Should games stop trying to have better graphics?

[StriderShinryu]

Games should strive for graphics that suit them. If that means bleeding edge photo realism then, yes, that's absolutely something that the developer of that project should keep pushing for. There's nothing wrong at all with continual advancements in graphical fidelity as long as that's not the only thing a game has going for it, and even then if a developer chooses to create something that's nothing but visuals then that's up to them.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

Not at all. Better graphics is always a good thing. Why not make something as beautiful as possible, if you can? But our graphical capabilities are at such a point that I think we should focus less on graphics and more on things like animations, physics and effects. I don't think they should stop graphical advancements, just lessen their efforts on graphical quality so we can make larger strides in the advancement of the little things that make a game truly shine, visually.

Even if the graphics aren't great, you can still make the game look gorgeous with excellent animation, physics and effects. Lacking those, however, even the greatest graphics imaginable can suffer.

 

[Blue_vision]

Toolmakers on the other hand, the people who make the programs that developers use to make games should be straining in all directions. Games have improved greatly just because better tools have become available to programmers and artists. As tools improve, developers will hopefully be able to not spend more money than they already are, and still get slightly better graphics, albeit rather slowly.

I think this is the key. We're kind of at a point where it's development studios themselves that are pushing graphics the hardest, when it should really be other development studios making better development tools, including graphics tools.

I'd much rather have games delay their graphical advancement, and wait till the tools are available to allow good graphics to be inexpensive. Then, studios can save the money they'd be spending on graphics and put it into good design, or good voice acting (admit it, we could still use some more of that.)

 

[Vausch]

No, that's ridiculous. I love seeing how great games can look given enough time and effort put into them.

That said, they should stop trying to make graphics the primary focus. Gameplay mechanics and story should come first, followed by an aesthetic. The aesthetics encompass the graphics and determines the necessity.

 

[TheMigrantSoldier]

If the graphics quality cleans up the game's interface, then not entirely. Regardless, graphics should always be secondary to making a game. It doesn't make the game, not even "60 percent" of it.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

A game with superb art direction will always look good (Wind Waker, Okami, Otogi)

Yes. It's a shame that gorgeous games like Okami or Shadow of the Colossus end up getting recycled as HD remakes sooner or later. The drive towards some sort of ideal graphical standard is ever pushing and even the most superbly engineered games will fall prey to HD cannibalism.

Too be fair, Okami HD looks fantastic. It has a very unique style that was just so much more improved with the clarity and vibrancy HD brought to it. Wind Waker on the other hand, not so much. Though it would be worth it if they only added an option to change the damn camera control.

Otherwise I'm not generally supportive of pushing the graphical envelope. I'd be willing to take a dip if it meant more openly available content from the get-go, or a cheaper price tag. Games can be amazing without looking cutting-edge.

 

[romxxii]

Each generation has, by way of improved graphics and details, had to be more expensive than the last.

No it hasn't. If anything, PC gaming has shown that prices have remained relatively stable despite incremental upgrades. What usually happens is that last year's product series gets a massive discount to make room for the current stock.

Case in point, GTX 680s dropped in price early this year to accommodate the arrival of its overclocked twin, the GTX 770, which took over the price point of the GTX 670.

That's with PCs, where upgrades are constant. What about the consoles? Well, aren't they even cheaper? The PS4 costs $399 at launch, minus camera. The PS3? Cost $599 at launch.

See? in both PC and console spaces, it's actually gotten cheaper for the end user. Now, what about development? Well, it's not actually the graphical quality which bloats dev costs; it's the propensity of AAA publishers to mass-hire (then mass-fire) legions of grunts so that they can get Call of Warfare 7 out by Christmas. That, and all the stunt-casted voice acting done by Hollywood actors who then totally phone it in.

 

[K12]

I definitely think we've got to the stage where you can't sell a game just on the basis of graphics anymore.

We also have games being hugely praised for their visuals whilst being graphically very basic: Bastian, Hotline Miami, Journey, Braid are the first few that come to mind.

 

[Akytalusia]

it's definitely come to a point where taking a little break from the current "graphics are everything" trend could do the industry a lot of good. without all the pressure to keep up with everyone else doing the same thing, they could take some time to think about what -else- they could do to improve game quality. and it could help them refine their priorities.
graphics shouldn't be abandoned forever, obviously. if the concept of 'dated graphics' is anything to consider. i mean, when ff7 came out, the graphics were amazing to me. then 8 and 10 had similar effects, but those have undeniably shown their years, and i'm glad we've upgraded from them.
then again, if graphics hadn't improved, i never would have noticed, right? i think we can all afford to take a break. there's nothing to lose and everything to gain. i think everyone can agree graphics are at a good spot right now, anyway.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Honestly I'd like to see a greater emphasis on the scale of the game over how it looks. Larger maps, better AI, less draw distance. The purely visual bar's at a level I can live with atm.

