Support NeoGAF

[Niceguydan8]

...

Ever heard of Digital Foundry? That’s enthusiast culture and that’s super obsessed with the graphics and specs ideology

I'm more speaking about the emphasis on gameplay > graphics.

Obviously everybody cares about performance and graphics to some extent, but I'm suggesting that I think the casual playerbase generally cares more about higher fidelity graphics as opposed to something like 60fps in a game.

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

I have 4k displays throughout my house but give me 1080p 60 fps over 4k 30 fps any day.

 

[Aters]

Funny because when I played Uncharted 4 this year, what immediately caught my eyes was how bad some of the objects look, for example the fruits. The more realistic the games get, the easier for me to find the unrealistic parts.

 

[Nirolak]

The thing with Sony though is as I posted earlier they will let some of their games come in at a loss. My point in bringing them up, or UD specifically, is other developers might not have that luxury under another publisher. It can sometimes be as ruthless as make profit or face the axe. If a game is actually good (high Metacritic score and all that jazz), and sells well all things considered, but gets deemed a failure and makes a loss where are we going to point fingers? I just don't think in situations like that it's all that fair to blame gamers. Only 3~4 million of you bought the game? You don't deserve SP games! Eh, sometimes the numbers you reach are what the reality is for that type of game/market, so really, budgets have to be set accordingly if profit IS what the main focus is.

I mean, you would effectively just see that publisher exit the horror market and then the studio, or the studio's staff if there's a closure, could pick up with a mid-tier publisher instead.

If 3-4 million doesn't cover the cost of Until Dawn, then a smaller version of the studio (or half of the studio if it's an outfit lucky enough to sign multiple projects) can try with a lower budget.

Just look at Ninja Theory for an example. They used to make $60 AAA melee action games, and that stopped working out financially, so they signed onto a bunch of small projects while self publishing Hellblade with a 20 person team, and people seemed to like the game more than any of their previous offerings.

Obsidian similarly spun up Pillars of Eternity after publishers stopped working with them, and Larian saw huge success pivoting to isometric games sold digitally instead of over the shoulder $60 games. We can look at inXile as a similar example of that.

The market is adjusting budgets. It just often happens at different publishers when a studio or genre no longer fits a AAA publisher's strategy.

Is your concern that the same publishers aren't putting out these games? Does it really matter who funded the products? I'm still not really understanding the core concern. I could be missing something obvious. The AAA publishers are more profitable than ever, and the mid-tier publishers are too, so it doesn't seem to be a real financial issue for anyone.

 

[jett]

Just look at how popular (and ugly) PUBG is.

 

[Sad Affleck]

http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=235226695&postcount=24

http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=235227466&postcount=31


It's not a myth OP.

What are you trying to say? I consider myself part of the hardcore gamer base that does demand that from publishers. The customer base that you and others feel is a vocal minority and irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Are you saying that NeoGAF and other such communities are powerful enough to influence the direction of the industry?

 

[sonicmj1]

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.

Marketing is all about creating a demand and then selling something that meets that demand. Graphics are the most easily demonstrable differentiator between games: you just need a screenshot. Gameplay is much, much harder to quantify and hard to demonstrate outside of demos.

Games are also a relatively new form of entertainment, as compared with films, and there are large gains to be made with graphics.

On a slightly different note, it's interesting to see the power of "brands" in gaming. For big-budget Hollywood productions (the equivalent of AAA games), the trend in recent years has been for sequels rather than new IP. Same with games: I think your average non-enthusiast punter cares more about a game being called "Call of Duty" than the nuances of anti-aliasing, but they nonetheless expect good graphics.

I agree with these posts.

It's tough to make a great game, and it's even tougher to market that game so that people will recognize what makes it so mechanically satisfying compared to the rest of the market. But if it looks better, anyone can see that at a glance. And that visual quality is a way of communicating how much time and effort has been put into the overall product.

I also suspect (but don't know) that graphical improvements are easier to budget for than gameplay improvements. You can probably predict how much effort it takes to make a model or texture more easily than how many man-hours it takes to make a "fun" level or mechanic.

