• 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.

Game Developer magazine joins the next-gen hate train (Wii > *.*, Blu-ray sucks, etc)

Knives

Banned
Some of my favorite games to play in 2008 came from last generation. Graphics can help, but they aren't necessary. I want my graphics to be tasteful and neat, like a Blizzard game.
 

Haunted

Member
exoduster said:
Hello people!
this is brandon sheffield, by the way...

first - I agree with what hauton says, to get that out of the way.

Second, the point of this article was not at all that next-gen is pointless, and I would hope that anyone reading it would see that...if not, well, maybe that's my fault.

The point was rather that we often talk about the day when we will reach the point when graphics don't matter from the perspective of selling a game. My point was that for the average consumer, we may well have reached that point already. Of course next-gen games will keep coming out, this appeals very much to a certain element of the hardcore (personally I'd like to see more high-res 2D games, but, well...I'm just holding out hope for KOF XII).

Except in certain cases, like racing games or maybe exploration games that need sweeping vistas, most of the time the graphics don't actually enhance gameplay. Sometimes they do, but by and large, what makes a good game is the way it plays, as hauton says. So my point is that if we're already there, then we can sort of stop talking about the graphics plateau, because it's basically been reached for most consumers.

Sure, MGS4 sold more than MGS3 - but it had a whole lot more push behind it than MGS3 ever did, since sony had a whole lot invested in that. I mean it was bundled with some systems, after all!

To whoever said it was a dumb editorial - I hope you read the article, not just the excerpts. If you read it and still feel that way, that's perfectly fine, but please make sure you know full well what you're actually discussing.

The point above the point (I am trying to avoid saying meta like a douchebag...but hey, I just did!) is to get developers to think about this, not to declare the death of next-gen.

The first poster says I end with something about cars. Well yes, it's called a metaphor! Here's my closing statement:

"It turns out that the average consumer of today does not necessarily want a Ferrari hooked up to his or her entertainment system ... The average consumer is content with the Toyota Corolla of gaming systems, and for that reason, I propose that the war of bigger and badder graphics can safely end, and we can finally focus on pushing gameplay to the fore."

I said the war can end. The cock waving can end. Graphics as the *reason* for buying a game can end. That's not heralding the end of next-gen, it's just saying that it's no longer the deciding factor, ala Mode 7 versus Blast Processing.

I don't post here frequently so I apologize if it takes me a while to respond to any comments.
Yes! I agree. Graphics will always be important (games are also visual medium after all) but they need to stop being the most important thing devs think about when creating and selling! their game.

I hope the industry has evolved so far, or at least can evolve so far as to recognise this. Both creators and consumers.
 

K.Jack

Knowledge is power, guard it well
A couple tired questions:

If all three consoles had debuted at the $250 price point, would we be having this discussion?

Would the Wii still be running away from the pack?
 

Shaheed79

dabbled in the jelly
Kleegamefan said:
I must also say I am wondering what the point of the editorial myself...


I mean are we REALLY "giving up" great gameplay on PS360 just because they do state of the art graphics/physics/audio?

It may be just me, but I am playing a lot of fun, well playing games on the PS360(lolz at the thought of playing Portal on the PS2....I mean, for realz!!) that look and sound great...the suggestion that we are "sacrificing gameplay" for the sake of graphics is absurd in my mind!!
He never implied we were ""giving up"" great gameplay for PS360 level graphics. He was simply asking the question are they necessary and unfortunately for us to the majority of gamers or at least to the majority of people buying games and consoles this generation the answer is no they are not. I personally feel that industry can rest at Crysis level graphics and concentrate on other things.
 
wazoo said:
Now, you start to be elitist, because you equal "next gen graphics/etc/" with "best games".

Ans, as for your analogy to cinema, the movies with the best FX are usually the worst movies in terms of critical reviews (but your opinion may differ, as every opinon).

Well in movies you have Citizen Kane... which combined everything at its time... hopefully diablo 3 will be right here
 

phez

Banned
cartoon_soldier said:
Is it an editorial or an Op-ed piece?

Whichever one it is, its an embarrassment to gamers everywhere.

Seriously, all I'm thinking right now is "What in the fuck?"
 

Redd

Member
K.Jack said:
A couple tired questions:

If all three consoles had debuted at the $250 price point, would we be having this discussion?

