Current Graphic trends in video games?

[Blaine]

Originally posted by 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.

Ooooh. THAT I believe. I just couldn't see any artist willing to swallow that. To reach that level, you need so much pride in your work that it's painful. Hell, if they're really just wanna hire "okay" artists, send them my resume will ya?

Shit, I'll fulfill mediocrity. I don't have enough experience or a fat enough portfolio for a bruised ego.

Originally posted by Mr_Furious
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.

I thought you meant that they were going to generate controversy with bad graphics, not saying "well make up for it with controversy". I was pretty much thinking of BMX XXX when I wrote that .

Originally posted by Mr_Furious
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.

I use the term 'designer' as a blanket statement for anyone who contributes to the game (i.e. in the vein of the International Game Designers Assocation, Game Designer magazine [closely related as they may be...]). When I first read that statement, I thought you were in a mental hospital somewhere ha ha ha. "No designer has input on the look of the game? Who the hell is doing the concept sketches and compiling the art bible!?! No suit is doing it, that's for certain". Then I reached the next paragraph. A very defined sense of "ooooh" was there.

You're right from all the info I have. I know there are a few studios where the designer is afforded some latitude into the visual end of the spectrum (albeit, it's usually a big name fellow who is also wearing a producer hat) but that's far from the rule and too close to the exception to see any other way.

But I'll again agree that far too many publishers will see mediocrity as a cost-friendly solution. Question is, can this fly?

Gamers vote with their purchases. Always remember this guys.

If you like a style of games or even just a studio...you HAVE to buy the game. Don't have me any of this "y'know, I like Resident Evil. I wanna buy RE4 but I don't wanna buy RE0." and then bitch a blue streak when RE4 doesn't get made. It doesn't work that way. If you really wanna tell a company that you want a game or a style of games, you have to PURCHASE them. Online petions do shit, ladies and gentleman, compared to the cold hard facts of a sales sheet.

If you really wanna see some more off the wall RPG's then buy Giftpia. If you wanna see alternative sports titles then buy Aussie Rules Football. If you want Technos to make more beat-em-ups then buy more beat-em-ups by anyone.

"So I have to buy games I don't like? Fuck that!" Agreed...but the fact of the matter is, publishers like to make games that sell well. They don't care WHY genre-x or gametype-12 isn't destroying the sales charts (that includes if no one has tried it before), they just care that 'Hey, FPS are doing well lately. Make one'.

So it's a responsibility issue. You don't have to start a crusade for every game type, but if you're a really big shooter freak that bitches about the lack of shooters then there really should be no shooter that hits a retail shelf that you don't buy. Even if it's not your ideal favorite. Personally, I do it with 'wierd' games like Cubivore, Animal Crossing, Seaman, Fighter Maker, etc. I don't expect you to get a game that totally blows but it should be something you have in mind when you go to buy a game. People buy games for other reasons all the time; 'I liked the cover art', 'I like the studio who designed it' , 'I like fruit' , 'Princess Tomato was hot'.

So if you do see a lot of games published with this whole "hey we can get away with crap" concept. Prove them wrong. Show them that they CAN'T get away with it by buying games that showcase quality. It's that simple.

[Mr_Furious]

All points are valid and I concur with many of them but what I'm most afraid of is what the future holds if more companies adopt the "graphics aren't important" mentality. They'll skimp on the art department by hiring more less experienced artists for a lot cheaper to maximize their profit protential. It could grow into a much worse situation that could impact companies and it's all based off the misconception of why they "think" GTA3 sold so well. Trust me on this, managment is not looking at the gameplay aspect of GTA3. Just how ugly it was (and controversal) yet it still sold over 4 million copies. I think bbobb gets what I'm trying to say.

I think if something bad like that were to happen, the industry would wise up and bounce back quickly. But being in the industry, it's something I don't want to see come to fruition.

And as bbobb touched upon, I believe it is mainly a U.S. problem even though GTA was developed in Scotland.

EDIT: Blaine, I concur

Originally posted by 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.

That's also a common problem with U.S. development teams.

[Gooch]

Originally posted by Mr_Furious
I feel that it's a cop out because there are plenty graphic techniques not being used enough.

If achieving the level of graphical sophistication that you seem to desire will in any way result in games taking longer to be released, less games being developed, or higher costs to purchase, then I'm against it and prefer the status quo.