I think consumers care the most about whether a game is fun, but they can rarely be sure how much they'll enjoy a game. If a company or franchise has built word of mouth that it's fun to play (Nintendo titles/platforms, Minecraft, Call of Duty, PUBG, Dark Souls), it can succeed even without industry-leading graphics. But if a sequel came out looking noticeably worse than its predecessors, players would wonder if that represented a lack of attention paid to the game as a whole.

 

[gtj1092]

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".

You can't have everything, and the current model is unsustainable; something will need to give. Course, it'll probably be an increase in game prices.

But the increased cost is because of the content.

 

[DarkestHour]

Only thing I want at minimum is 1080p 60 FPS on consoles. PC obviously sky is the limit. I don't care about ultra realistic, but I don't want it to look like crap.

 

[obijkenobi]

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.

Pretty much where I'm at.

 

[Schlorgan]

What are you trying to say? I consider myself part of the hardcore gamer base that does demand that from publishers. The customer base that you and others feel is a vocal minority and irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Are you saying that NeoGAF and other such communities are powerful enough to influence the direction of the industry?

You said in your OP:
"I don't really understand who these 'gamers that demand top graphics' are." as if they don't exist.

 

[MoonFrog]

I think it is the obvious perception of what consumers want. Production values are also something that creators are going to want to push. They also are something component and hardware manufacturers are often going to want to push.

 

[Cragor]

Its not just gamers. Better graphics sell the hardware that will run those new shiny graphics, so the companys behind the consoles, cpu´s, etc, need to push for that too. It also helps to make people forget you are playing the same thing for the tenth times, i mean, how many secuels got away with not improving anything other than its graphics, or worse, even making the game itself more simple and small in exchange for said graphic prowes.

Why would anyone buy a ps5, to name one, if its games look just like those of the ps4? Just keep the ps4 and let people play in it. But that wont do, and while we could use the 4k card right now, that wont matter for most people.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I do say graphics continue to get better. I'm not saying it isn't happening, games are looking wonderful this gen in ways that are not insignificant.

But you can't seriously claim it's as drastic as SNES to N64, for example. Which was the entire point of what I said.

No, it's not as drastic as going from pixels to polygons. It is however, incredibly drastic due to devs embracing PBR, having the resources for way higher quality assets, PP, and better lighting, and games in general having much better IQ.

 

[Aters]

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.

Every football fan knows better than those managers and they will surely win champions league if they are given the position.

 

[Audioboxer]

I mean, you would effectively just see that publisher exit the horror market and then the studio, or the studio's staff if there's a closure, could pick up with a mid-tier publisher instead.

If 3-4 million doesn't cover the cost of Until Dawn, then a smaller version of the studio (or half of the studio if it's an outfit lucky enough to sign multiple projects) can try with a lower budget.

Just look at Ninja Theory for an example. They used to make $60 AAA melee action games, and that stopped working out financially, so they signed onto a bunch of small projects while self publishing Hellblade with a 20 person team, and people seemed to like the game more than any of their previous offerings.

Obsidian similarly spun up Pillars of Eternity after publishers stopped working with them, and Larian saw huge success pivoting to isometric games sold digitally instead of over the shoulder $60 games. We can look at inXile as a similar example of that.

The market is adjusting budgets. It just often happens at different publishers when a studio or genre no longer fits a AAA publisher's strategy.

Is your concern that the same publishers aren't putting out these games? Does it really matter who funded the products? I'm still not really understanding the core concern. I could be missing something obvious. The AAA publishers are more profitable than ever, and the mid-tier publishers are too, so it doesn't seem to be a real financial issue for anyone.

That's actually exactly what I want to see! It's also what I'm supporting. As and when some publishers bank roll expensive games knowing they're not sending them out for a profit, sure, I'll enjoy them as well. I understand some of the realities around how they've been made though, and I don't expect everyone to be making FF15 as their JRPG and Horizon Zero Dawn as their open-world adventure game. As I said I'm currently playing Dragons Dogma and I'm probably having more fun or equal fun to FF15.

I think my only upset with the big publishers is they hold some great IP in their death dungeons that they'll never allow seeing the surface again. That's just what it is, nothing can be said or done to change that. Similarly, some of the frustration is also aimed at the publishers if and when they seem to send our their studios to die by giving them an impossible task, then sacking them because of it (make a profit on this budget, even if that's near impossible to do).

 

[Baraka Obama]

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?

