Sad Affleck
Member
You think all 40 million of those views for that spiderman demo were people who refer to themselves as hardcore gamers? Lmfao
40 million views do not correspond to 40 million individuals, yes?
You think all 40 million of those views for that spiderman demo were people who refer to themselves as hardcore gamers? Lmfao
Dude, even considering that not all 40 million are unique views, it's the fact that yes, e3 is absolutely viewed by casual audiences too. We're not talking about GDC here.40 million views do not correspond to 40 million individuals, yes?
Dude, even considering that not all 40 million are unique views, it's the fact that yes, e3 is absolutely viewed by casual audiences too. We're not talking about GDC here.
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.
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.
What is this nonsense?
Look at Marvel Vs. Capcom: Infinite.
Capcom decided to do the sequel on a budget, and it's obvious the visuals suffered as a result. Despite the superb gameplay, the game has been universally panned for its dated visuals and presentation. The talk of the graphics has overshadowed every other aspect of the game. The sales were pretty bad in the end.
Do you read any switch thread outside of portability the number one thing people hype about it is the graphics for a handheld.
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.
It's funny how everyone thinks their views are clearly the majority views. That's how the whole "moral majority" nonsense started.
As many people have pointed out already in this thread, there's plenty of evidence that purchasing trends show a clear advantage in having novel visual spectacle. That's hard, measurable fact. Why that is, exactly, is open to interpretation but there's almost certainly an aspect of being able to engage a potential audience with advertising that grabs attention quickly.
Have you ever seen an ad that tries to explain subtle gameplay mechanics and balance? I'm not sure it can be done. The trick is drawing an initial audience and giving them something to talk about so they spread positive word of mouth and that's where gameplay has a much bigger opportunity to play a role. Graphics are the hook, but to reel in more than the first week's sales you need something more.
More people play games than ever before in the history of the medium.OK, what is your estimate for the size of the core console audience?
People apparently don't know what graphics mean. Anyone who would genuinely try to argue that Cuphead "doesn't have graphics" would have no place in a graphics discussion.What the fuck is happening in this thread?...
High end graphics in a full game and even in test renders are the result of good art design.I like good art design - you don't need super high end graphics for something to look good, cohesive and clear.
An example would be Hyper Light Drifter. It's pixelated but looks amazing and somehow fitting to the kind of game it is. I do not see better graphics fidelity improving on anything in that game.
Overwatch is another one, everything looks super good but it's not a graphics powerhouse and system requirements are reasonable. If anything the cartoonish clean look helps make the game look less cluttered and confusing during game play. And OW is a commercial success too.
Truth.These last few weeks really feel like a huge portion of GAF trying (or rather struggling) to come to terms with the market reality.
Whenever a discussion about the rising costs of games development comes up, one of the most frequent arguments is that gamers put pressure on publishers and developers for cutting-edge graphics and ever-expanding scope. It's been said so many times that most people probably assume it to be true but I disagree. I believe it's a total myth.
First, I don't really understand who these 'gamers that demand top graphics' are. Are we talking about mainstream console gamers? Because I highly doubt that the average joe gives a crap about 4K, high-quality assets and solid framerates. Is it the hardcore console gamers then, the people who might frequent sites such as NeoGAF? But we've been told many times and in no uncertain terms that these people are only a quite vocal but very small minority that is not able to influence the industry's direction. PC gamers maybe? The most popular gamers on that platform can be played on a toaster.
What is then that mysterious gamer group that demands awesome graphics and pushes so hard that the entire industry has to bend to its will to the point that it makes the current games development model unsustainable without lootboxes? What is the make up of that group? Who are they? I believe they don't exist. I believe that the myth about gamers pushing publishers towards bigger, more impressive and more expensive games needs to be dispelled.
In my opinion the only ones constantly pushing for bigger sequels with better graphics and increased scope are the publishers themselves. Their business model is so reliant on creating and milking big franchises through GaaS or constant sequels that they have to find something to show the average gamer and say "this is why you should buy this. It has better graphics! It is open world! It has celebrity voice overs!".
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.
Whenever a discussion about the rising costs of games development comes up, one of the most frequent arguments is that gamers put pressure on publishers and developers for cutting-edge graphics and ever-expanding scope. It's been said so many times that most people probably assume it to be true but I disagree. I believe it's a total myth.
First, I don't really understand who these 'gamers that demand top graphics' are. Are we talking about mainstream console gamers? Because I highly doubt that the average joe gives a crap about 4K, high-quality assets and solid framerates. Is it the hardcore console gamers then, the people who might frequent sites such as NeoGAF? But we've been told many times and in no uncertain terms that these people are only a quite vocal but very small minority that is not able to influence the industry's direction. PC gamers maybe? The most popular gamers on that platform can be played on a toaster.
What is then that mysterious gamer group that demands awesome graphics and pushes so hard that the entire industry has to bend to its will to the point that it makes the current games development model unsustainable without lootboxes? What is the make up of that group? Who are they? I believe they don't exist. I believe that the myth about gamers pushing publishers towards bigger, more impressive and more expensive games needs to be dispelled.
In my opinion the only ones constantly pushing for bigger sequels with better graphics and increased scope are the publishers themselves. Their business model is so reliant on creating and milking big franchises through GaaS or constant sequels that they have to find something to show the average gamer and say "this is why you should buy this. It has better graphics! It is open world! It has celebrity voice overs!".