Originally posted by FuryFox
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.

As do SC2 and VF4:Evo, especially when compared to the first VF4.

[AaronChance]

I think MGS2 was an uglier looking game than GTA3 myself so I'm feeling a bit out of the loop of what you're talking about. GTA3 was low poly but it sort of needed to be since it had so much going on at once and the texture work was great (though maybe this is only because I'm playing the PC version). MGS2 was lower poly than it should have been (and there was no reason for it) and the textures looked like they were done by 3rd graders. In my view, the prettier game is the one which got more sales.

But the mentality you're talking about is one of the main reasons I don't buy very many US made games. Actually, I can't think of the last US made game I've bought. Everything has either been from Japan or the UK.

[Low]

I wish more companies focused on the potential of polygon graphics. Like the rich almost painted on textures of Ikaruga, the style of Phantom Crash and Jet Grind Radio, or DMC's very moody film noir look. One of the great things about hand drawn art was the completely different styles each development team put out. Nowadays companies seem far too dependent on flat photoshop textures or in a cartoony title, a crude cel-shade or complete flat color. BMX XXX is a crappy xerox attempt at the real world, one of the many reasons it failed. Though I wasn't a huge fan of it, Black and Bruised caught my attention because there was some actual personality to the graphics.

*-neo

[AaronChance]

It's odd you would choose Phantom Crash... or perhaps it isn't. The graphics on the whole are rather weak, the models are relatively low poly and the textures are nothing to brag about, but the game has a personality that holds the whole thing together.

I think Dark Cloud 2 is the most recent example of graphical skill I've seen. Enough polys to help you forget these things are made of polys, but helping that is some incredible texture work and an overall feeling of personality and setting that really holds the whole thing together.

[Blaine]

Originally posted by neoalphazero
I wish more companies focused on the potential of polygon graphics. Like the rich almost painted on textures of Ikaruga, the style of Phantom Crash and Jet Grind Radio, or DMC's very moody film noir look.

The texturing in Ikaruga worked so well because there really isn't a whole hell of a lot of them.

The sad thing is, hardware is only designed to handle a finite amount of texturing. Nothing eats up RAM like textures.

Part of it could be everyone wants these massive triangle-per-second counts on thier spec sheets. Who gives a shit if you can have 150 trillion polygons a second, that's a theorhetical laboratory experiment. No textures, no sound, no control, no AI, nothing that construes a semblance of a game. Just 150 trillon little triangles...yay.

We're still in a 'polygon is king' world. And really, if the extra processor usage and memory goes anywhere...and it hurts me as a graphics guy to say this...I think it needs to go to the AI. AI still makes of a pathetic margin of resources, particularly when you look at how much it has to contribute.

I'd like to see other NPR techniques like cellshading, but not necessary cellshading (Killer7 is a good example) too, though.

Ikaruga definately works very well, some regards it's more of a spritebased game than a 3D. I think it's a great fusion of the two.

[MechDeus]

A bit OT, but: I simply cannot wait for the end of this year when the new set of PC games start coming out. After playing that Doom III alpha again, I'm having a hard time playing most of my regular games (besides GGXX) because they look like complete and utter crap in comparision. Looking that far ahead at graphics progression instead of the usual buildup has spoiled me, and style alone is the only thing holding up some games for me right now.

Graphics certainly aren't everything, but they can add so much they should never be thought secondary.

[Mfkzt]

Originally posted by FuryFox
Anyway, graphics are important, but not as important as art-direction.

Yeah, and PS2 is holding artists back. You're limited from the get-go with PS2. Look at games like Zelda or Panzer Dragoon Orta. The best looking games (from a technical and aesthetic standpoint) are not PS2 games, and they aren't multisystem. There's a reason for that.

[Tracer]

Originally posted by Mfkzt
Yeah, and PS2 is holding artists back. You're limited from the get-go with PS2. Look at games like Zelda or Panzer Dragoon Orta. The best looking games (from a technical and aesthetic standpoint) are not PS2 games, and they aren't multisystem. There's a reason for that.

How? I don't think theres any reason why art direction can't be better on PS2. In fact, it is in my opinion. Rez and Ico are more artistic than Orta (even) and all 3 blow away Zelda IMO. It's all opinion but I just don't see how PS2 could be holding back expression.