People on any piece of hardware will have differing views on whats more important.
Look at any thread for doom on the switch and see all the complaints of image quality.

 

[btags]

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.

This is why they also ask for newer hardware and newer consoles, so that they can exploit the hardware to push the limits even further and push away smaller developers who are unable to compete.

I also think that the marketing and promotion being pushed by publishers create this culture of specs and graphics that consumers then get indoctrinated towards. So you get weird debates about pixels, framerates, and all other kinds of dick-waving between console warriors and outlets making a living on such an ideology (Digital Foundry et al.).

I dont think it is necessarily a dick waving contest, especially when a lot of DF work focuses on stability of performance, which is something that directly impacts gameplay whether a game has super high tech graphics or is a relatively simple 2d side scroller.

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

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

I don’t think that is the case, since some very pretty games this generation haven’t done as expected (The Order being one).

 

[Sad Affleck]

You said in your OP:
"I don't really understand who these 'gamers that demand top graphics' are."

Yes. I specifically asked which gamer group is able to push publishers so hard towards ever improving graphics because casuals don't seem to care and the hardcore are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. If Crossing Eden, Zhuge and others cared to actually read the post instead of searching through post histories for a 'gotcha' moment they would have figured that out.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Yeah, I don't get it either. I've just started playing Breath of the Wild on Wii U, and I'm staggered by how gorgeous it is and what they managed to achieve with the hardware. I've been saying for a long time that I'd be happy if visuals hit a ceiling with Half Life 2 and developers had to focus on other things like art style and game world interactivity to make their games stand out.

 

[Jubenhimer]

The idea that gamers constantly want improved bigger and better graphics all the time is really one of these delusions that publishers get from focus groups and out of context market data. In reality though, people just want games to look polished and appealing. Just look at games like Minecraft, Overwatch, or hell, anything from Nintendo. They don't have bleeding edge graphics, yet they became phenomenons. I mean, the success of the Nintendo Switch alone should tell you that consumers don't care about flash specs or high-end realism. They just care about a good product that does it's job right.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

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.

Apple?

 

[JordanN]

It's interesting when artstyle is used to say it keeps costs down but that's not the case at all.

An artist is still required to paint or model a game. If all artstyle was the same or didn't require professionals, then game studios should be able to farm everything out to 12 year old kids on deviantart (no offense to the aspiring kid artists out there).

Even saying blizzard's Overwatch must be made for cheap underestimates the game/art can be made anyone. It still requires someone to have years experience working with digital art before. Compare the quality of the game to some fanmade movies and the difference in polish and budget becomes apparent.

 

[Ultimadrago]

"Gameplay > Graphics" or "Graphics > Gameplay" is one of the most ignorant stances I've seen gain voice on the forums, as if both can't or don't contribute greatly to titles.

 

[Auto-Reply]

I think it doesn't relly matter because the thing is, they wouldn't make those expensive games if they don't see some hefty profit at the end of the day ("they" as in "the higher ups on the publishers side")

So clearly they are in line with with that overall idea of doing business that way, who spawned that circle is meaningless!

 

[d9b]

"Gameplay > Graphics" or "Graphics > Gameplay" is one of the most ignorant stances I've seen gain voice on the forums, as if both can't or don't contribute greatly to titles.

I agree.

 

[Blobbers]

I blame Sony and Microsoft and all the publishers that whisper in their ears when its time to make a new console to go for outstanding graphics and buzzword resolutions.
Recent Pokemon games look bad, courtesy of the shitty 3DS hardware, and have very limited scope, but they still sell buttloads. If somehow both Sony and MS reached a deal to go for 1080p and mandated 60FPS for their next consoles, and then 4K 60FPS in 2025, the situation might improve. Probably not, but that's the sort of future I sometimes daydream about.

 

[Roshin]

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?

Better graphics has been a selling point since the C64 and Speccy days. Remember those "Actual screenshots!" claims on the covers?

 

[Evolution of Metal]

Just look at Ninja Theory for an example. They used to make $60 AAA melee action games, and that stopped working out financially, so they signed onto a bunch of small projects while self publishing Hellblade with a 20 person team, and people seemed to like the game more than any of their previous offerings.

