I would guess that this is part of the disconnect with the casual and the enthusiast.
On gaf its gameplay > graphics. But in reality its graphics > gameplay.
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?I'd argue some of them are trying to squeeze such games into AAA games though. That's not healthy because not everything can be AAA. There are certain genres of games, or types (SP generally, for one) that it doesn't matter how much money you throw at them, they might not recoup it/make a profit. It's like reaching a ceiling cap for projections but deciding if I just spend more I can drag that cap up. Not always. Rarely, in fact.
Games that go viral and sell 80m copies, or a Rockstar game, are few and far between. As I highlighted above, not every game can be made under Sony where they explicitly state they can be happy to make loss/break even on some experiences.
Maybe it's not fair Guerilla get to blow big budgets on insane engines that Sony are happy to bankroll, or another game goes viral instead of yours. That's life in development though. Not everything can be COD, and not everything can be under a publisher who'll take some losses for portfolio diversity.
Some devs and pubs simply have to work within their means, with reasonable expectations, and not obsess over whatever some others can do in the industry. Otherwise, you may well risk closure/bankruptcy, and what good does that do anyone?
Lol
LOL.this thread is now a meme.
https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/920671105362341888
He stole my thunder! 😱this thread is now a meme.
https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/920671105362341888
I'm sick of hearing about the rising costs of game budgets. Mostly because all of the game publisher stocks are at or near all time highs. The game publishers are doing just fine, thank you.
He stole my thunder! 😱
You just said they don't.But they do.
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.I'm sick of hearing about the rising costs of game budgets. Mostly because all of the game publisher stocks are at or near all time highs. The game publishers are doing just fine, thank you.
this thread is now a meme.
https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/920671105362341888
I'd rather read a discussion on Gameplay>Graphics then another lootbox thread though
On gaf its gameplay > graphics. But in reality its graphics > gameplay.
Honest question. Which games in either 2016 or 2017 do you feel were AAA Western publishers trying to fit a game with an extremely outsized budget compared to what they should have been doing, and what would you have done instead?
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.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.
It's almost like those are exceptions to the rule....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.
I guess I'm not understanding what the perceived problem is here.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.
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".The thing is, the game industry have been on a race to have better graphics for decades, but now production cost s 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.
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.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.
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?
Seeing how y'all go fucking nuts every time a Digital Foundry thread opens or specs of future hardware leaks out or a game ends up being downgraded for several reasons or a new trailer with nothing but good visuals drops, I'd say I firmly disagree with the notion that this is a myth
The resolution is not up to snuff? Pre-order cancelled
That tree shadow in that one screenshot looks kinda bad? Pre-order cancelled
That aliasing looks like it could cut flesh? Pre-order cancelled
The presentation of a game is everything to a lot of players
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.Square enix are the ones who think all we care about is graphics.
I guess my feeling is that, like, this doesn't seem to be causing a problem overall.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.
Stop treating realism and art direction as if they're two different concepts!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.
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?
Square enix are the ones who think all we care about is graphics.
There's been such a massive leap in visual fidelity this gen that I don't believe this statement is true. And there's still massive ways in which games can increase graphical fidelity as more horsepower becomes available.
I think graphics have lost a lot of significance this gen. I can't think of a single game that I thought was ugly and similarly, I haven't been blown away like I was with KZ2 last gen.
The wall of diminishing returns has been breached.