Support NeoGAF

[hotcyder]

Graphics make a fantastic first impression - and a trailer is easier to put together and distribute then a demo or written article. Why do you think Sega made the push for presentation and performance back in the 90s?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xbgxjjIGzo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bun8tA_ksZw

Doesn't matter if it plays like shit if it looks great - and by that time they'll have your money.

Only have to remember that Dead Island trailer and how it created a fictitious impression of what the game actually was (The Last of Us in Paradise VS a sloppy borderlands with zombies game)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ialZcLaI17Y

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

The topic seems to chase the myth that you can't sell your games unless it's the new Michael Bay of graphical showcases.

Where is this myth, I don't think I've actually seen anyone espouse it.

 

[Duchess O'Death]

Graphics are very important and one of the main reasons I get interested in a game.

 

[Alienous]

I don't know, I feel like the industry has always been driven by graphics. 8-Bit to 16-Bit. 2D to 3D. Polygonal 3D to Smoother 3D. SD to HD. I think we'll always be chasing better graphics, and that will always be a selling point that puts one game over another.

I'm not too worried about it though. I think with direct-capture techniques like photogrammetry and face capture the effort required in making a graphically impressive game will reach an equilibrium.

 

[JamesHolden]

It's a false dichotomy. Its Gameplay + Graphics. Miss on either one and your game can underperform.

 

[Lunar15]

I think it's both a myth and it isn't.

It isn't a problem if people aren't told it's a problem. I think people happily pour dozens of hours into games that don't hold a candle to the top tier AAA games in graphical fidelity. But since most of the discussion around new consoles is centered around graphical power, consumers then naturally look at the graphical level of games to judge whether or not their purchase was justified.

People definitely demand great graphics, just not all the time and not consistently. When you are in the AAA space, you have to cover all grounds, and graphics are just one checkmark on the growing list.

 

[Nirolak]

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. 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.

Do you feel that's not relevant within the same genre?

What would you consider to be some big standout performers for games that are within the same genre (comparing FPS to FPS for example), within the same price range (comparing $60 to $60 games, for example), and the same technical requirements range (so we compare 20 person shooters to 30 person shooters instead of 12 player shooters to 100 player shooters, as an example).

I would especially like to analyze examples at the higher end of the market ($60 in particular) as opposed to comparing one $10 farming game to another, given that's more in impulse territory, but those examples can still be interesting for an indie expectation discussion.

 

[Ushojax]

It's not a myth. Just look how GAF freaks out over resolutions, frame rates, 4K patches etc. There are people on GAF who refused to play Metroid Samus Returns because of the low resolution of the 3DS. There are people who won't play games that don't support the PS4 Pro. You can sell a bad game with amazing graphics (e.g. Star Wars Battlefront), but try selling a good game with mediocre graphics and you are fucked.

 

[Marcel]

Microsoft using *TIM ALLEN VOICE* 6 TERAFLOPS OF POWER HAUUGHUGHUGH as a marketing strategy shows that that there is an audience for this type of thing or that they want to create a new one that cares about spec wars.

 

[Audioboxer]

Where is this myth, I don't think I've actually seen anyone espouse it.

Ask the OP if you don't think it exists. My posts are more about critically examining any AAA studios that operate outwith their means, especially if that can be down to blowing large budget expenses on the technical side of things.

As for people criticising downgrades, this is a hardcore forum, and more than anything what people hate is bait/switch. So lies, "virtual slices" and whatever the fuck Randy Pitchford wants to call Aliens Colonial Marines.

Do you feel that's not relevant within the same genre?

What would you consider to be some big standout performers for games that are within the same genre (comparing FPS to FPS for example), within the same price range (comparing $60 to $60 games, for example), and the same technical requirements range (so we compare 20 person shooters to 30 person shooters instead of 12 player shooters to 100 player shooters, as an example).