Would the Wii still be running away from the pack?

It would probably be closer but it's not just the price that sells the Wii. I do think price is a factor when consumers buy the 360 and PS3.
 
Shaheed79 said:
He never implied we were ""giving up"" great gameplay for PS360 level graphics. He was simply asking the question are they necessary and unfortunately for us to the majority of gamers or at least to the majority of people buying games and consoles this generation the answer is no they are not. I personally feel that industry can rest at Crysis level graphics and concentrate on other things.

I think the real issue isn't that developers are intentionally "giving up" gameplay for graphics but that some don't have any choice but to do that because of resources.

Developing for the HD consoles takes up so much time and money that all but the biggest devs can't deliver the same level of content that we got last gen this one. Even some big budget games (like DMC4) felt absolutely tiny content-wise compared to its predecessors.
 

Ramenman

Member
_leech_ said:
In fact, the page on the immediate right of this editorial is an ad for NaturalMotion, which apparently didn't add anything to GTA IV.

Shit article confirmed, Euphoria was actually the only thing fun in GTA IV.
 
It's a little too easy to come up with the argument that "gameplay" matters the most all the time.... but then again, everybody is a game designer nowadays.
 

linsivvi

Member
Sony has effectively won a war that is no longer being fought. It's been demonstrated time and again that the mainstream user is willing to watch streamed videos and movies on YouTube, or torrent them on The Pirate Bay, or even download them at only slightly lower quality from legitimate portals like the Xbox 360 or Netflix.

Looks like this guy doesn't know what mainstream means. The mainstream users don't even know what bit torrent or Xbox 360 are. They watch movies on TV, cinemas, or DVDs.
 
Meh, I feel this gen we had one company undershoot the needs of the consumer vis-a-vis tech, and the other two ridiculously overshoot them. It's too quick of a growth for the industry, and not wholly necessary, and a whole lot of developers/publishers are bleeding from the ass for this folly.

MGS4 is a strange example to use, though. This is one game I feel benefited substantially from being marketed as a next-gen title. Without that trick in its marketing arsenal, I'd have bet solid dollar on it performing worse than MGS3.
 

stalker

Member
These are some quotes that even those not very interested in HD graphics (as myself) can disagree with.

I don't get the comparisons with youtube. The success fo youtube is certainly not based on people not caring about picture quality. It is based on people caring about on-demand availability and user created content.
 

Sage00

Once And Future Member
Segata Sanshiro said:
Meh, I feel this gen we had one company undershoot the needs of the consumer vis-a-vis tech, and the other two ridiculously overshoot them. It's too quick of a growth for the industry, and not wholly necessary, and a whole lot of developers/publishers are bleeding from the ass for this folly.

MGS4 is a strange example to use, though. This is one game I feel benefited substantially from being marketed as a next-gen title. Without that trick in its marketing arsenal, I'd have bet solid dollar on it performing worse than MGS3.
It was a case of unfortunate timing. High definition came in, and for the consoles not to support this yet be expected to last 5 years was unreasonable (unless they have another selling point, see Wii).

If tech increased at the rate it did last gen, there would be no noticeable difference in graphical quality, as all the extra power would be going to outputting at the higher resolution.

Waiting another year or two would've been the best option, but someone jumped the gun. And you can't really blame them, it worked. Crippling the industry be damned.
 

legend166

Member
I don't agree with all of it, but I do think there's a point. The amount of games that have really benefited from the available power this gen, from a gameplay standpoint, has been very low. People always argue that the power offered is not just about the graphical fidelity. That it offers bigger worlds, better AI, more enemies, etc. I agree. But the developers don't seem to care, because those things don't sell a game. You can't show smarter AI in a 30 second commercial.

All the power seems to have given us is texture pop in and longer loading times.

I do agree with Segata, though. I think Nintendo undershot. I can see their reasons for that, though. Hopefully next-gen they'll go a bit further.
 

krzyspc

Banned
stalker said:
These are some quotes that even those not very interested in HD graphics (as myself) can disagree with.

I don't get the comparisons with youtube. The success fo youtube is certainly not based on people not caring about picture quality. It is based on people caring about on-demand availability and user created content.

The youtube comparison is on the lines of if it meets the demand of the people the quality is not an issue. Like the Wii.
 

