Support NeoGAF

[spawnsniper]

Ok, hear me out. I love the next best game with amazing graphics just as much as you do. But why is the major 3 companies (Nintendo not so much) pushing "realistic" graphic games so much?

I grew up playing games in the 90s and I've had great experiences with usually every generation. I just feel that devs put way too much work into how a game looks, and mostly ignore the "fun" aspect.

I loved games like goldeneye, conkers bad fur day, rush, cruisin usa, dk64, banjo kazooie, fuzion frenzy, nba jam..etc.

And those games, yes looked great at the time but I feel like devs focused more into gameplay/fun/easter eggs/unlockables. They also didn't need to be patched to look "shinnier" or to fix bugs, what you bought, was what you get.

But I understand, some games do need to feel more realistic, just not every single game, and I feel that devs do it when it isn't needed.


So let me ask u this, would you rather buy a game that "WOWS" you more than it being fun.
Or a "crappy/cartoony" looking game thats a lot of fun?

 

[raven777]

I agree it doesn't have to be realistic.
But it has to be good.

 

[Neoleo2143]

Games should try to represent their settings as best they can in both mechanics and aesthetics. This can be through whatever artstyle the creators choose, as long as it conveys the correct emotion to the audience.

 

[DownGrader]

Unfortunately, a lot of people could only be sold on a game if it looks and plays "just like real life."

 

[Neoleo2143]

Unfortunately, a lot of people could only be sold on a game if it looks and plays "just like real life."

So we all want Arma...

 

[liquidtmd]

I miss the bonkers, arcade style racers of the '90s

Daytona. Riiiiiiidge Racer. Sega Rally. But no, now we are told they will never sell so they are not made anymore to prove that they would sell.

Realistic physics for everyone and infinitely delayed Gran Turismos. Yay!

 

[Theanine3D]

The industry has some sort of weird inferiority complex where they're constantly trying to prove they're as good as the film industry. So they push for photorealism as some sort of undeniable ideal or virtue.

Lots of people like myself play videogames specifically to get away from reality. If I wanted photorealism I would just go outside, I wouldn't be playing videogames.

The only genre I look for realism in is horror. Photorealistic lighting, shadows, and texture work add a lot to the fear factor. But that's the only one for me where it matters. Gimme a cartoony shooter full of personality like TF2 over COD any day.

 

[Leafhopper]

I been saying that forever but, that's not what catches a mainstream audience.

Realistic graphics is deemed more mature.

Or something. "We wanna be like movies."

 

[xxracerxx]

Yeah....you are letting the current you skew your view on those games. Those games were pretty damn spectacular looking in their time and the only reason they didn't get patches was because it wasn't possible.

 

[Doc_Drop]

Well if a game is supposed to be in a grounded realistic setting then it helps if it looks as such. Do you not think devs in fact want to make their games look this way rather than some imaginary force making them?

Did Goldeneye not look great at the time? was it not pushing for as realistic graphics available on that hardware? You are speaking in complete hindsight of what was before and what there has been since.

If you don't think they should be patching bugs I don't know what to tell you,when most users have almost constant Internet connections and someone releases a semi or fully broken game they better fix it,otherwise they may find less and less people willing to buy their games in the future.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

So let me ask u this, would you rather buy a game that "WOWS" you more than it being fun.
Or a "crappy" looking game thats a lot of fun?

Part of the fun for a lot of people is the WOW factor though...

I think the best games are those that the devs know what they are getting themselves into from the beginning.

If a game is going to be a showcase of focus testing then so be it as long as the devs signed up for that.

I think that a game (any product really) will truly shine when the devs are able to be far more passionate and happy while working than stressed. When you are in a position that you love and signed up for because it is what you want to do you can deal with the stresses that come with the environment far more than something where you are just trying to get by.

I believe this reflects greatly in the product that you make.

