Are graphics killing the gaming industry?

[kawligia]

I think we can all see that games take longer and longer to produce and producing them costs more and more money.

As a result, companies turn to invasive DRM to protect sales, games are released prematurely with lots of bugs and imbalances, they are increasingly short, and many people experience stuttering and other processing issues.

Are graphics to blame? Are graphics what is causing all this time, money, and processing issues?

I'm sure a lot of work and time goes to creating the foundations needed for the game to run (and things like physics engines), but user created mods build a great deal of content on those foundations. Consider Oblivion where one person (or a small group of people) create, in their spare time, pretty long and involved quest mods that are a lot of fun.

If quests can be created that easily using the existing game tools and artwork, why do sequels, DLC, expansions, etc. that use the same engine take so much time and money to produce? Is it because of all the new artwork that is added to the game?

If so, do you think it's time we say that graphics look good enough? Should we stop putting so much emphasis on graphics and focus more on the rest of the game? Should we insist that games give us more solid content rather than more eye-candy?

Assuming graphics ARE the root cause of all this, I would say YES. Graphics give me a brief "wow that looks great" moment every now and then, but that "wow factor" wears off pretty quick. What keeps me actually entertained is the core substance of the game. I would much rather have more actual GAME to play even if it meant fewer of those visual moments.

But if graphics are NOT the problem, then what IS causing the ever increasing time and expense for producing a game and all the problems that flow from it?

 

[The DSM]

To a degree they are some games seem hell bent on making the graphics look as realistic as possible, mainly FPS s. Thats why I liked Saints Row 2, It was like GTA4 but more animated and fun. Thats why im looking forward to Brutal Legend, A game that isnt going hardcore on graphics, and it looks awesome with all of the music thats going to be featured in it. Oh, and Jack Black oh and a battle axe.... Ill stop now xD

 

[Kastil]

Perhaps the real issue they are not taking the time to check for bugs. I really don't know how much time is taken for testing the game or if they send that out independently. If the glitch doesn't show in that phase, they're not going to know until some gamer gets on a message board and starts wailing and gnashing.

Additionally, (and I'll use Assassin's Creed as an example) I've heard of certain bugs that I never encountered playing the game. Sure I had a few, one more interesting than annoying- a group of scholars up on the roof with Altair- but most gamers want higher quality graphics. Which game would you rather play? I've played Portal online in a mini game and I must say, I'd rather play the Orange Box version. It's more interesting IMO.

 

[teisjm]

The only problem with fancy graphics is that enough people keeps buying crappy games with good graphics so the man with the money will just make another grappy pretty-looking game, because he knows it'll sell.

If people started demanding better games (by not buying crappy ones, not just ranting and buying a new shiny turd) then crappy games wouldn't sell, and when they don't sell, the $-man won't invest in them and they won't be made anymore.

 

[kawligia]

Perhaps the real issue they are not taking the time to check for bugs.

I think that is a problem. But isn't that part of the effects of high-end graphics? If graphics are what's causing games to be so expensive and time-consuming to produce, then easing up on that will allow developers to spend more time checking for bugs (and also adding content).

 

[Sevre]

No they aren't, the ongoing graphics war between Nvidia and ATI means that it gets cheaper and cheaper to upgrade your machine. Couple this with the fact that only a few games as of now need even DX10 graphics means that they don't really affect you. If you want to have the best machine ever,yes its annoying, if you are content with a ?100 upgrade every two or three years for a new Gcard you're fine.

Take a recently released game like Zeno Clash. Recommended reqs for the Gcard is a 7 series Nvidia. Scan.co.uk sell said card for 30 pounds. Add 50-100 pounds to that and you have a 9600 GT capable of running any game the market has to offer.

 

[FloodOne]

Yes... this is why it takes Squeenix 4 years to make a single high quality experience. The graphics are always phenomenal, and there are very few (if any) bugs to be found in their high profile titles. Not only does it take forever to build the engines that run these titles, they also test their products to death.

 

[Crash486]

Perhaps the real issue they are not taking the time to check for bugs.

I think that is a problem. But isn't that part of the effects of high-end graphics? If graphics are what's causing games to be so expensive and time-consuming to produce, then easing up on that will allow developers to spend more time checking for bugs (and also adding content).

No, graphical errors are rarely the problem. People see a graphical glitch and think "oh yeah, that looks kind of funny... oh well at least its not breaking my game." The real issues are things like poor code stability, connectivity errors with online games, and gameplay issues. Those don't revolve around graphics.

The technology has reached a point where its not that difficult to make games look pretty. Hello even indi developers can afford to make a pretty looking game (take xenoclash for example.) I don't think graphics are to blame for the downfall of the games industry... in fact the game industry is doing exceedingly well at the moment considering the state of the economy.

They deffinately have nothing to do with the current DRM fiascos. DRMs came about as a result of piracy and one distribution of software. They could still be making games that looked like megaman 2 and I guarantee you publishers would still be putting ridiculous DRMs on their software right now.