KTallguy

Banned
exoduster said:
The point was rather that we often talk about the day when we will reach the point when graphics don't matter from the perspective of selling a game. My point was that for the average consumer, we may well have reached that point already. Of course next-gen games will keep coming out, this appeals very much to a certain element of the hardcore (personally I'd like to see more high-res 2D games, but, well...I'm just holding out hope for KOF XII).

Your points are solid.

However the ability to create more detailed, intricate spaces with more horsepower cannot be overlooked.

Take games like Ryu Ga Gotoku 3 (which isn't out here yet). The sharpness and realism of the environments, and the lifelike depictions of the characters (modeled after real actors) drew some of my non-gamer friends into the game more than I expected. The gameplay is largely the same, and is not anything revolutionary, but the atmosphere created by the game was palpable.

I think that these things can enhance the experience of the game in a very real way.
Gameplay is obviously king, and supremely important.
But good games manage to balance all of these things and be something for everyone.

I really think that Kojima's statement that we need to create worlds that react to the player's actions more should not be overlooked. Take a smaller, denser environment and allow the player to have full interactivity. Plant a seed, water it and watch a tree grow. The 'graphics' or 'image quality' will be matter of fact, and what will matter is the art style, use of color and light, and composition of the game and how it's presented to the player.

You can have some of the above using older technology, and depending on the style of your game, it's absolutely possible to draw and immerse players into worlds. However with limited technology, a large degree of abstraction is necessary. Nothing wrong with that, but there is a lot more you can do with better technology, and that doesn't just mean graphics.

MGS4 has great graphics, but it also has amazing presentation. There are plenty of jaw dropping scenes and tricks and ideas that could have never been created on the PS2. If it had released on PS2, it would have lacked many of the important things that made it the game that it is, or it would have had to cut a ton of the details out of the environment, which in a game like MGS, really help with making you feel like you're in the game.

Anyway, my rebuttal is that people may be satisfied with a Toyota Corolla, but if you can give them a Ferrari that's as easy to drive as a Corolla, and lower the price enough through technology, people will make the change. It's the same thing with power windows, A/C or cruise control becoming nearly standard in all cars. Someday, GPS will be standard too.
 
No one is happy now, way to go author of the editorial.

Hey gaffers, stop needlessly ruining your shorts anytime something like this appears as if it was trying to ruin your hopes and dreams of ever seeing amazing omg textures and graphix oh joy in games again! Yep, thanks to Wii and its popularity graphics are back to red dot protaganist and yellow square goal, only with waggle now, amirite?

Foolish gamers.

The future is much brighter w/ Wiimotion+ than it ever was with HD.
 

andthebeatgoeson

Junior Member
charlequin said:
The GTA with less diverse gameplay than either of the previous two series entries on PS2 is the game you pick to highlight as "couldn't have been done on previous consoles"? Really?
Well, yeah, how else could you get a tree with high def textures to pop-up after you hit, but with the power of the PS3? Just because it takes forever to load off of BluRay doesn't mean it's not a next gen storage format.

KTallguy said:
Anyway, my rebuttal is that people may be satisfied with a Toyota Corolla, but if you can give them a Ferrari that's as easy to drive as a Corolla, and lower the price enough through technology, people will make the change. It's the same thing with power windows, A/C or cruise control becoming nearly standard in all cars. Someday, GPS will be standard too.
I think his point is that this push for a 'ferrari' got us into this debacle. We know now and many knew before, that the current push for HD graphics would vastly increase the cost of this generation. Your wish is unattainable, when you have another guy willing to up the ante. MS and Sony played that game and both overshot the market. Hell, I agree with Segata that Nintendo deliberately undershot the market, probably to disrupt them more. I agree that we need to give up this tech race, but it'll never be. As long as there are 3 competitors, they'll fight to get a leg up on the next. One answer we do have from this gen is that they'll calm down and aim for more reasonable prices.

But will that be the ultimate disruption: make others stop the tech race? Nintendo can't compete because they don't have the resources and it disrupts their biggest resource: gameplay. Maybe that's what Sony should focus on to battle Nintendo: more games, better games and better studios.
 
Farnack said:
Oh man, oh man. I can't wait for the VHS release of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy! :lol
Those already came out.

But hey, good job simplifying the argument. I'd love to live in your black-and-white world.
 