What I feel is relevant is whoever is behind that game you picked for comparison clearly does not have the budget PUBG might have (or continued to received through fame), so they can't be expected to make something as good looking, can they? Maybe artistically they could make some better choices, but probably texture quality/texture maps and general fidelity won't be as good. Same for lighting, another part of an engine that can require some money to make visually attractive.

That's just operating within your means. It's not as if every indie/small time development studio out there can reach the graphical heights of others. Sometimes it truly doesn't matter as their gameplay is what shoots their game into critical fame/popularity.

You could always compare Minecraft clones and how some of them are actually better looking than Minecraft.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I have to disagree with both you and John here, the game looks ok but there's nothing especially impressive about its visuals. It's not bad but I expect more out of triple-A games nowadays. It has the look of a launch title and even then I think that it doesn't compare favorably to games like Killzone Shadowfall.

I won't deny that. I do expect games from big studios to keep pushing the technical envelope further and further with each release. Having impressive graphics is pretty important for mainstream success.

It's not a myth OP.

 

[oti]

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.

I wonder if there's any other industry on earth with as much armchair business advice as the video game industry. YouTubers and people on message boards all seem to be way smarter managers than those working for those giant companies.

 

[CookTrain]

It's not a myth OP.

Oof. Yeah, we're all guilty of it.

 

[d9b]

Graphics push the cost of development up?

Wat. Since when?

Isn't everything modeled in high polygon count with high rez textures in the first place and than scaled down?

 

[FRS1987]

I disagree and feel like even great looking games can tank and fail whereas something like Bravely Default on 3DS looked terrible but sold better than people anticipated. Pokemon series is known for "Ok" graphics and sub standard frame rate on 3DS and it sells millions. Indie games wouldn't sell anything if that were the case imo and graphics isn't timeless, gameplay is.

 

[rtcn63]

Publishers have all the data.

Yeah things like graphics, game length, and especially marketing are often what publishers sink money into for a reason. We are not the majority.

 

[Coricus]

I feel like there's two sides to this. On one hand there's definitely a crowd that will buy or reject games solely on the basis of what specs it has. . .

. . .And on the other hand Minecraft is second highest selling game of all time.

I also find that some casuals have a fuzzier view of graphics, where "bad graphics" is games with pixel artstyles and "good graphics" can simply be a 3D game with a good artstyle. This is more into out of the loop casual territory, but there's definitely no one distinction as to what makes or breaks graphics.

 

[hotcyder]

Microsoft using *TIM ALLEN VOICE* 6 TERAFLOPS OF POWER HAUUGHUGHUGH as a marketing strategy shows that that there is an audience for this type of thing or that they want to create a new one that cares about spec wars.

It's the most powerful hardware, which means it'll play the most powerful games

Spoiler

Forza 7 and that pirate game when it comes out I guess

 

[Old Gimlet Eyes]

Just about every PC gamer wants their hardware pushed to the limit and then some. Also, PS4Pro and Xbox One X.

 

[Mohasus]

Considering the success of Wii and PC's most played titles, I think it is a myth too.

 

[Cpt Lmao]

Gamers are 100% after better processing these days, we want large scale battles, maps with hundreds of players, physical and chemical systems, competent AI.

Nobody cares about graphics any more.

 

[BattleMonkey]

I demand better graphix

Myth verified

 

[zelas]

Do you think publishers are killing themselves for fun? Publishers have the data. It is mainstream audiences. That audience cares about fidelity but they don't care about frame rates.

And actually GaaS is great for publishers in this regard. Publishers can stem the tide a bit by creating/reusing content for an already released game and not have to worry about improving graphics like they would have if they jumped to a sequel.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

It does have much better graphics than its competitors.