 

[Bad Jim]

I don't mind the graphics race, as long as

a) Companies don't ***** when their megabudget game doesn't sell. Your problem guys, do your market research and don't spend more than you can make back..

b) They don't let realism get in the way of playability. No, Rockstar, I don't want to go bowling with a virtual cousin/girlfriend/anyone else. I want to hire hookers, then run them over and take back the money when I'm done. I want to fight gang wars with a fighter plane. You know, fun stuff.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Depends on what you mean by "better graphics":

If you mean better and more creative art-styles, then no. We need more of those.

If you mean less attempts at spending millions of dollars trying to render the perfect shade of brown, then yes.

 

[Oroboros]

I'd rather devs focus on physics, AI, game mechanics, gameplay, and story than graphics personally. For instance-the shooters that come out nowadays seem to be rather stagnant in many ways IMO in that we rarely see anyone with the drive to take on physics in something approaching a degree of ambition. I remember playing the original Red Faction and being amazed at how I could use explosives to blow holes (or even tunnels!) through solid rock. I was super excited to see what would come out to top that as well-but I guess devs just don't seem to really give a darn much anymore.

Similarly, I'm rather disappointed with a lot of modern rpgs. IMO graphics should always be secondary to storytelling in rpgs, but it seems that the trend is moving away from that direction increasingly towards 'cinematic' rpgs. When I was playing games like the Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights games the sort of things that I thought about on how to improve the games were always game mechanics or storytelling related along the lines of "I'd like more options to complete this quest" or "It would be nice if the game acknowledged my race/class/gender/alignment choice more often" or "I'd like a few more class/race/weapons options included In the game" graphics were usually the furthest thing from my mind when playing these games, and I really wish devs would backpedal a bit from the whole graphics fixation going on in rpgs nowadays.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Yes. The games that have aged the best are the ones that did not focus heavily on hyper-realistic whatever graphics. Is it any wonder that Super Mario Bros. 3, Super Mario World, and hell, LoZ: Ocarina of Time are still so fondly remembered after 20 years? It's not for the bloody graphics I can tell you that. Focus should be more on providing memorable gameplay and/or story experiences.

 

[OpticalJunction]

Well if they're spending so much money on super realistic graphics to the point where they forget what makes a game FUN, yeah they should stop.

On the other hand, it's not like good graphics ever hurt a game.

As for consoles becoming too expensive, I think game companies will be forced to adapt to the market, even if it means losing some money. People just won't buy a console that's overpriced, and then they'll go out of business. Competition is probably a good indicator of how pricey future consoles will be.

 

[Saelune]

Games today are more praised for looking unique and stylized than "better". Worked for Windwaker, Minecraft, Terraria, and have ushered in a retro-revival with the tons of indie games gaining lots of love. I think thats better. Plus details make a better looking game in my opinion. Red Dead Redemption's eye for detail impressed me more than any Call of Duty did.

 

[Holythirteen]

Lots more "yes" in this thread than I anticipated. I was expecting more knee-jerk "go play your ps2 noob"-type stuff.

Have to agree myself, most of the games that blew me away the past couple years were not underwear-spoilers in the graphics department, they all had a clever idea, and they grabbed me by the throat with it. Bastion and FTL come to mind, I'm sure there's something awesome I'm forgetting, but... sleepy... ugh.

I'm glad the gamers of escapist are on board, but should we let the upper echelons of the gaming press know? They might be out of the loop. It drives me nuts to read a review where a game gets tea-bagged not for having bad graphics, but just for focusing on other aspects of the game. You know, all those little things you spend 90% of the game dealing with after you get over how great the water looks.

Of course, even if gamers voiced this opinion en masse, they would call us a "vocal minority" and ignore us. Less refined gamers (lol) DEMAND better graphics, or failing that, they want graphics that cost alot more because then they can convince themselves that they are better. And even forgetting the gamers, hardware and software companies WANT more demand for there fancy doodads and engines, and lets face it, as far as the masses are concerned, this new generation is just as big an improvement as the last one.

There's always gonna be room for improvement, but it does seem like there is a hell of a lot less room this generation. Of course, I didn't hook up my 360 to an HDTV until 2 years ago, so I feel like I'm still living in the last generation. Get off my lawn. I'm gonna go watch a let's play of a text game.

 

[Dendio]

I love games with believable characters and good story. More realistic body and facial movements go a long way towards maintaining immersion.

I say we continue to push the graphical capabilities of our games

 

[Something Amyss]

Maybe not entirely, but they shouldn't push so hard for such small differences.