Obsidian similarly spun up Pillars of Eternity after publishers stopped working with them, and Larian saw huge success pivoting to isometric games sold digitally instead of over the shoulder $60 games. We can look at inXile as a similar example of that.

The market is adjusting budgets. It just often happens at different publishers when a studio or genre no longer fits a AAA publisher's strategy.

Is your concern that the same publishers aren't putting out these games? Does it really matter who funded the products?

I feel that you have selected low-hanging fruits to suggest that the industry is balanced. Pillars or Divinity are the success stories, but there are many developers who didn't have success self-publishing and transitioning to the lower budget games.

Lawbreakers, Raid, Mirage, Normandy 44, Dungeons 3, Tooth and Tail, Absolver, Oriental Empires, Rain World to name a few recent ones. Warhammer 40k had a particularly bad run with mid-budget games recently...

I would even suggest that AAA industry is more successful with their big-budget games than the average medium budget game. You just don't hear about countless failures to return investment or build communities from less known developers.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

Improved graphics could have made MVCI marketable to the public.

 

[Ctlead]

I greatly appreciate high image quality, but no. Not every game needs to prioritize graphics.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Just look at how popular (and ugly) PUBG is.

That's an exception rather than the rule. It's main draw IS the gameplay not the visuals AND it already is better looking than it's competition like H1Z1.

What are you trying to say? I consider myself part of the hardcore gamer base that does demand that from publishers. The customer base that you and others feel is a vocal minority and irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Are you saying that NeoGAF and other such communities are powerful enough to influence the direction of the industry?

Casuals too. Look at the most viewed games at any e3, they're typically the prettiest. Like I said, in terms of demos, it's much easier to show off detail than something like indepth features of the core gameplay in 5-10 minutes.

 

[Renna Hazel]

People like pretty graphics, and it's a way to help your game stand out in a sea of video games. However you'll need more than that to back it up. Plenty of games with amazing graphics have sold poorly because there wasn't much else to the game. I don't think consumers demand cutting edge graphics, but they will always catch our eye.

 

[Zutrax]

Stop treating realism and art direction as if they're two different concepts!

I didn't mean to imply they were mutually exclusive. But that when you try to reach to one extreme or the other, artistic vision far outweighs a realistic setting to me. I understand that something like Uncharted both looks artistically impressive and realistic at the same time, and thus is far more impressive for it. But I think the realism aspect is less important to it's memorability in my mind, though that's obviously a subjective thing.

 

[Sad Affleck]

Casuals too. Look at the most viewed games at any e3, they're typically the prettiest.

I don't believe that casuals watch E3 trailers.

 

[Sesha]

Graphics are what's most important. But it's not overwhelmingly so. And I'm not sure even every person that says it's the most important reason actually really mean it.

 

[gtj1092]

The idea that gamers constantly want improved bigger and better graphics all the time is really one of these delusions that publishers get from focus groups and out of context market data. In reality though, people just want games to look polished and appealing. Just look at games like Minecraft, Overwatch, or hell, anything from Nintendo. They don't have bleeding edge graphics, yet they became phenomenons. I mean, the success of the Nintendo Switch alone should tell you that consumers don't care about flash specs or high-end realism. They just care about a good product that does it's job right.

Do you read any switch thread outside of portability the number one thing people hype about it is the graphics for a handheld.

I blame Sony and Microsoft and all the publishers that whisper in their ears when its time to make a new console to go for outstanding graphics and buzzword resolutions.
Recent Pokemon games look bad, courtesy of the shitty 3DS hardware, and have very limited scope, but they still sell buttloads. If somehow both Sony and MS reached a deal to go for 1080p and mandated 60FPS for their next consoles, and then 4K 60FPS in 2025, the situation might improve. Probably not, but that's the sort of future I sometimes daydream about.

If graphics really didn't matter why stop at 1080p 60fps? Why not make all games look 3DS bad.

Also why are we trying to narrow down why things sell. Each game has it's own merits. Let each developer pursue what they want and let consumers decide. Some games with bad graphics sell well and some don't and the same with games with good graphics.

 

[shimon]

For me it was always gameplay > graphics. I would like a steady framerate though,whether it's 30 or 60.

 

[Marvel]

Graphics > Gameplay.