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.
I don't believe that casuals watch E3 trailers.
On gaf its gameplay > graphics. But in reality its graphics > gameplay.
Publishers these days are just constantly trying to one up themselves, with bigger (empty) worlds, more "content", flashier graphics (that go stale after a few years because the art is weak), and pervasive online infrastructures (that close off access to parts of the games when servers inevitably go down).
That, oft meanigless, fluff needs hundreds if not thousands of (paid) employees to produce, market and ship. No wonder they're risk averse, have unreasonable sales expectations, they kill off studios after one faux pas and they keep adding stupid, costly crap in full priced games.
The best part is that they've cornered themselves during the years, by feeding the gamers' mentality with the constant need of better graphics and bigger worlds in order to sell their games. They've done this to themselves and now they wonder why 4 million copies isn't enough. Meanwhile Nintendo, indies and level-headed mid-tier developers are quietly making their profit.
The consumer blaming, especially by consumer themselves, is revolting given the circumstances.
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.
Wikipedia said:The Peter principle is a concept in management theory formulated by educator Laurence J. Peter and published in 1969. It states that the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence".
This right here. Thread is just another example of the bubble around this board lol. The average joe that plays a lot of COD, Battlefield, Madden, NBA, etc cares a ton about graphics. Anecdotally, I'm the only one of my friends that plays the large variety of games that I do so I get to hear their views on what beings them to a game in the first place. My job also puts me in the homes of people regularly. The average person wants better graphics. Good graphics are what beings them to try new games they otherwise wouldn't have too. Hell, I know a guy that refused to play Wind Waker because it looked like a cartoon. Skipped Skyward Sword and presumably Breath of the Wild because they don't chase photorealism.
This right here. Thread is just another example of the bubble around this board lol. The average joe that plays a lot of COD, Battlefield, Madden, NBA, etc cares a ton about graphics. Anecdotally, I'm the only one of my friends that plays the large variety of games that I do so I get to hear their views on what beings them to a game in the first place. My job also puts me in the homes of people regularly. The average person wants better graphics. Good graphics are what beings them to try new games they otherwise wouldn't have too. Hell, I know a guy that refused to play Wind Waker because it looked like a cartoon. Skipped Skyward Sword and presumably Breath of the Wild because they don't chase photorealism.
I mean, all those games sold quite well, or at least decently, so I fail to see your point. Of course there will be individuals put off by some artstyles, they're not the majority though, or Nintendo games wouldn't sell gangbusters.
Also, I'd like to remind you all that there hasn't been a single generation so far where the most advanced console had the biggest number of units sold (pending the current one). So... maybe graphics aren't that sought after. What about the Wii? Casuals suddenly didn't care about graphics? Maybe it's just that casuals are told what's trendy and great by the media and by the marketing, and they just adhere to that. At the time it was motion controls.
Ever since the new generation started, the hype machine of the industry has been pumping out statement after statement asserting the importance of 1080p first and now 4k resolutions, photorealistic graphics, HDR, 60fps, etc. They need to do that in order to sell the next hottest thing, see PS4 Pro and X-Box One X. Consumers are bombarded by a clear message and most of them capitulate under the pressure, thinking that they're doing the right thing because they're supported in their choice by the oppressing marketing surrounding AAA games. "Of course this game needs to cost more and have DLC + microtransactions + season passes + loot boxes, or else how could my favourite companies keep pumping out sequel after sequel always with slightly improved graphics!", "they're totally justified, in fact I'll double dip to help them out!", "poor guys, they need to broaden those profit margins after all, how are they gonna eat?".
This right here. Thread is just another example of the bubble around this board lol. The average joe that plays a lot of COD, Battlefield, Madden, NBA, etc cares a ton about graphics.
60fps is pretty graphics. It's so smooth and silky. 4k@60fps is like having an eyegasm.I'll gladly take 30FPS and prettier graphics over 60 FPS anytime.
Resisting urge to avatar quote you. The sales of the consoles aren't determined on graphical capability alone, timing, price, library, specific features all play a factor, but normally within a consoles library, the best sellers also more often than not (because nintendo fans are a unique bunch), have the best graphics. Top selling titles for each platform paint a different story entirely and that plays into why these pubs make the games this way, because most of the AAA attempts aren't made for nintendo consoles, but for the other, generally more powerful console bretherin. The results are the sales and that is why they continue to chase that target.
-Now speaking as a enthusiast, we are always wanting more from our games like "Game X was great, i hope in the sequel we get more charcters", or "the open world was great but they need to fix the combat system". We are never satisfied and that comes to graphics too. If Horizon ZD 2 comes out with the same graphics and assets next year but with a new story, alot of people will be upset claiming its just Horizon 1.5 or devs are lazy and just want to make a quick buck. We always want new and improved, never the status quo.
I don't know, I feel like the industry has always been driven by graphics. 8-Bit to 16-Bit. 2D to 3D. Polygonal 3D to Smoother 3D. SD to HD. I think we'll always be chasing better graphics, and that will always be a selling point that puts one game over another.
I'm not too worried about it though. I think with direct-capture techniques like photogrammetry and face capture the effort required in making a graphically impressive game will reach an equilibrium.
OP pivots to fit his narrative