The graphics barrier in games
polycounter lvl 5
This is just random thoughts, I'm not in the games industry and haven't even played games for many years until recently, but I've noticed that people are starting to get past' visuals' as an important assessment in games.
I mean people play unbelievably crappy games on their phones and on flash sites, and some modern games look incredibly boring to me like minecraft but are addicting to others. The point I want to make is, are game developers just going to embrace the fact that games are games? What I seem to be seeing is sort of a hollywood production model being developed, and then there's a smaller contingency of independent developers; though I really have no knowledge on this topic.
But as someone who occasionally plays games what I've found is that graphics have really little bearing on how I enjoy the game, rather they add another dimension to it that either enhances the experience, or kills it by neglecting the experience to begin with. Of course on the other hand, art direction is paramount (Tf2). Having said that, my dream game would be something with counter-strike 1.6 graphics, but with the ability to do anything you want.
I would be interested in hearing other thoughts on this
I mean people play unbelievably crappy games on their phones and on flash sites, and some modern games look incredibly boring to me like minecraft but are addicting to others. The point I want to make is, are game developers just going to embrace the fact that games are games? What I seem to be seeing is sort of a hollywood production model being developed, and then there's a smaller contingency of independent developers; though I really have no knowledge on this topic.
But as someone who occasionally plays games what I've found is that graphics have really little bearing on how I enjoy the game, rather they add another dimension to it that either enhances the experience, or kills it by neglecting the experience to begin with. Of course on the other hand, art direction is paramount (Tf2). Having said that, my dream game would be something with counter-strike 1.6 graphics, but with the ability to do anything you want.
I would be interested in hearing other thoughts on this
Replies
Boom game not as enjoyable.
Obviously this isn't always true, but i've found for two main publishers it is very true.
Sounds like this to me, lol: http://secondlife.com/
I would agree with that to a degree, but the suspension of disbelief is a totally relative thing from my understanding. Just take it from people who play those 16-bit style top-down RPGs with chibby characters.
I didn't mean anything, anything; I meant like counter-strike with the ability to kick in doors, grappling hook up walls, hold players hostage, throw random things, etc.
Take a look at this Extra Credits video on the subject:
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics
For me it has always come down to Aesthetics > Graphics to create a compelling experience. However when a game can have both you have an amazing game play experience.
If this was not what you meant then....well the video is still worth a watch.
Let's call it what it is: Art direction, quality of art, and technology.
Technology has been around to make certain styles of art look VERY good for a very long time. But that's because art directors and art teams with enough skill are more than capable of picking a limited, specific art style that their technology allows and kicking ass in it. No reason not to keep advancing tech, despite the awesome products they create, artists are still shackled and blindfolded by technical constraints as we stand.
I think graphics vs. aesthetics is a piece of it. Maybe what I meant was I don't know why so many game developers have to stick to making $60 games that are on the cusp of modern technology and in someways are showcases for it, when there are other options. Games can be any price and at any level graphically, and still sell like beer at a football game.
In that sense I think Valve is one of the more progressive companies out there because they seem to see the value in different pricing models, different audiences, types of games etc.
-People always have gone past the visual theme in games, all the way back to the PS1 era, problem is, kids need to justify that their 600 launch console is worth the price tag with graphics. Basically, adults will be in it for the experience, kids for the 'awesome' value to show off their friends, I have yet to meet a good portion of teenagers who actually understood Fallout New Vegas for example and everything around it, most of them call it the 'Big game with Glitches and bad graphics".
Basically, you have to look at also the age of your demographic.
-I'm not sure what awful flash games and/or boring AAA games have to do with Publishers embracing them as...games? However, no, Game Dev's will never embrace games as simply games because it has become a business commodity at this point, with Publishers being at the forefront, when you're spending over several million dollars on Ad's alone.
At the same time it simply comes down to the experience, having at team of talented people who worked on uber titles and asking them to work in a game like MineCraft is not only silly, but frankly outside the ballpark. I mean wouldn't you feel insulted in creating a blocky world with harsh Java limitation after having worked on something as awesome as Skyrim in terms of visual design?
-Maybe, but it really depends on the game, as you said, TF2 is one such example, the forms of the character alone are what drives the game, something which looks like a big hulk with a chain-gun is a heavy, so you will try and avoid it if you're weaker class, while something white and with a tail is a medic, you will always try to take him down.
Even games with bigger budgets need this, Mass Effect for example wouldn't have the quarter of the 'feeling' it has today if not for the looks of it, because lets face it, while the core story was nice, and the music was serviceable, the 'fluff' story was kinda silly and pointless, and game like BF3 wouldn't have the mass scale conflict feeling if you didn't get the feeling or large explosions everywhere with building coming crashing down on you.
I think as others said, you're mixing certain aspects of Game Dev lingo, one of them is Hardware and how much it allows you push your limits, the other is Technology based upon said 'software' trying to reach the limitations of the Hardware and how much it allows to do with your skills.
Then you have Graphics, which dictate the fidelity on how much you can do something based upon the Tech (example, have your character skin look more alive with SSS, or proper hair shaders, etc) allowing to get certain looks that wouldn't be able to other-wise, and lastly, Art-Direction is what dictates as to what looks like what (TF2, Pixar, ME, etc) and choose the style you wish to choose, and let me tell you something, sometimes Art-Direction is impossible with having more powerful stuff to work on, I meaning having a Sci-Fi game where everything is smooth and round with alot of New-Age artwork on Space-Marines with Bionic implants that looks like the Borg would seriously look shitty in something like Minecraft.