KTallguy said:
You can have some of the above using older technology, and depending on the style of your game, it's absolutely possible to draw and immerse players into worlds. However with limited technology, a large degree of abstraction is necessary. Nothing wrong with that, but there is a lot more you can do with better technology, and that doesn't just mean graphics.

it can be argued that less detail can lead to bigger inmersion
 

Farnack

Banned
Segata Sanshiro said:
Those already came out.

But hey, good job simplifying the argument. I'd love to live in your black-and-white world.
Stay in the SD era then.

I'll enjoy the true HD fidelity of awesome.
 

KTallguy

Banned
Starchasing said:
it can be argued that less detail can lead to bigger inmersion

It can be, but does that mean that we should only seek games with no detail?
We can chase after both at once, you know?
Variety is excellent. There is room for different ideas in the market.
 

Yagharek

Member
wazoo said:
Now, you start to be elitist, because you equal "next gen graphics/etc/" with "best games".

Ans, as for your analogy to cinema, the movies with the best FX are usually the worst movies in terms of critical reviews (but your opinion may differ, as every opinon).

No, I equate technological improvement with best games. Wii has some decent motion sensing technology but very little of it has been put to good use.

As for technology in movies, it's an ever improving curve. You wouldnt compare the tech in Citizen Kane (mentioned previously) with that in The Matrix, and judge them based off that. But if you look at great movies of recent times, Pan's Labyrinth for example, the technology has been a massive benefit to it.

Keep in mind that technology doesnt just refer to cgi though. It includes the filming equipment, editing equipment, audio equipment etc.

Shaheed79 said:
He writes for a Game Developers magazine not aficionados monthly. He didn't ask whoever made this topic to post inserts to his article here.

Yes, and the article in its full context is a good read. Does not mean I cannot disagree with it or on points of terminology.
 
KTallguy said:
It can be, but does that mean that we should only seek games with no detail?
We can chase after both at once, you know?
Variety is excellent. There is room for different ideas in the market.

Dont take things to the extreme... no one is talking about no visual details... like books.

What im saying is that inmersion has nothing to do with resolution or polygon count

As for technology in movies, it's an ever improving curve. You wouldnt compare the tech in Citizen Kane (mentioned previously) with that in The Matrix, and judge them based off that. But if you look at great movies of recent times, Pan's Labyrinth for example, the technology has been a massive benefit to it.

Keep in mind that technology doesnt just refer to cgi though. It includes the filming equipment, editing equipment, audio equipment etc.

You said it yourself, tech is not a variable in how good a movie is. It is just the talent behind it using the tech available. Same can be argued with games.
 

KTallguy

Banned
Starchasing said:
You said it yourself, tech is not a variable in how good a movie is. It is just the talent behind it using the tech available. Same can be argued with games.

Absolutely.
And if the talent has more tech, and is focused on using it in a non-superficial way, then amazing things can happen, I'd think.

Limitations can bring innovation, but the opposite is also true. That's why Square abandoned the Nintendo 64's cartridges for a CD based format.
 

Doubledex

Banned
_leech_ said:
From the recent issue of said magazine, the editorial by a Mr. Brandon Sheffield:


He ends the article by making a car comparison.

So, in short:

- Last-gen graphics are all we'll ever need.
- Developers should port-down their games because no one will care or notice.
- GTA IV on a PS2 would have been just as great.
- Blu-ray sucks because YouTube is popular.
- Casuals don't care about graphics, so neither should anyone else.

Of course, the funniest thing about this is that it's coming from Game Developer magazine, where every other page is an ad for new technologies and engines. In fact, the page on the immediate right of this editorial is an ad for NaturalMotion, which apparently didn't add anything to GTA IV.

:|
Mr. Brandon Sheffield is an idiot
 
Farnack said:
Stay in the SD era then.

I'll enjoy the true HD fidelity of awesome.
You're still simplifying the argument to suit your agenda. Have fun, I'm not wasting my time arguing with someone with a last-gen brain.
 

Deku

Banned
KTallguy said:
Limitations can bring innovation, but the opposite is also true. That's why Square abandoned the Nintendo 64's cartridges for a CD based format.