No game "has" to be at any certain place on the scale graphically in order to be a good game. That just doesn't make sense to me. It all depends on the audience you are trying to target, if you are at all. Some people just want to make games and share them without even thinking about targeting a certain crowd because they just make what they love.

Not everyone has to like crazy shiny and not everyone has to love retro.

The only thing I would say is that it has to function properly. Everything else is relative.

 

[spawnsniper]

Well if a game is supposed to be in a grounded realistic setting then it helps if it looks as such. Do you not think devs in fact want to make their games look this way rather than some imaginary force making them?

Did Goldeneye not look great at the time? was it not pushing for as realistic graphics available on that hardware? You are speaking in complete hindsight of what was before and what there has been since.

If you don't think they should be patching bugs I don't know what to tell you,when most users have almost constant Internet connections and someone releases a semi or fully broken game they better fix it,otherwise they may find less and less people willing to buy their games in the future.

Ok so how many games that you played back in the day were as broken as some games are today? Do they look good? Of course, they look amazing. Does it play good? Hell no. Devs pot to much on things that don't have to matter. And like I said, yes at the time goldeneye did look great, but they threw I'm a bunch of cheats that you needed to unlock as well as stages, devs don't usually do that shit now but still want to nickel and dime you for diff outfits. C'mon..

 

[King Tubby]

Developers have had the hardware capability to use marvelous cartoony art styles since at least the SNES, but a photorealistic aesthetic remains elusive, although we've crept closer as an industry with each generation. Realism is the constant frontier in video games and serves as an intuitive benchmark.

 

[spawnsniper]

The industry has some sort of weird inferiority complex where they're constantly trying to prove they're as good as the film industry. So they push for photorealism as some sort of undeniable ideal or virtue.

Lots of people like myself play videogames specifically to get away from reality. If I wanted photorealism I would just go outside, I wouldn't be playing videogames.

The only genre I look for realism in is horror. Photorealistic lighting, shadows, and texture work add a lot to the fear factor. But that's the only one for me where it matters. Gimme a cartoony shooter full of personality like TF2 over COD any day.

Totally agree!

 

[xxracerxx]

Ok so how many games that you played back in the day were as broken as some games are today? Do they look good? Of course, they look amazing. Does it play good? Hell no. Devs pot to much on things that don't have to matter. And like I said, yes at the time goldeneye did look great, but they threw I'm a bunch of cheats that you needed to unlock as well as stages, devs don't usually do that shit now but still want to nickel and dime you for diff outfits. C'mon..

Rose tinted glasses.

 

[Cyborg]

I agree it doesn't have to be realistic.
But it has to be good.

I agree if all games in that serie were unrealistic. I accept the way CoD does it. But I found wormholes in MGS5 just insane.

 

[lilltias]

Living out a fantasy in a realistic setting is fucking awesome for many people. It's fun too.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

I generally like games that go for a realistic look, but that doesn't matter so much if it is fun. Ratchet & Clank doesn't look realistic, but it is still a fun shooter with mild platforming elements. Just so happens that games that go for a realistic look also generally have the type of gameplay that I find fun. I also like game that have serious stories whether they are believable or not. Put me in the camp that loves cinematic games.

 

[capitalCORN]

I don't know where you got the idea games were anywhere near realistic. Games are still games. It's 'lol wacky random' like the 8 and 16bit era, but there's no basis that devs are sacrificing anything.

Edit: And if anyone thinks that games before weren't buggy, I'd like to introduce you to the wide world of speedrunning. And that's just a drop in the bucket.

 

[spawnsniper]

I don't know where you got the idea games were anywhere near realistic. Games are still games. It's 'lol wacky random' like the 8 and 16bit era, but there's no basis that devs are sacrificing anything.

What are most AAA games(even console exclusives) are pushing realism gameplay? Prob like 75% of them.

sunset overdrive was a decently fun game.why not more of something like that?

 

[lilltias]

Like S.T.A.L.K.E.R having a realistic vibe, both in style and gameplay (relatively), really helps that game. It's fine if you don't like that but it is awesome for me.