Digital distribution is still a new form of delivery for many publishers and they feel the need to test the waters to make sure they don't get screwed over by pirates. Look at what happened to Stardock with Demigod. That's the thanks of gamers have given them for not putting DRMs on their software. I'm actually pretty ashamed of that turn of events.

 

[kawligia]

No they aren't, the ongoing graphics war between Nvidia and ATI means that it gets cheaper and cheaper to upgrade your machine. Couple this with the fact that only a few games as of now need even DX10 graphics means that they don't really affect you. If you want to have the best machine ever,yes its annoying, if you are content with a ?100 upgrade every two or three years for a new Gcard you're fine.

Take a recently released game like Zeno Clash. Recommended reqs for the Gcard is a 7 series Nvidia. Scan.co.uk sell said card for 30 pounds. Add 50-100 pounds to that and you have a 9600 GT capable of running any game the market has to offer.

I don't mean that it's expensive for the player. I'm saying that it's expensive for the game developers (and time consuming) to generate all those super graphics in the first place.

My question is if those graphics are what's causing games to take forever to come out, to be increasingly shorter, and full of bugs. Or if the increasing time and money needed to make a game is due to something else.

 

[Crash486]

I don't mean that it's expensive for the player. I'm saying that it's expensive for the game developers (and time consuming) to generate all those super graphics in the first place.

My question is if those graphics are what's causing games to take forever to come out, to be increasingly shorter, and full of bugs. Or if the increasing time and money needed to make a game is due to something else.

What he's saying is that the evolution of graphics caused a technology war between Nvidia and ATI which helped drive the computer industry. Therefore they did something quite positive in that regard.

More expensive to produce possibly, but graphics are not to blame for bugs... its not like this is 10 years ago during the pioneering of 3D graphics. Games are being released buggy now because since the advent of the MMO it's become acceptable for a game developer to release a game half finished and continue to work on it after turning a profit.

 

[kawligia]

Perhaps the real issue they are not taking the time to check for bugs.

I think that is a problem. But isn't that part of the effects of high-end graphics? If graphics are what's causing games to be so expensive and time-consuming to produce, then easing up on that will allow developers to spend more time checking for bugs (and also adding content).

No, graphical errors are rarely the problem. People see a graphical glitch and think "oh yeah, that looks kind of funny... oh well at least its not breaking my game." The real issues are things like poor code stability, connectivity errors with online games, and gameplay issues. Those don't revolve around graphics.

The technology has reached a point where its not that difficult to make games look pretty. Hello even indi developers can afford to make a pretty looking game (take xenoclash for example.) I don't think graphics are to blame for the downfall of the games industry... in fact the game industry is doing exceedingly well at the moment considering the state of the economy.

They deffinately have nothing to do with the current DRM fiascos. DRMs came about as a result of piracy and one distribution of software. They could still be making games that looked like megaman 2 and I guarantee you publishers would still be putting ridiculous DRMs on their software right now.

But would you agree that graphics are what makes games so expensive to produce now? And that the higher the cost of production, the more likely they are to insist on DRM to attempt to protect a return on investment? I'm sure plenty of them WOULD STILL insist on DRM even if the costs were low and the sales still high, but is the graphics cost not contributing to the problem?

Also, if generating those graphics are not the cause of the half-decade delays in releasing games, what is causing it? What is present now that wasn't there in the past that is costing so much time and money to produce?

 

[Crash486]

Perhaps the real issue they are not taking the time to check for bugs.

I think that is a problem. But isn't that part of the effects of high-end graphics? If graphics are what's causing games to be so expensive and time-consuming to produce, then easing up on that will allow developers to spend more time checking for bugs (and also adding content).

No, graphical errors are rarely the problem. People see a graphical glitch and think "oh yeah, that looks kind of funny... oh well at least its not breaking my game." The real issues are things like poor code stability, connectivity errors with online games, and gameplay issues. Those don't revolve around graphics.

The technology has reached a point where its not that difficult to make games look pretty. Hello even indi developers can afford to make a pretty looking game (take xenoclash for example.) I don't think graphics are to blame for the downfall of the games industry... in fact the game industry is doing exceedingly well at the moment considering the state of the economy.

They deffinately have nothing to do with the current DRM fiascos. DRMs came about as a result of piracy and one distribution of software. They could still be making games that looked like megaman 2 and I guarantee you publishers would still be putting ridiculous DRMs on their software right now.

But would you agree that graphics are what makes games so expensive to produce now? And that the higher the cost of production, the more likely they are to insist on DRM to attempt to protect a return on investment? I'm sure plenty of them WOULD STILL insist on DRM even if the costs were low and the sales still high, but is the graphics cost not contributing to the problem?

Also, if generating those graphics are not the cause of the half-decade delays in releasing games, what is causing it? What is present now that wasn't there in the past that is costing so much time and money to produce?