This seems more the case of completely different art styles

 

[KORNdoggy]

people want to see an improvement between games and people want to see an improvement between consoles.

obviously breath of the wild looking rough won't stop most people buying it. art style goes a long way afterall, but i imagine if games as a whole didn't look better when a new gen starts people would questions what it is exactly they're spending $400 on.

so no, i don't think it's something inflicted on the industry by publishers themselves. they're just appeasing our desire for improvement. hell, it's one of the reasons why the xbox is trailing behind the PS4. people didn't want lesser graphics.

as with everything though it always comes down to cost. is 4k worth $500? despite how much the general consumer may want nicer visuals. they may not want it so much that they're willing to spend half a grand.

 

[LastGamer84]

Casuals(no negative connotation here just using the term) always demand better graphics. Expanding the market last gen was a double-edged sword. It brought in a larger demographic but increased pressure on developers to chase trends and larger profits.

 

[DJIzana]

Gameplay > Graphics every single time.

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

I can name a few where this isn't the case. Sword Art Online Hollow Realization, for instance. Graphics FAR outweigh the mediocre gameplay.

 

[Hektor]

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

GAF is the place were people jizz into their pants over some HDR, 4K bullshots or fake "in-engine" render footage of uncharted.

The rest of the world is busy playing PUBG, Minecraft, The sims, Crossfire and league of legends

 

[Nirolak]

What I feel is relevant is whoever is behind that game you picked for comparison clearly does not have the budget PUBG might have (or continued to received through fame), so they can't be expected to make something as good looking, can they? Maybe artistically they could make some better choices, but probably texture quality/texture maps and general fidelity won't be as good. Same for lighting, another part of an engine that can require some money to make visually attractive.

That's just operating within your means. It's not as if every indie/small time development studio out there can reach the graphical heights of others. Sometimes it truly doesn't matter as their gameplay is what shoots their game into critical fame/popularity.

You could always compare Minecraft clones and how some of them are actually better looking than Minecraft.

This is why my post also had this line:

I would especially like to analyze examples at the higher end of the market ($60 in particular) as opposed to comparing one $10 farming game to another, given that's more in impulse territory, but those examples can still be interesting for an indie expectation discussion.

I think this question is way less relevant at $10 or $20 than $60, because people have different expectations when buying budget software.

The thread is talking about publishers in particular who are continually spending more, not Devolver Digital or self publishing indies.

 

[NeonBlack]

Don't we have a digital foundry thread for every game on multiplat?

 

[Shredderi]

http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=235226695&postcount=24
It's not a myth OP.

I do believe it's a myth to an extent. The people I know who game and can be considered as more "casual" as in they play fifa, CoD, Battlefield etc. don't give a rat's ass really. I see a lot more enthusiasm for graphics in gaf where gameplay seems to be king anyway. A lot of these folks I mentioned are the kind of people who don't really see the small graphical updates we see here.

 

[mortal]

A title with thoughtful game design and solid art direction are the heart of the game for me. We're at a point where even shitty games have relatively good graphics.

The quality of a game's presentation is dependant on how well multiple elements work in unison.

 

[Shifty1897]

Graphics absolutely matter to casual gamers.

Source: My roommates are assholes and anything less than Uncharted quality visuals will cause them to dismiss the game immediately.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Gamers are 100% after better processing these days, we want large scale battles, maps with hundreds of players, physical and chemical systems, competent AI.

Nobody cares about graphics any more.

It's both. People want both.

 

[Marcel]

I think it's also not important to get "branded" on social media as a laughable bad graphics game. Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite and Mass Effect Andromeda both suffered for this. You need to pretty much nail that first impression or you're boned with jokes and japes at your expense until release.

 

[Bumhead]

I wonder if there's any other industry on earth with as much armchair business advice as the video game industry.

If you read an enthusiast forum about anything you will find this, yes.

 

[Audioboxer]

I can name a few where this isn't the case. Sword Art Online Hollow Realization, for instance. Graphics FAR outweigh the mediocre gameplay.

That game is hardly a looker, I own it. It's like a higher-res PS3 title if anything. Plus nearly all the cutscenes are 2D voice exchanges on static backgrounds.

It's the SAO name, so it's going to sell either way.