Btw, Super Mario Galaxy is one of my favorite games.

 

[Lutherian]

I agree it doesn't have to be realistic.
But it has to be good.

True, but while some realism can really add to a game, too much realism could hurt the "fun" we're supposed to have by playing a game (hell, if there's no fun by PLAYing videogames, I'd rather stop doing it). I don't want to have restraint I already have in real life. I'm ok with (reboot) Lara Croft or Nathan Drake surviving what should have killed them a hundred times if they weren't game characters. I'm also ok to have some boundaries like falling from too high can hurt / kill me, being shot in the head is an insta-kill etc.

 

[TDLink]

I definitely agree that in general I like stylized and more cartoony games. Part of why Nintendo appeals to me I guess. I think Photorealism has a place too, the majority of big games striving for it is really...off to me.

Something like Star Citizen striving for that is amazingly cool. But Uncharted? That -should- be a bit more cartoony.

There aren't enough celshaded beauties like Okami out there. And I really adore the art style on games like The Wonderful 101 and Kid Icarus Uprising or even the more "anime" look of Kingdom Hearts.

So many imaginative things can be done with video games and different art styles. But the AAA devs (especially in the west) are always so focused on photorealism and focusing on real-life things. Humans and such.

Back when this was far from possible there were all sorts of protagonists and antagonists and game worlds.

 

[spawnsniper]

Like S.T.A.L.K.E.R having a realistic vibe, both in style and gameplay (relatively), really helps that game. It's fine if you don't like that but it is awesome for me.

Btw, Super Mario Galaxy is one of my favorite games.

This is why I think Nintendo does things right, and just like Mr.Iwata said, games should always be fun. Throw everything thing else out the window and focus on FUN first.

 

[capitalCORN]

What are most AAA games(even console exclusives) are pushing realism gameplay? Prob like 75% of them.

sunset overdrive was a decently fun game.why not more of something like that?

Do you really think that the gameplay sold in games is part and parcel with reality? Do you really think, when playing a shooter, that a shotgun is actually worthless after 15ft.? Because games cater to a cohesive experience, somehow things are getting lost in the shuffle? The vast majority of people making this argument really just want a different coat of paint. The gameplay could be the same, no one would know.

 

[spawnsniper]

True, but while some realism can really add to a game, too much realism could hurt the "fun" we're supposed to have by playing a game (hell, if there's no fun by PLAYing videogames, I'd rather stop doing it). I don't want to have restraint I already have in real life. I'm ok with (reboot) Lara Croft or Nathan Drake surviving what should have killed them a hundred times if they weren't game characters. I'm also ok to have some boundaries like falling from too high can hurt / kill me, being shot in the head is an insta-kill etc.

Just wait till videogames become like most F2P mobile games, oh u passed the level? Gotta wait 30min till the next one, unless you pay up...

 

[acohrs]

I agree, my favourite games were never the super realistic looking ones. I want cool and unique visual aesthetics that I haven't seen before. However, since I rarely get time to play my PS4 as my fiancee uses it for netflix a lot, i am playing a lot more with my 3DS and game boy color. So visually not as great as games on a home console but still very aesthetically pleasing.

 

[Striek]

Gonna disagree heavily with the thread and the overall sentiments.

Most AAA games, with or without realistic visuals, are fucking fantastic, have highly developed and fun gameplay systems and are far better than the games of yore you hold nostalgia for.

One step further: the average "mediocre" game now is superior to the average masterpiece in days past.

Secondly, every single AAA title (no exceptions) sacrifices realism for gameplay. Every single one. Battlefield, Call of Duty, Uncharted, Halo, Forza, Gran Turismo etc.

Third, most games in the past tried for realistic visuals but technology held them back. What we have now is amazing, and graphics as well as sound are inextricably linked with "gameplay", which at its core is pressing buttons on a controller/KBM. The notion that you graphics have no impact on gameplay is insane.