I find this rather ironic consider Square has all but abandoned next-gen at this point.
 

effzee

Member
aren't you guys over reacting?

i mean you are but don't you realize you are?

i doubt his point is that stop progress in totality and lets just stick with xbox, gamecube, ps2 levels of graphics. and im pretty sure his point is that instead of JUST pushing EXPENSIVE tech, console developers should look towards innovating gameplay as well. pretty logical considering how many studios are losing money each quarter due to ever increasing development budgets.
 
KTallguy said:
Absolutely.
And if the talent has more tech, and is focused on using it in a non-superficial way, then amazing things can happen, I'd think.

Limitations can bring innovation, but the opposite is also true. That's why Square abandoned the Nintendo 64's cartridges for a CD based format.

But in the end what moves people is the talent not the tech. Some goes for inmersion. Some day whenever i find the mood ill open a thread on the topic of why i think tech is not a variable in inmersion, since i wrote a lot of papers about that in college when i majored in film.
 

Deku

Banned
KTallguy said:
5 Next Gen RPGs aren't enough?
you mean recycling the same 3 Final Fantasy XIII games we've known about since the beginning of time in every convention plus 2 unknown b-level IPs, one of which was moneyhatted by Microsoft?!

fuck yeah!
 

Link Man

Banned
hauton said:
To everyone whining that GTA4/MGS4/*insert next-gen game here* would've worked, albeit with compromises, on the Wii/PS2/Xbox/GC/whatever:

Red Steel/Twilight Princess/Super Mario Galaxy would've all worked fine if they were hamfisted into normal controls. Except you'd lose the point of them.

Which is exactly the same thing with a game like MGS4.

It's a cinematic experience. It's not meant to be something visually and aurally average. You're supposed to be taken in and WOWED. Of course it would be possible on another console. So would GTA4. But at what loss?
Art direction is much more important for a cinematic experience, IMO. I know it's a tired example, but I'd like to point out Wind Waker as evidence for this.

Now, I realize that MGS has a different style, but consider your experience with, say, MGS1. When you were playing it, did you feel as though it was a cinematic experience? Were the graphics more important in creating that feeling, or was it the art style + mood of the game?

MGS4 could have released on the PS2 (or even the Wii, which would outperform the PS2) if Kojima's team had employed a clever artstyle. Mood can be conveyed effectively on any of these platforms, so the cinematic experience could be retained. The only issues would be storage (though less without HD textures and lighting, and it could be handled with multiple discs) and the physics engine (but clever programming could create an exceptional engine tailored for the target platform).

As for GTA4, the OP's article states that consumers would be satisfied with PS2-level graphics. The PS2 games had low-level PS2 graphics (according to many), so I'm sure consumers would be wowed with top-o-the-line PS2 graphics. Or they'd enjoy it for the gameplay, which, judging by the GAF backlash, was somewhat boring/unfun in IV.
 

Yagharek

Member
Starchasing said:
Dont take things to the extreme... no one is talking about no visual details... like books.

What im saying is that inmersion has nothing to do with resolution or polygon count



You said it yourself, tech is not a variable in how good a movie is. It is just the talent behind it using the tech available. Same can be argued with games.

Yes, thats true. But the talent using the tech available on Wii seems in short supply relative to, say, 360, DS or PS2 (yes, 2).

edit for clarification: what I originally typed was referring to games with an 'artistic' bent, ones that do soemthing other than just be toys to play with. At the moment there is hardly a wii game that goes beyond the realm of minigame compendium or 'lifestyle software'. Whereas with the other two consoles out now, you have tech enabling the kind of experiences you get in Halo 3, MGS4, Uncharted or Bioshock.
 

drakesfortune

Directions: Pull String For Uninformed Rant
Wow, I could not disagree with this guy more. I would not have bought GTA4 at full price if it were done at PS2 quality. I mean come on, San Andreas pushed the PS2 as far as it could go, and doing another GTA on there would have been spectacularly redundant. That article is one of the worst!
 

KTallguy

Banned
Starchasing said:
But in the end what moves people is the talent not the tech. Some goes for inmersion. Some day whenever i find the mood ill open a thread on the topic of why i think tech is not a variable in inmersion, since i wrote a lot of papers about that in college when i majored in film.

Talented people can do a lot of amazing innovative things within a limited rule set or limited tools.

But that doesn't mean they can't do amazing innovative things with better tools or less limitations. And the amazing, innovative things that they do with better tools will be fundamentally different from the things they do with more limited tools.

