Will The Race For The Best Graphics Hurt The Industry?

[Tech614]

If the games are below 1080p and have a hard time holding 30 fps it's kinda meh though.

TLOU is 60 fps locked on PS4 and Infamous is a locked 30 if you lock it and 30-45 variable if you leave it unlocked. Both are 1080p native.

If you're going to try to make a snide comment you should at least fact check.

[Graeham]

I'm hoping we reach a point where graphics can't really improve much so developers go back to adding more meat to their games. I find a lot of modern games to be really easy on the eyes but then they're also lacking in terms of depth elsewhere - usually it's the story or character development that suffers or the game mechanics are clunky. There's exceptions to that, of course.

[May90]

OP, I think you are looking at this in a bit one-sided way. Yes, it is true that, the more graphically stunning a game is, the more effort it takes to develop it. However, it is not just that the graphics has improved - it is also that the tools used to create it have improved. It takes nowadays about the same time to develop a game as it did in 90-s/ since there are lots of audio banks, texture sets, code samples left after decades of game development.

So, in short, no, I don't think it hurts the industry in any way. It just means that Indie games do not look as fancy as games made by large corporations - but, if the looks do not matter to you that much, then there is no issue, and if they do, then you appreciate the fancy graphics so many developers create nowadays. Either way, you win.

[breadisfunny]

what do you mean will it? it already has hurt it. just look at aaa titles today where most of the budget goes towards marketing and graphics and the rise of the independent game scene for an example.

[Zephyr Storm]

Yes. Take EA for example, nothing but great looking games that suck balls in the gameplay department.

Will have to disagree with you there. DA:I alone says hello. Great looking game that was fun to play and actually had enough content to justify it's price tag.

[pateuvasiliu]

Will have to disagree with you there. DA:I alone says hello. Great looking game that was fun to play and actually had enough content to justify it's price tag.

But the gross majority of its content were MMO fetch quests.

The combat is incredibly dumbed down compared to its predecessors ( really, 8 spells in an RPG, out of which 1 is a focus spell? Seriously.. )

There are plenty of console games that look just as good as some of the amazing looking PC games.

Such as what?

Facial animations don't make a game look as good as a PC title, lol.

[Airwaves]

Not really on PC. But yes for console games. The hardware is so limited they have to cut back on everything else just to push the best graphics.

[Afrospinach]

Not really on PC. But yes for console games. The hardware is so limited they have to cut back on everything else just to push the best graphics.

What? If anything I would say the limited hardware keeps them on the right track...

Long time since I have had access to a console though.

[Tech614]

Not really on PC. But yes for console games. The hardware is so limited they have to cut back on everything else just to push the best graphics.

You heard it here first folks, gameplay takes raw power and you have to cut back on it to make good graphics on consoles.

This.

Logic.

So.

Good.

[Vargur]

They can stop the "race" over my dead body - or when holoimplants will be invented.
I can't afford to change my gear every few years, not to mention every year, but even I will say that it's the consumer that's holding the developers back.

[Poppincaps]

You heard it here first folks, gameplay takes raw power and you have to cut back on it to make good graphics on consoles.

This.

Logic.

So.

Good.

The way he/she said it was flawed, but putting so much emphasis on graphics does mean that you might have to cut out content or you become unable to flesh out certain mechanics. Companies do have a deadline.

[Tech614]

The way he/she said it was flawed, but putting so much emphasis on graphics does mean that you might have to cut out content or you become unable to flesh out certain mechanics. Companies do have a deadline.

The studios that have hard deadlines and not flexible ones aren't the guys exactly pushing the graphical envelopes.

[Deleted]

I'd argue that the only "fun" systems are the PC and Wii U.

And the 2/3DS :3

[Senka]

I think this is an argument that's been had for the past 10 years. And I think the next 10 years will continue like the past 10 years. There will be those that want to impress with graphics and those that don't. What's considered "good graphics" will be based on people's preferences. What's different now, and will continue to be different, is that there's an ever-expanding avenue of how you want your game to look. This is both because of technology and software tools evolving but also older gaming generations growing up.

For example, with the old SNES hardware many sprites had to end up looking relatively similar. You can determine what retro system a game is on just by looking at its graphics. However, not only has technology broken limits but older gaming generations from the SNES era are growing up and making their own games now. So now you get something like Shovel Knight that looks like a pseudo-SNES/NES/whatever-you-call-this-stupid-retro-style game despite being very current. But that's okay because it looks like a good game, and there'll still be good games made in the future.

I think what you're talking about could harm how normal people and casuals see gaming, but then...they've never really understood gaming ever. So that's okay too. The only people and things that matter will be those which make the games you enjoy. Again, there will still be video games made that you enjoy, but you have to be more proactive in finding them. You can't just be complacent and think that only whatever EA or Ubisoft or Square Enix does is what gaming is now. You don't have to make your own games, but you should make your own gaming world. The variety and options in gaming design styles are larger than ever before and will probably get bigger.

[Lotus Victoria]

I'd say so.

Some of the greatest games in the last years were not triple A, and didn't exactly have amazing graphics. As you said before, Shovel Knight! Great soundtrack and gameplay, and the graphics are great too, although not triple A standards.

[Wildmoon]

Don't really care about technologically advanced graphic as long as they look visually pleasing to me. Something like StarCraft II or WoW still look good to me even by today's standard. However, if you are shooting for realistic style then you'd better do it right because it will be pretty easy for me to see flaws in it.

[May90]

Don't really care about technologically advanced graphic as long as they look visually pleasing to me. Something like StarCraft II or WoW still look good to me even by today's standard. However, if you are shooting for realistic style then you'd better do it right because it will be pretty easy for me to see flaws in it.

Agree on that. Hell, I still like Doom graphics (a 1993 game), at least, with a port that lets me set up an HD resolution. Yes, it is pixellated, yes, it it pseudo-3D, yes, the number of polygons on monsters is laughable - but still the visual style is very pleasing. Compare it to, say, latest Call of Duty, a game that tries to be very serious and realistic, but it just looks totally bland to me. There is nothing unique about it, nothing looking at which I would immediately say, "Yes, this is Call of Duty". There are hundreds games looking like that. While Doom is recognizable immediately by its unique monsters, weapons, music.