Lastly, its not an either/or situation. I'd rather have great gameplay and great graphics. Luckily, publishers are happy to oblige.

 

[lilltias]

This is why I think Nintendo does things right, and just like Mr.Iwata said, games should always be fun. Throw everything thing else out the window and focus on FUN first.

If you by FUN mean focus on gameplay and interactions then I agree personally. That doesn't mean that FUN can't come from gameplay deriving from realistic graphics and simulations. STALKER is also one of my fav games.

However, some people love games with less gameplay that focus more on the story and the narrative. That is cool too.

 

[AudioEppa]

I can play a game that doesn't have realistic graphics if the game is appealing enough, but overall if a studio can afford it, I prefer they push graphics to look as realistic as possible. In a industry of many developers, there's nothing wrong with some wanted to treat their games like "Hollywood" especially when there's an audience that likes it.

However, some people love games with less gameplay that focus more on the story and the narrative. That is cool too.

That's the kind of gamer I am. I can still play whatever people keep calling "fun games" but ever since metal gear solid back on ps1 narrative has become the most important aspect of games. When it comes to the actual feeling of gameplay, if I care about the story I just adapt to however the game mechanics work. In my head I still critique what could be better about how it's controlled, but I stick with it because I want to see how it ends, like a movie or tv season. At the end of the day I'm entertain.

 

[random25]

I'd have more realistic AI and movement physics than realistic graphics in general.

Sadly, that's not really the focus of most of the AAA games nowadays.

 

[Fat4all]

leave it up to the developer and their tools

 

[patapuf]

This is why I think Nintendo does things right, and just like Mr.Iwata said, games should always be fun. Throw everything thing else out the window and focus on FUN first.

To some people intricate simulations are FUN.

"games don't have to be realistic" is true but that does't mean "realistic" games aren't fun.

And modern AAA games don't try to simulate reality beyond artstyle anyway.

 

[TyMiles2012]

My brother said he won't play Final Fantasy 7 because of the graphics and is waiting for the remake. Horrible excuse but I hope the episodic series really fills in every detail from the original.

 

[Always-honest]

Ofcourse not. But a big part of people are very shallow and have no idea about artistic value and artstyles. To them everything not realistic is "cartoony".

 

[Platy]

What do you mean "Nintendo not so much" like what was the last game by then that had realistic visuals ? Twilight Princess??

I know most are not sadly like Wooly World or Rainbow Curse but Breath of the Wild is still heavily stylized

 

[Chaos2Frozen]

Tell you guys a secret- often times realism just gets in the way of fun.

 

[BocoDragon]

I don't even think this is a particularly "realism chasing" era.

There are plenty of games nowadays that are stylized, or embrace simpler graphical styles. We're well into the era of the indie game offering stylized or retro graphical styles. If your game is minimalist, or cartoony, or intentionally simple... people very much accept it nowadays.

I don't think we're chasing realism. I think we crave "seamless" experiences nowadays. We don't want screen tearing or framerate drops that ruin our immersion. And I find it hard to argue with that sentiment.

 

[Tecnniqe]

So we all want Arma...

Noty. That game gives me enough janky UI and controls for years to come.

Great gameplay, horrible everything else

 

[correojon]

Give me F-Zero over Gran Turismo every day. I don´t want to deccelerate to take a turn in a racing game, I preffer bumping into an opponent to throw him off the track while I go at 500km/h head down in a looping. Videogames allow us to do that kind of crazy stuff, I can´t understand how someone can find a realistic shooter more appealing than summoning a demon queen to punch god in the face so she crosses the galaxy flying and lands in the sun. Or pressing X to pay respects instead of pressing A to save the world by firing a teralaser with your gigantic robot against an alien spaceship.

 

[Faustek]

I buy crappy looking games all the time. 3DS is the only place that has them.

