Current Graphic trends in video games?

[Mr_Furious]

This is just my observations but I'm witnessing a trend in graphic representations utilized in many of today's games. I don't know if it's intentional all the time but it just seems like graphics in games aren't being thrust forward enough. I think it all started with GTA3. Graphically, the game is nothing to write home to mom about but the gameplay was very good and it's because of that that it sold tons. Compare it to MGS2 graphically and it's a joke. IMO, games like ICO and MGS2 are art envisioned and have excellent gameplay to back it up. Just to let you know, I've been witness to an actual meeting amongst management about graphics and the sales comparisons between MGS2 and GTA3 were the basis. The end result is that they felt that graphics aren't as important and even argued that ugly games have potential to sell well based off of other factors (like controversy). And no, gameplay was never brought up during the meeting, unfortunately. I think that these types of meeting might very well have taken place at other companies and we're starting to see too many games that don't really push the envelope technically.

Disclaimer: I'm well aware that there are plenty of games still coming out, that are gorgeous but I can't help but wonder if more companies aren't caring as much about graphics as they probably should.

What do you think?

[Lhadatt]

Gameplay above all else.

Why is GTA3 fun? It's certainly not the graphics.

Games shouldn't be judged on how pretty they look unless graphics are a key component of the gameplay. This usually isn't the case. Now, why should a company budget $$$$$$ to developing swanky graphics techniques if they can instead funnnel some of that money into hiring decent game designers or more play-testing time to tweak the gameplay? It doesn't make good business sense, and I'm glad game companies might finally be realizing that.

[Shin Johnpv]

i think its less about companies not caring about graphics and more the fact that the PS2 is a bitch and a half to get something looking good on it

and since alot of games even multiplatform games are made on the PS2 first and ported else where its whats IMHO holding back the graphical improvement this generation

I mean look at it even games coming from big name companies like Capcom ones that are coming out now and will be coming out arent looking much better than their first Gen games

[Mr_Furious]

But have they really? I feel that it's a cop out because there are plenty graphic techniques not being used enough. Anti-Aliasing on PS2 for example. Other than BG not too many others have implemented this.

Don't get me wrong, I feel that gameplay should be the #1 factor but I think you missed my point. Go back and read the snippet about the meeting I attended. Graphics were the basis of the meeting and sales were the ammunition. The concept of gameplay was never brought up.

Also if what you say was factual then why do we need to keep buying new hardware every 5 years or so? Hell, I'm still buying PS1 games and tons of old-school games from back in the day so I'm far from a graphics whore I just don't think enough companies are challenging themselves art wise and some day it'll come back to bite them in the ass. Like I said, there still are companies that continue to release gorgeous games with gameplay so maybe GTA is justification for some companies to cop out in the graphics department.

EDIT: this is a response to Lhadatt's post

[Blaine]

What type of sales meeting was this?

I've never heard of any game where the designers were going for 'bad' graphics. I really can't imagine one either.

First example I can think of would be Cubivore and Animal Crossing, but those were not attempts at incompetance. Cubivore is stylized. That might sound like a cop-out, but it's the truth. They weren't thinking 'hey, lets make the graphics bad' they were thinking 'lets make everything basic shapes'. In Animal Crossing... People who really harp on the graphics probably haven't played it very much. Aside from the facts that; A, you really don't need a whole lot more. Characters with twice as many polygons wouldn't make the game twice as enjoyable and B, they probably don't realize the sheer volume of objects in the game. There are well over 500 different pieces of furniture, not to mention shirts and the like. Even though not all of the items have geometry, some do and they all have textures. That's a fair amount of textures. Enough to fill a whole game? Probably not, but certainly more than a person unfamilar with the game would guess.

There's not a publisher I can think of who wouldn't push the eye-candy button, if for no other reason, just to get an additional line on thier product feature list.

I think you could see either a realization that 'hey this doesn't have to be the next Unreal II, no reason to shoot for it' or 'this game can stand very well with a modest graphic scheme'. But I could never imagine any designer, or artist for that matter, who'd say 'I think we should make this game look like Gods and Generals'. That baffles my mind.

So while I'd love to say that designers are more interested in gameplay advancements than graphic advancements (and there very well may be) but I don't think the publishers and finaceers do. And those really are the people you have to convince and many gamers don't realize that. A game designer or a design studio can only make whatever they're able to sell to a very large, very cautious and sometimes very narrow minded corporate backer. Loads of designers have a freedom from publishers, particularly the ones who publish thier own work, but you'd be very surprised at the designers and studios who don't.

Many publishers only want a game that comes in an established genre, that emulates an already successful game and does so without too many looping and branching ideas.

