Support NeoGAF

[etta]

Check the tweet I quoted lol.

Hmmmmmmmm, interesting.

 

[Formosa]

Graphic is everything man. it's like why you upgraded from a 720p to 1080p TV. Why don't you just stay at 720 and play SNES. Like why your iPhone is getting more pixils, and colors every generation?

Gameplay is also important, but Graphics too. A good designer will focus on both.

 

[Compsiox]

Once all games look as good as Wildlands on PC and run really well then Ill be okay. I don't really know how it can get much better than that when it comes to appearance. There is a lot to improve on the tech side tho (aside from graphics).

 

[A.Romero]

I like cutting edge graphics in my games. This doesn't mean I don't appreciate good gameplay, I actually want them both. In my opinion graphics are one of the factors that are proper of the medium.

I'd lie if I said that graphics don't make a difference in my perception of games, particularly in the AAA space. I loved Witcher 3, Horizon Zero Down in a big part because of the graphics.

Also I think it's kind of hypocritical to say people don't care about graphics and then grill companies because their target renders are not met by the final games.

So OP, count me on the side that publishers identify as interested in graphics.

 

[Atomicfireman]

Here's my uneducated opinion - the importance of graphics is a myth perpetrated by large video game companies because graphics (technical) improvements are easier to achieve than gameplay (artistic) improvements.

Bonus - required resolution for enjoyment is dictated only by screen size i.e. it's hard to fully enjoy an N64 game on a large TV because the jaggies are distracting, 1080/60 is great and anyone that thinks they need more is a muppet

The ironic part is that fancy graphics cost millions while the only thing needed to improve gameplay is some creativity.

 

[N7.Angel]

Here's my uneducated opinion - the importance of graphics is a myth perpetrated by large video game companies because graphics (technical) improvements are easier to achieve than gameplay (artistic) improvements.

Bonus - required resolution for enjoyment is dictated only by screen size i.e. it's hard to fully enjoy an N64 game on a large TV because the jaggies are distracting, 1080/60 is great and anyone that thinks they need more is a muppet

I think that too...

 

[Duchess O'Death]

I mean the only problem here is that Breath of the Wild looks fantastic, and most definitely not bad.

If BoTW is now a bad looking game then we really have gone off the deep end so to speak and no wonder we have ballooned budgets for most big games with diminishing returns as far as graphics are concerned.

Beautiful scenery, yes. But bad textures and resolution don't help.

 

[inner-G]

I like good graphics, that’s why I got a GTX 1080.

Many games are good regardless of graphical horsepower though, that’s why I’m mainly playing Switch and SNES stuff lately

 

[RoninChaos]

I think better graphics are part of the triple A business model and with the tech we have there isn't much of a reason for a game to look bad. With that said, art direction is a hell of a lot more important than how many polygons you can push.

 

[Bishop89]

I'm not saying the game is bad like that. What I am saying is that the game makes loads of compromises with the gameplay in order to deliver that total package. If gameplay is really king, as so many on GAF point out, then they would be asking for the gameplay to be less compromised or look towards more gameplay focused games as the top of the medium. They aren't. They are voting for Uncharted.

Call me an elitist or whatever the fuck you want, but I don't think there's really an argument to be had around the primary draw of the Uncharted series when you compare it to what else is out there.

"The experience is king" is more of what GAF's motto probably should be. That experience tends to factor graphics into the equation pretty frequently going off what I've seen.

what exactly are these compromises to the gameplay?

 

[Ac30]

The ironic part is that fancy graphics cost millions while the only thing needed to improve gameplay is some creativity.

Intricate physics simulations like the ones used in BOTW certainly require a ton of effort. If anything, good physics implementations is what impresses me most in games these days. It’s jarring if a bottle on a table has a million polys and then doesn’t tip over and break realistically when hit. We’ve had like one great paradigm shift in in-game physics with HL2 and I feel like it’s barely improved since then. Red Faction Guerilla has probably the most imprsssive implementation I’ve seen and that was 7 years ago.

 

[WhatNXt]

Also, OP got called out by Daniel Ahmad hard on Twitter. Talk about backfire.

https://twitter.com/ZhugeEX/status/920671105362341888

Hilarious..

I do feel, whatever OP said in the past though, that the premise of this thread has some validity.

I think a lot of the forces acting on developers impelling them to create ever more beautiful games comes from developers and publishers themselves. They *want* to achieve something good looking, for one. They *want* their game to compete with its natural competitors. The publishers *want* each new iteration to be the best looking yet. It's another tick on the box. Another selling point.

However, I think what some developers and publishers don't appreciate is that there *are* "good enough" levels of visual competence. The bar is going to keep rising with technology, but a lot of productions could probably benefit from a design that looks and runs beautifully regardless of the texture resolution or the poly count. Making a game work and play well should be the starting point really, making it fun and fluid before all the aesthetic guff comes in. TressFX hair and all that shit. EA rewriting control and animation in their sports games so we can enjoy glitchy footballers kissing each other in their celebrations. Perhaps the latter is an example of them trying to automate an expensive thing like animation actually.. make it more dynamic. They definitely reuse assets and code from one game to the next.

As with anything creative, videogame products could benefit from more oversight and editing, editing of ambition, reigning in of costs. Because if done right, I'm pretty sure huge swathes of audiences wouldn't notice. There is a point where effort should be expended on other things. I don't think publishers are particularly well connected with audiences. They throw the kitchen sink at several games in the hope that one hit pays for the rest. They minimise risk by dropping platforms or modes that have a lower cost-benefit return, when really they could minimise risk best by making the damn thing fun to play and affordable to produce.

Some studios are definitely more prudent than others. I have no sympathy for AAA publishers. I don't buy the argument that prices have stayed the same and we should therefore weather a storm of shitty predatory practices. Publishers enjoyed massive discounts in licensing with Nintendo's dwindling dominance and increased competition in hardware, again with the advent of optical media, again with digital downloads. They have the power to reach millions of users and create fun that any of us would be happy to pay for. Instead, they're risk averse and wastefully pouring millions in to features that I'm not sure there's evidence to support as a means of increasing popularity. It's a shame GAAS and things like FUT have been so popular for some, as they probably feel quite vindicated.

 

[Crossing Eden]

The ironic part is that fancy graphics cost millions while the only thing needed to improve gameplay is some creativity.

It's more ironic that you think you know what you're talking about. A metric fuckton of work has to go into even basic gameplay systems.