker had the best graphics of the generation.

People love "graphics" because its an easy descriptor of something they notice immediately and they are able to praise or disparage an experience based on this primary characteristic. But these people can't articulate why they like how a game looks. They don't narrow down that what they really like is the character animation or the bloom lighting or the lush environments or the detailed set design. It's all just "graphics", it's all just the pursuit of "better graphics." But they don't know what they're asking for and developers are forced to take the response at face value.

The result, I think, is that no one is ever happy. At least not for long.

EDIT: Obviously there are people with a high-literacy in visual fidelity who can and do play games just for how good they look. Discerning consumers like them are not the subject of this post.

 

[Aranjah]

I just got done skimming through some Steam reviews for a new game (Elex) that Steam was advertising to me and a common theme was "The game looks really dated, but...." despite in my opinion looking just fine in the screenshots and videos. (I mean, it's no Horizon, sure, but few things are.)

I think a larger number of people prioritize graphics than many of us realize, unfortunately.

 

[Rygar 8 Bit]

people want both its not a one or the other type deal

 

[Hero]

The silent majority absolutely do not care about having cutting edge graphics.

The vocal minority on an enthusiast forum like NeoGAF absolutely does. Just see all the threads regarding DigitalFoundry's analysis or any of the threads where there's performance issues between different ports.