But honestly. I assume you mean games that do not have realistic graphics, like sd characters and whatnot and not... You know crappy looking games like Pooping Simulator thay Jim Sterling features on his "best of greenlight" series.... Seriously all SCV titles looks like something that would belong in the digital Louvre compared that.

 

[spawnsniper]

Give me F-Zero over Gran Turismo every day. I don´t want to deccelerate to take a turn in a racing game, I preffer bumping into an opponent to throw him off the track while I go at 500km/h head down in a looping. Videogames allow us to do that kind of crazy stuff, I can´t understand how someone can find a realistic shooter more appealing than summoning a demon queen to punch god in the face so she crosses the galaxy flying and lands in the sun. Or pressing X to pay respects instead of pressing A to save the world by firing a teralaser with your gigantic robot against an alien spaceship.

Exactly! I want to punch that demon queen for sure.

 

[capitalCORN]

OMG, were any of you gaming during the NES era, let alone alive? You think developers went from two/three buttons to whatever we have now to compromise gameplay? People love to sing the praises of Super Metroid, but would any of you play the original? I really don't get this purist BS. Games will always be games, sorry they're not releasing enough Contras with derivative H.R. GIger knockoff artwork.

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

I feel like there has been a lot of push back against realistic graphics this generation. If you look at the bigger games, they seem to either be totally styalised or set in a setting that counters a lot of the perceived realism. Overwatch, The Witcher 3 monster designs and Dark Souls 3 are just three examples I can think that exemplifies a mainstream change in what people desire. Hell, even Call of Duty has abandoned the concept or realism since Advance Warfare.

 

[spawnsniper]

I feel like there has been a lot of push back against realistic graphics this generation. If you look at the bigger games, they seem to either be totally styalised or set in a setting that counters a lot of the perceived realism. Overwatch, The Witcher 3 monster designs and Dark Souls 3 are just three examples I can think of that exemplify a mainstream change in what people desire. Hell, even Call of Duty has abandoned the concept or realism since Advance Warfare.

And most of those games you listed sold very well, want to know what those games have in common? Great gameplay. Doesn't need to be all flashy, "omg the water looks so real"...really?

 

[Mexen]

There is nothing wrong with photorealism in video games if the setting, mechanics and tools employed by developers are relevant to making a particular game.

Spoiler

But guess what... there is also nothing wrong with cartoon-type/simplistic graphics in video games if the setting, mechanics and tools employed by developers are relevant to making a particular game. Crazy, right?

 

[xxracerxx]

And most of those games you listed sold very well, want to know what those games have in common? Great gameplay. Doesn't need to be all flashy, "omg the water looks so real"...really?

Want to know what those games also have in common? Patches.

I feel like you are now just posting to say games used to be better and have completely dropped your original points in the OP.

 

[A.Romero]

I can think of few games that are really trying to push towards something resembling realism, like Quantic Dream's output or Until Dawn.


I wouldn't call something like Uncharted 4,Witcher 3 or MGSV realistic at all...

That said, 90's master pieces were the best that was possible at the time. I'm sure that if today's computational power was available then, games would be striving towards the same point they are going now.

Games are so complex today and they offer such a variety of options that I'd have a really difficult time going back to how it was before.

I really like what the industry has grown to be.

 

[kagamin]

Honestly most games are only trying to be realistic graphics wise, if more games played like Insurgency (basically a CQB sim) or ARMA (milisim) I think a lot of people would be turned off because of how difficult they can be to play because of their realism factor, like in most games you don't have to worry about RPG backblast but if you stand in front of your friend while playing Insurgency and fire willy nilly you can easily get someone killed.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

OMG, were any of you gaming during the NES era, let alone alive? You think developers went from two/three buttons to whatever we have now to compromise gameplay? People love to sing the praises of Super Metroid, but would any of you play the original? I really don't get this purist BS. Games will always be games, sorry they're not releasing enough Contras with derivative H.R. GIger knockoff artwork.

Wut