Poll: Should game developers freeze their graphics hardware?

[jdnoth]

So recentley some big graphics company (I think Radeon) announced that they are releasing a new Graphics Card that's supposed to break all sorts of modern benchmarks and usher in a new era of graphical eye-fuckery. And this actually caused me some real worry. Because I thought that between Killzone 2 and Crysis we probably had all we're ever going to need in the graphical department. And maybe with all these recent advances we could put an end to the seemingly endless stream of increasingly expensive system upgrades and just be happy with what we've got. Personally, I've gone through two different computer systems, and three different consoles since I was ten (17 at the moment), just to keep up with the required graphics upgrades. And I'm well overdue for another. And it's pretty hard scrounging for huge amounts of money every year just so I can play the new games.

I'm not speaking purely from a financial perspective on this. I think this rabid, hyperactive obsessions with graphics is negatively affecting gaming. It's certainly negatively affecting my gaming. My favourite games, Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy 8 and 9 both lie on the playstation one, and have pretty horrendous graphics. But their stories, dialogue, and actual gameplay are miles better than anything produced for the PS2 or PS3. I think the problem is that developers no longer have to make interesting story plots, good gameplay or deep characters. And the only reason they had to do this in the first place was because it was the only way to impress the audience. Now they can just make a game on the latest graphics card and throw it on display at E3.

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I think the recent spate of graphics upgrades are letting developers escape from the pressure of having to make a game that's actually good in order to succeed in the industry.

 

[oliveira8]

Who cares?

Stick to the games you like.

 

[Jaccklesby]

I think this has been done before recently. No matter! I would like to see games focus less on the graphics and more on the actual playing side of it. I mean, a game can look nice.. But be a pile of crap.

 

[quack35]

Wow, another one of these threads. Is it really Saturday again?

 

[Jumplion]

Oh please be quiet. The poll is extremely biased.

Quite frankly, no developers don't need nor should they all of a sudden stop updating and improving on anything and that includes graphics.

I prefer to call them "visuals" as that implies the aesthetic viewpoint of graphics, not the pixel pushing polygon that "Graphics" are referred to.

Oh, and of course you point to the Metal Gears and the Final Fantasies of the original Playstation. It's not like those graphics, as the time, were cutting edge or anything. It's not like people gawked at the visuals of the games and thought "wow, graphics can't get any better than this!"

Oh oh oh, Of COURSE games you pick games like MGS and Final Fantasy had shitty graphics, but that's by todays standards! Back then they were the cutting edge of visuals, the diamonds in the rough! You simply cannot say that "graphics don't make the game!" and then point to an older game where the graphics are outdated by todays ability of graphics. Since the visuals are no longer that great, you can easily see past those and see the gameplay and story in the game.

I am so sick of people whining about how "graphics are killing the industry!". Well I've got news for you, it's always been like this. There's no shortages of Mirror's Edge's, Braids, Patapons, or any other crazy game that isn't a pixel pumping machine. Graphics have always been like this to begin with and it won't suddenly stop overnight just because you don't think we need 1080p over 1080i visuals (not that I care to much for either, but I still love my 1080i TV)

If we can improve on graphics, then we can improve on pretty much everything else. Improving storylines isn't exactly easy or cheap, and gameplay all relys on both story and graphics. Graphics/visuals are probably one of the easier aspects of a game to improve, and that includes things like animation, textures, or lighting effects. They each have their own part of the visual spectrem.

And I have MORE news for you. Very few developers ever improved graphics just for the hell of it, if any. All developers who go on about graphics, they're not clamoring over how many pixels you get on the screen, they're going bannanas over the fact that more pixels on the screen means more imersion. If we could get Crysis level or Killzone 2 level prettiness on near every game, then we're in for some awesomely atmospheric and beautiful games that we can be drawn into.

BLAHSALDKFHASDGL, that's enough of the rant, I'm not even sure if I'm making sense.

 

[Lord_Panzer]

I refuse to vote on the basis that your poll is terrible.

Also, pretty much:

Sha-nip!

 

[ygetoff]

Oh please be quiet. The poll is extremely biased.

Quite frankly, no developers don't need nor should they all of a sudden stop updating and improving on anything and that includes graphics.

I prefer to call them "visuals" as that implies the aesthetic viewpoint of graphics, not the pixel pushing polygon that "Graphics" are referred to.

Oh, and of course you point to the Metal Gears and the Final Fantasies of the original Playstation. It's not like those graphics, as the time, were cutting edge or anything. It's not like people gawked at the visuals of the games and thought "wow, graphics can't get any better than this!"

Oh oh oh, Of COURSE games you pick games like MGS and Final Fantasy had shitty graphics, but that's by todays standards! Back then they were the cutting edge of visuals, the diamonds in the rough! You simply cannot say that "graphics don't make the game!" and then point to an older game where the graphics are outdated by todays ability of graphics. Since the visuals are no longer that great, you can easily see past those and see the gameplay and story in the game.

I am so sick of people whining about how "graphics are killing the industry!". Well I've got news for you, it's always been like this. There's no shortages of Mirror's Edge's, Braids, Patapons, or any other crazy game that isn't a pixel pumping machine. Graphics have always been like this to begin with and it won't suddenly stop overnight just because you don't think we need 1080p over 1080i visuals (not that I care to much for either, but I still love my 1080i TV)

If we can improve on graphics, then we can improve on pretty much everything else. Improving storylines isn't exactly easy or cheap, and gameplay all relys on both story and graphics. Graphics/visuals are probably one of the easier aspects of a game to improve, and that includes things like animation, textures, or lighting effects. They each have their own part of the visual spectrem.

