Gameplay > Graphics every single time.
A lot of people do judge games' quality by their graphics though.
Art style can enhance the experience, and thus, make a game better.
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.
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.
Just about every PC gamer wants their hardware pushed to the limit and then some. Also, PS4Pro and Xbox One X.
On gaf its gameplay > graphics.
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?
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.
The OP said: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.
It most certainly isn't. You can go into almost any gameplay thread and the majority of the discussion will be centered around the graphics. There are people who genuinely believe Horizon Zero Dawn is a good game because of it's graphics.
We're effectively talking about AAA games though:
If we want to disprove the AAA publisher strategy, we would need a fair range of examples of lesser graphics games outperforming (or at least getting close to) similar games with better graphics at the $60 AAA level, especially at a level where they make enough money to move the profit/revenue needle for a major publisher.
The silent majority absolutely do not care about having cutting edge graphics.
The vocal minority on an enthusiast forum like NeoGAF absolutely does.
If the statement from the OP was a myth than we would see much more 60fps games.
You still can't sell 60fps to the masses. It is graphics. It will always be graphics.
None of those games would have switched to PBR if they looked the same year in and year out.I wonder what their data says about Call of Duty, NBA 2K, FIFA, Madden, and others that look roughly the same year in and year out and sell millions year in and year out.
What we appreciate, if not demand, are:
Tight controls
Challenging, yet fair and rewarding gameplay (yes, Demons/Dark Souls/Bloodborne are a perfect example of this)
Intriguiging, engaging storyline ; subtlety is oftentimes appreciated over heavy-handedness ; optional lore exploration is verymuch appreciated (Deus Ex, Skyrim etc. do a great job at this with random books, audio logs, newpapers etc. to peruse)
Satisfying game progression --- make the player feel rewarded for the progress that it is put into the game. The best Metroidvanias do a great job with this.
Graphics that best portray the world around which your game is structured and also that meshes best with the gameplay style
Those first four above are what every game should strive for. Pleasing controls, rewarding & challenging gameplay, intriguing & engaging storyline & satisfying game progression
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.
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.
Why did "casuals" (god that term sucks) buy the Wii and Switch then?
I would argue that they offer something different enough from the competition.
God it's almost like graphics don't matter that much compared to the overall experience of playing the game.
All my casual friends IRL who play nothing but Fifa, Madden and CoD care deeply about how true to life things look.
Art style can enhance the experience, and thus, make a game better.
I agree, but AAA games developers/publishers should be able to learn from the AA market, or even indie market, that graphics aren't always everything. A stable framerate, in fact, 1080/60 on console, will be appreciated as will a good story/experience, or in the case of MP, an addictive gameplay loop.
No its not. Its whatever agenda fits each poster and trust me youll hear about it in a gaf thread if a AAA doesnt look up to snuff.
I don't believe it has anything to do with genres personally.Nirolak said:Do you feel that's not relevant within the same genre?
I would expect a lot of "other studios are doing both, you have no excuse!"I mean, what if a publisher stated up front, "Hey, our game could look better but we chose to put those resources into gameplay elements. We did this keep costs reasonable and still provide a great gaming experience."
Would anyone really be upset by this kind of transparency?
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.
These companies do put out some games in this mold though. They're just cheaper products and separate from the flagship AAA lines where they feel graphics really matter.
EA has the EA Originals line with games like Unraveled and Fe. Activision Blizzard put out a Crash collection (and even Overwatch was sold for $40 on PC). Ubisoft makes games like Grow Home and Child of Light. Take-Two has noted they're getting back into this arena as well. Warner Bros has LEGO games. Basically all of them put out f2p mobile titles that don't have AAA console production values.
It's a hit-driven business. We look at our financial results of the titles, and probably three or four out of ten make money, and maybe one or two make all the money to cover the cost of the others titles. So we have to be able to maintain that hit ratio at a certain level to be able to continue in the business, so we always try to find out and support and help grow the talent. That's the most important work that I believe myself and some of my management team at worldwide studios are doing.
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
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 dont think it's a myth but I think it's less true now than it was a few years ago. Graphics do continue to get better but they have diminishing returns. When we were hopping from SNES to N64 to Gamecube, graphics were changing so wildly each gen that it became expectation. Those kinds of jumps just arent going to happen anymore.
It's a whole lot easier to sell new consoles when you can see the jump, though. That's plenty of incentive for companies to keep pushing them.
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