It's all down to the talent, as you said. However both paths have merit. There's no reason to always say "let's work with only these limitations". In some cases, it's good though.

Deku said:
you mean recycling the same 3 Final Fantasy XIII games we've known about since the beginning of time in every convention plus 2 unknown b-level IPs, one of which was moneyhatted by Microsoft?!

The same 2 FFXIII games that we've known next to zero about since they've been announced, you mean? Last Remnant and Infinite Undiscovery are also brand new IPs, which apparently aren't good even though "Square-Enix just churns out sequels." Star Ocean I'm skeptical about, but early shots look ok.

I love when people bash Square-Enix, because it's so easy to knock them down.
I'm supremely confident that Final Fantasy XIII will change the RPG market just as FFVII and FFX did before it.

MGS4 could have released on the PS2 (or even the Wii, which would outperform the PS2) if Kojima's team had employed a clever artstyle. Mood can be conveyed effectively on any of these platforms, so the cinematic experience could be retained. The only issues would be storage (though less without HD textures and lighting, and it could be handled with multiple discs) and the physics engine (but clever programming could create an exceptional engine tailored for the target platform).

First of all, the MGS series is not about having a clever artstyle, so the intent of the creator would be changed. Secondly, all the clever programming in the world can't get you the same complex physics on the PS2/Wii as you can get on the PS3, unless you make some serious sacrifices in other areas.

And who cares about complex physics? Well, they add to the feel of the world, which makes the experience more cohesive, and therefore more memorable (in MGS4).
 

Farnack

Banned
Segata Sanshiro said:
You're still simplifying the argument to suit your agenda. Have fun, I'm not wasting my time arguing with someone with a last-gen brain.
And you're two gens behind. :lol

If the Wii was good enough, why are all the third parties doing pretty badly on it?
The average consumer (nongamers) don't mind the graphics of the Wii because they don't know jack. They are non-thinking consumers. Those consumers goto best buy asking if the latest HDTV has antennas.

Visual and audio fidelity is a good thing for games and movies.

MGS4 on the PS2 would have done worst than MGS3. The PS2 was at peak performance and a lot of Kojima's ideas could not be put into reality with the PS2.
 

Wallach

Member
Silly.Mikey said:
Im pretty sure that 99% of the best selling games of the past few years also had amazing graphics. There goes his theory.

I know. Wii Fit and Wii Sports are pretty mind-blowing.
 

Link Man

Banned
Farnack said:
And you're two gens behind. :lol

If the Wii was good enough, why are all the third parties doing pretty badly on it?
The average consumer (nongamers) don't mind the graphics of the Wii because they don't know jack. They are non-thinking consumers. Those consumers goto best buy asking if the latest HDTV has antennas.

Visual and audio fidelity is a good thing for games and movies.

MGS4 on the PS2 would have done worst than MGS3. The PS2 was at peak performance and a lot of Kojima's ideas could not be put into reality with the PS2.
So, like Malstrom's hardcore, you see these so-called 'casual' gamers as "retard gamers".

Sorry, but your opinion is invalid for a reasoned discussion.
 

fresquito

Member
I think some people here are misunderstanding experience enhacements by gameplay enhacements.

Graphics enhace the experience, never the gameplay (until you're talking frames per second or definition of the picture, but at this point every damn game should run at 60fps and is a real shame that they don't.

There're little games this generation that couldn't have been done keeping gameplay intact or with slight changes on the PS2/Xbox/360. But that's not to say the experience is the same.

If you take games like Uncharted, what kind of gameplay can't be replicated on past consoles? You could even argue that some gameplay elements are steps back from games found in the past generation. Now, the difference in graphics is everything and it affects the experience.

There's a defining question that has been running in my head for quite some time: why you can't find a game from 10 years ago that has better graphics than anything that's released today? And why you can find many games with better AI than games released today?

You could argue that AI hasn't seen many advancements in the last decade, and you'd be very wrong. Beyond gaming, there have been lots of advancements. However, those advancements haven't penetrated into the gaming hive for the most part. While really advanced technologies for graphics have entered every dev house, those same houses are missing the advancements made in AI. They work in AIs like they did ten years ago.

Other examples can be found, and that's what the whole meaning of the article is highlighting. Graphics are fine now, let's do some work in other departments that might be more important and haven't seen an overhaul in the last decade.
 
Top Bottom