Hell, I don't speak for all of them, I certainly don't know but this is a problem that many studios and designers face.

I believe that elements of gameplay far outweigh the elements of graphics and should be pushed as far as you can take it, For me, gameplay will always be king.

I dont know. I don't believe anyone would intentionally try to do a poor job visually in order to drum up controversy. If they wanted controversy, they'd just add hookers.

[Mr_Furious]

It was a management meeting at a large publisher. Producers and executives were only present. No designers or art directors. Just the people that make the final call. With their mindset, why hire "good" artists when they could hire just "okay" artists for cheaper and with less experience. It equals sloppiness.

And my point with controversy wasn't about the concept of crappy art but to add in hookers like you said as a compromise. Look at BMX XXX for example.

BTW - Designers have little to no say over the graphic representation. Well at like 90% of the companies here in the U.S. The U.K. and Japan team structures vary slightly.

U.S. teams mostly comprise of a design department, art department and programming department with a Producer running the show.

EDIT: this is in response to Blaine's post

[Lhadatt]

Originally posted by Mr_Furious
But have they really? I feel that it's a cop out because there are plenty graphic techniques not being used enough. Anti-Aliasing on PS2 for example. Other than BG not too many others have implemented this.

Johnpv brings up a point I hinted at but didn't fully explain: it's hard to get the PS2 (which most games are based on) to do anything. It's like programming on the Saturn -- sure, you can get nifty FX working, but chances are that unless you're one of Sega's internal developers that has had tons of experience on the hardware (or a programming god), you'll go over budget before you even come close to implimenting anything that looks nice.

Anti-aliasing and other effects are hard to do on the PS2 without taking a performance hit, and implimenting those effects takes more programming time -- which translates into budget considerations. If the company feels the eventual sales will not justify the expenditure for pretty graphics, then they won't do it.

Don't get me wrong, I feel that gameplay should be the #1 factor but I think you missed my point.

Sorry, reflex.

Also if what you say was factual then why do we need to keep buying new hardware every 5 years or so? Hell, I'm still buying PS1 games and tons of old-school games from back in the day so I'm far from a graphics whore I just don't think enough companies are challenging themselves art wise and some day it'll come back to bite them in the ass. Like I said, there still are companies that continue to release gorgeous games with gameplay so maybe GTA is justification for some companies to cop out in the graphics department.

I don't think it will come back to haunt them. Sure, it will devalue their game in the long run. I don't think this is a consideration, given the low print run of most games. If the companies can sell enough of their titles to make a profit, they will survive until the next project comes out -- hopefully they will eventually get to the point where they can either survive even while bumbling around in the marketplace (read: EA) or will be able to spend more money on high-profile titles with pretty graphics without going broke.

We're not really seeing enough re-releases of older games to consider the effect of not putting enough money into the project up-front to ensure nice graphics. The older game market (at least in the US) is currently 99% used games from their original and secondary print runs (Greatest Hits, etc.), and the original publishers don't see any of that resale revenue as it is. Only every once in a while do we hear of titles older than a few years being republished (i.e. PSX Puzzle Fighter).

[bbobb]

See this is my biggest problem with American development teams. They usually have to bow down to some higher up dipshit who will never play a game in his life. It's the whole Jerry Bruckenheimer mentality. And out of that we get 50 million Army Men games and 100 XXXXXTREEEEMMMEE games.

In response to the thread itself though, I don't think graphics should take precedence over gameplay, but I still feel they're important. Great graphics can make an incredibly game even better. I think ICO is the best example. The combination of all the parts of that game, graphics, gameplay, and sound created what was essentially a work of art. That's the type of game I wish we could see more.

[Schlep]

When I first saw this thread, I thought it was about how all the games recently have been so dark and gloomy outside of the Nintendo games.

I think that most of the games today look like they could've been done easily on the Dreamcast. Games like Jet Grind Radio and Virtua Tennis look as good or better to me as anything coming out currently, a few notable exceptions aside.

[FuryFox]

Originally posted by Mr_Furious
Anti-Aliasing on PS2 for example. Other than BG not too many others have implemented this.

Besides BG, I'm pretty sure TTT, T4, and ZOE2 all use AA, and none seem to be taking a performance hit to implement it. I'm sure there are others too (like GGXX, although that shouldn't really count).

Anyway, graphics are important, but not as important as art-direction. Pushing the technological envelope is all good-and-well, but if the direction is off, it's going to look like crap no matter how smooth or anti-aliased it is (look at loads of Xbox games for example). Something like SF3 always looks good because it's so well-designed within its own context.