I think it's also not important to get "branded" on social media as a laughable bad graphics game. Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite and Mass Effect Andromeda both suffered for this. You need to pretty much nail that first impression or you're boned with jokes and japes at your expense until release.

ME was more about the terrible animation glitches, like what WWE is facing.

This is why my post also had this line:



I think this question is way less relevant at $10 or $20 than $60, because people have different expectations when buying budget software.

The thread is talking about publishers in particular who are continually spending more, not Devolver Digital or self publishing indies.

It should be considered though that "budget software" isn't necessarily thought that way if it leads to desirable gameplay. Gameplay/graphics arguments are completely relevant here if the argument is making jaw-dropping graphics is getting too expensive. I don't think how I should need to point out how the indie market is doing better than ever.

Publishers who continually spend more should maybe look to how other games can be incredibly successful and don't need to look like Naughty Dog made them. Otherwise, they will end up like EA shuttering studios blaming them for not making back outrageous budgets around titles that should see 2~5m sales as a success. Simply blowing ludicrous amounts of money on graphics doesn't guarantee sales.

 

[Clockwork5]

Some do, some don't. C'est la vie.

 

[Astral Dog]

i dont think anyone ever mentione dthis seriously just that its unhealthy/unsustainable on the long term. just like people enjoy fancy effects on movies but others are neglected except with game industry its worse

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

100 million people bought a Wii in an era where HD TVs were taking off. Millions are buying a Switch when 4K tvs are taking off. The base PS4 is outselling the Pro and the same is probably going to happen to the One X. The situation has always been more complicated than "casuals want more graphics."

 

[Stygr]

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?

I own all, and i'll always prefer gameplay over anything.
The Order 1886 type games? No thanks.

 

[sixteen-bit]

Nintendo's blue ocean strategy proved this will the Wii rite?

 

[oti]

If you read an enthusiast forum about anything you will find this, yes.

Yeah, good point. I bet there are similar discussions on movie boards. People talking about optimizing movie production and all.

 

[Tenshin]

For me its both. Graphics is about the art style how it is compatible for the gameplay vice versa .. In racing and fighting games you really need both.. No gameplay > graphics or graphics > gameplay to me..

 

[shoryukens]

I've said it once and I'll say it again: I'm 100% okay with games being 1080p for the next 20 years.

4k+ looks good but not worth sacrificing gameplay and frame rate. Especially if you consider the fact that the constant graphics push is bloating the cost of game development.

 

[Vinc]

Depends on the game. Story-heavy games benefit from better presentation immensely. I just don't mind when the focus is put on something else.

We're also at the point where top of the line graphics consistently impress me. I don't see too many imperfections anymore. Improving resolution / image quality is pretty much enough for me now.

 

[DJIzana]

That game is hardly a looker, I own it. It's like a higher-res PS3 title if anything. Plus nearly all the cutscenes are 2D voice exchanges on static backgrounds.

It's the SAO name, so it's going to sell either way.

ME was more about the terrible animation glitches, like what WWE is facing.

You're right. Which also says numbers about its gameplay. I own it too. Probably the first game I bought that I regret (besides World of FF).

 

[jviggy43]

Gameplay > Graphics every single time.

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

First post nails it. Graphics are nice but I don't need mind blowing graphics to impress me with your game and if I did i'd buy a pc.

 

[Trago]

100 million people bought a Wii in an era where HD TVs were taking off. Millions are buying a Switch when 4K tvs are taking off. The base PS4 is outselling the Pro and the same is probably going to happen to the One X. The situation has always been more complicated than "casuals want more graphics."

But you have to consider that people have different expectations for the Wii and Switch than they do for an Xbox or PlayStation.

No one was expecting the Wii or Switch to showcase bleeding edge tech, not even casuals.

 

[Diablohead]

I stopped buying games for graphics around the end of the 360 era, even the switch to me feels like enough to experiance everything nice at a good resolution.