No I don't agree. Graphics might drive up the price of the game a tad, but there are plenty of other costs involved with producing a video game. Even indi developers are producing some pretty games these days.

 

[Xvito]

To answer your question: No.

 

[Agayek]

But would you agree that graphics are what makes games so expensive to produce now? And that the higher the cost of production, the more likely they are to insist on DRM to attempt to protect a return on investment? I'm sure plenty of them WOULD STILL insist on DRM even if the costs were low and the sales still high, but is the graphics cost not contributing to the problem?

Also, if generating those graphics are not the cause of the half-decade delays in releasing games, what is causing it? What is present now that wasn't there in the past that is costing so much time and money to produce?

No. Generating complex graphics does indeed add to development cost/time, but it is not the lion's share of the work on a game. The biggest single item in the development of the game is the engine. The entire rest of the game is built off of that piece, and it is hands down the largest. Developing all the source code, making sure it cooperates, and working out the kinks taking significantly longer than any graphic work will, no matter how complex.

Now, if you include the graphical side of the engine development (developing terrain mapping, placement, and event trigger tools, etc etc), you might have a case, but that kind of thing holds true whether your game consists entirely of stickmen or if it's Crysis.



On the other hand, 2D development is much less costly and easier, but it's also vastly more limiting and 3D is vastly superior in just about every way, save development. Very few people want 2D games, when 3D is much better to tell a story and is so much more immersive.

 

[blankedboy]

Yes, all developers need to focus on not having as much graphics as the current games to make them longer, have more replay value, and be fun. Just tone down the graphics until technology advances a bit further.

 

[kawligia]

But would you agree that graphics are what makes games so expensive to produce now? And that the higher the cost of production, the more likely they are to insist on DRM to attempt to protect a return on investment? I'm sure plenty of them WOULD STILL insist on DRM even if the costs were low and the sales still high, but is the graphics cost not contributing to the problem?

Also, if generating those graphics are not the cause of the half-decade delays in releasing games, what is causing it? What is present now that wasn't there in the past that is costing so much time and money to produce?

No. Generating complex graphics does indeed add to development cost/time, but it is not the lion's share of the work on a game. The biggest single item in the development of the game is the engine. The entire rest of the game is built off of that piece, and it is hands down the largest. Developing all the source code, making sure it cooperates, and working out the kinks taking significantly longer than any graphic work will, no matter how complex.

Now, if you include the graphical side of the engine development (developing terrain mapping, placement, and event trigger tools, etc etc), you might have a case, but that kind of thing holds true whether your game consists entirely of stickmen or if it's Crysis.



On the other hand, 2D development is much less costly and easier, but it's also vastly more limiting and 3D is vastly superior in just about every way, save development. Very few people want 2D games, when 3D is much better to tell a story and is so much more immersive.

Well, then I am curious why expansion packs, DLC, and even sequels that use the same engine take so long to produce. For example, the Half Life 2 Episodes seem to use the same engine and all, so what makes it take so long to produce if the lion's share of the work is already completed?

The only additions I can see (and I admit I'm no expert) are the scripted events and new artwork for the new areas, NPCs, etc.

 

[Frequen-Z]

To a degree they are some games seem hell bent on making the graphics look as realistic as possible, mainly FPS s. Thats why I liked Saints Row 2, It was like GTA4 but more animated and fun. Thats why im looking forward to Brutal Legend, A game that isnt going hardcore on graphics, and it looks awesome with all of the music thats going to be featured in it. Oh, and Jack Black oh and a battle axe.... Ill stop now xD

The water in Saints Row 2 has me in awe everytime I look at it.

 

[ender214]

I think the graphics are worth the investment, because if I buy a game and it has crappy graphics, I usually won't give it a chance to even prove whether its worth playing. Maybe this is because I prefer PC games and thus am usually searching for better hardware for better graphics, but I don't give games with terrible graphics the time of day.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Well, then I am curious why expansion packs, DLC, and even sequels that use the same engine take so long to produce. For example, the Half Life 2 Episodes seem to use the same engine and all, so what makes it take so long to produce if the lion's share of the work is already completed?

They carry on working on the engine along with new content. Companies who licence the Unreal engine get the code for the engine and have to work on it to try to get it to run their game, unless they want their game to be exactly like Gears or Unreal. A lot of developer time is most likely spent working on the graphics code which wouldn't invalidate your point about graphics.

 

[Flour]

Well, then I am curious why expansion packs, DLC, and even sequels that use the same engine take so long to produce. For example, the Half Life 2 Episodes seem to use the same engine and all, so what makes it take so long to produce if the lion's share of the work is already completed?

The only additions I can see (and I admit I'm no expert) are the scripted events and new artwork for the new areas, NPCs, etc.

Using Valve in a production time argument is a horrible choice. Valve is one of the few developers left that doesn't release a game until it's nearly bug-free.
They'd rather delay a game/expansion for a few months than release a version that isn't fully tested.