And I have MORE news for you. Very few developers ever improved graphics just for the hell of it, if any. All developers who go on about graphics, they're not clamoring over how many pixels you get on the screen, they're going bannanas over the fact that more pixels on the screen means more imersion. If we could get Crysis level or Killzone 2 level prettiness on near every game, then we're in for some awesomely atmospheric and beautiful games that we can be drawn into.

BLAHSALDKFHASDGL, that's enough of the rant, I'm not even sure if I'm making sense.

I agree. It's hard to put my thoughts on this down articulately; this is probably closer then I would get.
And the poll is WICKED biased.

 

[Theo Samaritan]

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I think the recent spate of graphics upgrades are letting developers escape from the pressure of having to make a game that's actually good in order to succeed in the industry.

Unrelated to quote: That GFX card AMD/ATI are releasing is simply a factory overclocked card, there is nothing new about it other than an overclock. OK so it goes over a Ghz, but its still only an overclock. Its no new benchmark or anything, they will come when cards hit that as stock.

Meanwhile, no. Yes there is a recent spate of graphics card releases and CPU updates, but you need to bare in mind that only about 10% of the market if that is on the bleeding edge of technology. Devs are more than aware that if they want to sell they have to aim for mid-range machines, otherwise the companies wouldn't succeed at all.

And contradictory to many people's opinions, good graphics does not automatically mean shoddy gameplay. Many of these high-end games are more than playable for many many hours.

 

[TomBeraha]

Gameplay is always superior to graphics, that doesn't mean that technological advances are a bad thing, or that they won't directly enable developers to make (at their own discretion in terms of cost / value) new gameplay elements because of them.

Real time physics were a pipe dream once, and now they can be used as a gameplay mechanic. 3D rendering was also, it now affects practically every game we play. The computing power advances that are constantly being made allow developers more options. Some are always going to go the ID software route and make prettier and prettier games, which is fine by me, because someone else is always going to go the Valve route, and use the Quake engine to make the next Half-life. I'm fine with that.

 

[jamesworkshop]

again new cards don't stop previous cards from working hardware is always going to get better otherwise we would still be stuck with computers that would
"never need more than 64KB of ram"
Actually very few games push hardware in fact graphics are stagnating to the point where a £78 graphics card (HD 4770) can play burnout paradise at maximum settings with 2xAA

Left 4 Dead

Hardly Industry breaking these new graphics cards

 

[TaborMallory]

Who cares?

Stick to the games you like.

The bad thing is that they get boring after 10 years.
<color=white>Except Starcraft.

 

[oliveira8]

Who cares?

Stick to the games you like.

The difficult thing is that they get boring after 10 years.

By "Stick to the games you like" I meant "Stick to the stuff you know it will be good."

Like if you like Half Life or CoD4 keep yourself to those games. You really don't need to buy Killzone 2 or Crysis just cause they shiny.

Also I still play SC to this day and it still manages to entertain me.

Now excuse me I'm going to play more Plants vs Zombies the best game of the year!

 

[Avatar Roku]

This [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKTAJBQSm10&feature=related] sort of addresses it, at least by the end. Personally, I think that we can continue to develop our graphics hardware and be okay, so long as we also have other things as well. I mean, we can have the photorealism of Cryis next to the stylization of Windwaker, can't we?

 

[Blood_Lined]

Pretty games do not make a game good, although it improves the game, but if I was to make a choice, characters, story, gameplay; in that order.

 

[Gaming_Purist]

So recentley some big graphics company (I think Radeon) announced that they are releasing a new Graphics Card that's supposed to break all sorts of modern benchmarks and usher in a new era of graphical eye-fuckery.

If you don't like progress, buy a console.

 

[jamesworkshop]

new tech also brings other benefits like cheaper prices/lower power consuption/less heat
its not all about pushing pixels

 

[jdnoth]

Big gay wall of text cut. I trust you remember what you wrote.

The graphics in MGS1 and FF8 were fairly cutting edge for the time but they couldnt be the selling point for the game in the same way they could be for say, Killzone.

 

[Jumplion]

Big gay wall of text cut. I trust you remember what you wrote.

The graphics in MGS1 and FF8 were fairly cutting edge for the time but they couldnt be the selling point for the game in the same way they could be for say, Killzone.

Condensing my post to say "Big gay wall of text cut." doesn't exactly help you with your argument...

MGS1 and FF7/8 were on the tip of the cutting edge of graphics at the time, so who's to say that some people didn't buy them just for the graphics? They certainly had the same appeal as Crysis today, they were practically the Crysises of their time.

Regardless, those graphics are outdated for today, but you can't say "graphics don't make the game!" and point to an older game because it's not comparable. Today, we don't consider those graphics to be very good, but back then they were and people looked at those games like the way we looks at the current games today. People were absorbed the graphics back then because they didn't think it could get better, but now that graphics/visuals have improved drastically you can see past the outdated graphics and see the game itself. It's not that "graphics don't make the game!" it's that you're looking past them because it's not up to par with current graphics.

If you use a more current example, like, say, Sonic Unleashed, then sure, graphics don't necessarily make the game. But you can't point to an older game because the contexts between two different time periods is completely different.

 

[samsprinkle]

This [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKTAJBQSm10&feature=related] sort of addresses it, at least by the end. Personally, I think that we can continue to develop our graphics hardware and be okay, so long as we also have other things as well. I mean, we can have the photorealism of Cryis next to the stylization of Windwaker, can't we?

i saw it and instantly thought it would suck cause he was copying yahtzee...but he's actually quite good.