 

[oti]

I don't believe that casuals watch E3 trailers.

what

 

[Crossing Eden]

I didn't mean to imply they were mutually exclusive. But that when you try to reach to one extreme or the other, artistic vision far outweighs a realistic setting to me. I understand that something like Uncharted both looks artistically impressive and realistic at the same time, and thus is far more impressive for it. But I think the realism aspect is less important to it's memorability in my mind, though that's obviously a subjective thing.

This gen has had a ton of variety in terms of settings and aesthetics for realistic games, making a broad generalization about realism vs stylization doesn't work anymore, it's 2017. Triple A games are typically BOTH artistically impressive and realistic.

I don't believe that casuals watch E3 trailers.

You think all 40 million of those views for that spiderman demo were people who refer to themselves as hardcore gamers? Lmfao

 

[Jubenhimer]

Do you read any switch thread outside of portability the number one thing people hype about it is the graphics for a handheld.

Yes, the Switch is a very powerful mobile device. But that's not important to the overall plattom. Look at all the marketing, PR, and promotional material for the Switch. Not once has Nintendo bragged about specs, or gigaflops, or whatever. Hell, before the Switch was revealed, Reggie even came out and admitted this. That stuff isn't important for Nintendo really. They've always prioritized the user experience and fun, over bleeding edge tech and the fancy buzzwords associated with it. Plus, since the Switch is technically a home console, it's still underpowered compared to even the base Xbox One. But that doesn't matter when it's crushing both it and the PS4 at retail. Just goes to show you that consumers, especially casual gamers don't actually care about the best graphics.

 

[Nirolak]

I feel that you have selected low-hanging fruits to suggest that the industry is balanced. Pillars or Divinity are the success stories, but there are many developers who didn't have success self-publishing and transitioning to the lower budget games.

Lawbreakers, Raid, Mirage, Normandy 44, Dungeons 3, Tooth and Tail, Absolver, Oriental Empires, Rain World to name a few recent ones. Warhammer 40k had a particularly bad run with mid-budget games recently...

I would even suggest that AAA industry is more successful with their big-budget games than the average medium budget game. You just don't hear about countless failures to return investment or build communities from less known developers.

Oh, sure, I mean there's lots of failures in every segment of the industry, but I feel that's unavoidable when there's so much content.

I think my concern would be far more around "Are certain genres dying out?" rather than specific games. Like I think there's reasonably a lot of concern about traditional RTS games or flight simulators, but ultimately if what the audience wants requires too much money to make relative to the size of it, there will unfortunately be some disappearances on that front.

That said, we've seen a lot of things come back in the digital era. Certainly adventure games and horror games are way healthier now than they were ten years ago, since the distribution channel, budget, and audience all line up these days.

Now, if we're concerned about certain franchises in particular as Audioboxer noted, then yes, there are unfortunately way more of those that will die than categories. If someone is really into Dead Space and Silent Hill in particular, they're going to be way less satisfied than if they like horror games in general, but mass IP death was going on way before the modern era. It's not like Sega Saturn IPs were making it en masse into the PS2 era.

 

[momshotdad]

Graphics is super vague. Style is not. Cuphead may be the best looking game I've ever seen but you could argue that it's all animation and doesn't have any graphics.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Graphics is super vague. Style is not. Cuphead may be the best looking game I've ever seen but you could argue that it's all animation and doesn't have any graphics.

No....you genuinely couldn't argue this....at all.

 

[Tyaren]

"Gameplay > Graphics" or "Graphics > Gameplay" is one of the most ignorant stances I've seen gain voice on the forums, as if both can't or don't contribute greatly to titles.

Exactly.
It's in the name of the medium: video game. Both are equally important.

 

[Stanng243]

I'll gladly take 30FPS and prettier graphics over 60 FPS anytime.

 

[Freddo]

Here on gaf it's all about the graphics and the framerate, and about the Digital Foundry verdict. The rest of the game is down at the bottom of importance. If a PS4 Pro game runs at 58fps instead of 60fps, it's the worst game ever, and the devs are lazy and/or incompetent as hell for not making it 60fps. It's not exactly hard to find hyperbolic complaints about the graphics in an OT thread.

So graphics are pretty darn important. Can't let that toe shadows look wierd on the floor.

 

[terencecah]

I am in the group that wants fidelity and nice graphics I additional to great gameplay