Are graphics killing the gaming industry?

[MrMark]

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.

That was true in the past, but in general not now . Today there is middleware for everything. You don't write a physics engine you use Havok or PhysX. Want trees ? use Speedtree. Fancy vector based UI Scaleform. Or just want a prebuilt engine, take the Unreal, Source or Crisis engines.

It's the art that takes the most amount of time. If you want a zillion polygon ultra realistic model someone has to actually create that zillion polygon model.

 

[quack35]

Wait, gaming is being killed? When did this happen?

 

[Agayek]

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.

I'm no expert either, but I'd be willing to bet, at least with Valve games, that the lion's share of development time is getting the gameplay right. Valve focuses extremely well on all the little things, "world building" if you will, and if you've ever done any kind of game development, you'd know it takes literally ages to get all the details right. Ive dabbled in modding with Source, and it took me about a month of work to get most of a single piece of a level done almost right. Granted, that wasn't 40 hours a week and I was on my own, but it still took forever.

Graphics do take up a good portion of development time, don't get me wrong, but the lion's share goes to building the actual game.

And to whoever else quoted me, I didn't really make myself clear. I meant engine as in the overarching rules + level design, which while you can just buy a physics engine, you can't use someone else's level design and still make a decent game.

 

[mykalwane]

Well graphics is something I have seen as both helping and a hinder. This from the stand point that to make it as graphically good looking as the completion has pushed games forwards. In doing so at times the graphics may be the point rather then anything else. While pushing others it often hurts others. What is the problem is that the audience more often then not go as how graphically a game is to determine which is better sometimes. So some developers would develop to make a pretty game which may be a bit bland. Most often forget that games were not built on graphics alone. Take Pong for example, old as it may be it is still fun, or Tetris for example. It is just that some people do care about the game looking good more then the gameplay. Though without that push, some games would not have the need to push themselves to be better. This being the main reason I think there is so much crap on the Wii. Sure there are some gems to be had, but as a whole without having graphics to push one the gameplay will get a bit bland. Take for example Madworld, though it is a decent game it comes off a bit bland. Though it may not have much a visual presence, though has a great style. This is something I think has helped as well as hurt in general. Though I wish this was something that was clear cut to say to be a bad thing or a good thing. Take a look at the Wii for an example of games that have to rely on gameplay rather then graphics, or look at the other system for graphics rather then gameplay on current gen systems. Both have there good and bad because of this. Flower a visually great game, which may of lost it's fun if it had to rely on gameplay alone. Sure it can be seen as a hinder, but it also has helped others as well.

 

[kawligia]

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.

No no no no no. I don't mean to chastise Valve for "taking too long" to make a game. I agree that its good they wait to release a game until its actually ready. I only mean to show that getting a game actually ready for a proper release does take quite a bit of time.

Wait, gaming is being killed? When did this happen?

Slowly over time. Each sequel seems to be shorter and shorter, even though it looks better and better. I fear that in 10 years, games will be little more than 90 minute movies with some quick time events tossed in.

Oh and another thing. I think the expense of producing a game might be why we see so many sequels now. It takes so much to make a game, companies are less likely to take a risk on a new title. They are more inclined to stick with what works.

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.

I don't disagree that some level of graphical sophistication is necessary. Simple or cartoony graphics like in WoW, TF2, or perhaps even some old school 8 and 16 bit games are not "bad" graphics. That's just a specific style. But there was a time during the Playstation 1 era when the cartoonish graphics were "out" and the realism style was "in," but they sucked too much to really get it right. It was the worst of both worlds.

But now, I think that HL2 level graphics are more than enough to not be "crappy." IF graphics are putting the hurt on games (and there seems to be some mixed opinions here) then I say we should maintain the current level. I don't think we should slide backwards necessarily, but just stick with what we have for the most part.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Graphics do take up a good portion of development time, don't get me wrong, but the lion's share goes to building the actual game.

It's hard to separate the graphics technology from the time to actually build the game. It takes longer to make a passable level for a current FPS than it does for Doom. The mod scene seemed to be thriving around Doom and Quake but now not so much. This is due to how long it takes to make something respectable with current game engines and these engines are mostly created to make the movin piktures look purdy.

 

[Agayek]

It's hard to separate the graphics technology from the time to actually build the game. It takes longer to make a passable level for a current FPS than it does for Doom. The mod scene seemed to be thriving around Doom and Quake but now not so much. This is due to how long it takes to make something respectable with current game engines and these engines are mostly created to make the movin piktures look purdy.

Maybe. I don't really see aesthetic level design as graphic work though. Maybe it's weird definitions, but I define "graphical work" as the design and creation of the various models. That takes a good long while, but putting the models together into whatever shape to make a level takes longer, in my experience.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Maybe. I don't really see aesthetic level design as graphic work though. Maybe it's weird definitions, but I define "graphical work" as the design and creation of the various models. That takes a good long while, but putting the models together into whatever shape to make a level takes longer, in my experience.

It's not art work but it all goes towards the visual appeal of the game.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

People saying graphics are not important is always strange to me in a medium that is primarily interacted with visually.

Imagine Fallout 3 with last gen graphics. It wouldn't have had the same atmosphere that immersed the player and sucked them into the world.

COD4 and CODWAW wouldn't be as exciting and beautiful without the stunning locations and set pieces.

 

[ExistentialCrisis]

Games are getting prettier, shorter, and less substantial. All the time spent putting so much effort into cranking up the looks and feel seem to be taking away from fitting in more content. I can see how this makes sense as a dual-layer DVD can only hold so much information...

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

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.

Well thats because the Orange Box version is 3D. But yeah Assassin's Creed is as buggy as bug hell, so it does seem that companies aren't interested in making a good game so much as pumping out more than the other guy. Kinda like L4D it is a really good game, but with each update there are some new bugs. Its like Valve doesn't even test them anymore.

 

[jamesworkshop]

Graphics no especially consider the sale generated pay for itself think of it this way graphics are at the best they have ever been and the industry is the biggest it has ever been.
Most developers don't build their own engines or just update old ones and games still take 18 months on average to develop

 

[RobotoWorks]

Graphics isn't the issue here, it's that damned Chuck Norris.

 

[L33tsauce_Marty]

No way, it took me longer to make a map using Valve's Hammer than using the Cryengine 2 sandbox.

 

[santaandy]

No, the gaming industry is killing the gaming industry. They saw how much money they could make and decided to focus on that instead of making good games (which is what would have earned them more money; I know, the irony). Otherwise, every console would be region-lock and DRM free, HD graphics wouldn't be the masturbatory fuel it is for some of you out there, games wouldn't cost $60m to make and $60 to buy, and there would actually have been more than a small handful of decent worthwhile purchases this generation.