Did graphics ruin gaming?

This is just a theory, but is it possible that making games pretty is taking away from gameplay and content? To me it seems to be upgraded graphics in the same recipes over and over. Developers are pushing the boundries on graphics, but seldom in gameplay and content. They are taking too much effort in making the path look pretty, so you are forced to go down that path so it wont be in vain, I feel kind of let down by nextgen for not delivering anyhthing more to the table than graphics i suppose.. just want to hear what you guys think

It's a factor, sure.

@jKryptonite: yes game developers are trying hard to deliver better graphics, but it's not the only thing they are going about, look at witcher 3 , it has got a lot better graphics along with a lot of great game play content, metal gear solid 5 , tomb raider, bloodborne, batman arkham knight until dawn are some other games which has balanced both the graphics and game play.

For some games most definitely, but I think many game developers don't consider top-end graphics as essential as the small sum that push it over gameplay.

The developers that stand out to me, are the ones who are still doing it old school..Bethesda, cd pr. red, rockstar,nintendo..you have to wait ages for these games and its well worth the wait...i've grown weary of the hype train thats riding pretty much everything else

It really depends on what you play. You're naming mostly big name publishers and studios that produce AAA games. In that AAA market, graphics will always be very important but even in that area there will always be a range. Fallout 4 looks better than any previous Fallout games but in a lot of ways it might be considered primitive looking when compared to Unreal 5 engine games or the latest Call of Duty or Battlefront. However, the game more than makes up for it in complexity and other areas so it still scores 9/10 in many review sites.

Also, there are a ton of indie games out there that don't have the budgets of AAA games that rely on artistic merit over graphical fidelity. Some of these games use retro "pixel" graphics but are still amazing games such as "Lone Survivor". Other games use simplistic graphics but crazy, over the top gameplay types like "Papers, Please". The financial entry point to create your own game is far less than it used to be, which means that developers have much more opportunity to experiment. I would say that graphics being king over all else is actually something that is less common today than it had been in the past because of this.

-Byshop

That's a really good theory you have there.

Yes & no.

Of course you want nice graphics in a game, but it's not the be all and end all (look at Fallout for example). But the worst thing I think is the constant obsessive comparisons between each version (ie. PS4/XB1 & PC) of every game that is released, down to the last blade of grass or fps. It's beyond ridiculous. And sites like Digital Foundry don't help.

I think realistic graphics turned a lot of younger gamers into spoiled asses. Graphics can be great and really add to a game but it's the gameplay and story that make it special. Similar to a woman, personality always trumps looks.

No. Graphics improved gaming experience.

You fail to understand that the workload is being divided to multiple people. Like if a core team, let's say 3-10 people are focusing on the gameplay and all mechanics entirely, they can still have a massive army of artists and composers and what not to help make the other stuff. It doesn't happen with the cost of gameplay, unless the team fails to prioritize it's goals. I'd say that it's actually more common in indie games to see stuff where the artistic presentation seems to far overweight the importance of gameplay experience.

As mentioned above, Witcher 3 is a good example of combining both. Also Souls titles are a great example; Demon's Souls looked ugly as hell with focus entirely on gameplay, but after the success they were able to hire proper artists for the follow-ups, while the gameplay only improved (atleast in my opinion).

There ARE many cases too, where publisher just want's to release a flashy product, while they don't really give a shit about how it plays (don't hire a proper team or just give a redicilous timetable), as long as it barely works. That's bullshit.

@groowagon: my thought is, because the graphics get so expensive that you cannot risk anything when it comes to gameplay..maybe it chokes innovation that way..i can't say i had a nextgen moment yet, because everything plays the same as last gen...vr is going to change that i guess..

@Byshop: i'm really not refering to indies..i'm thinking more of the same recipe used over and over with better graphics because its safe..the new assassins creed game could have been a ps2 title if it hadn't been for the graphics( i'm being crude) the zelda games bring something new to the table every time in comparison..games like fallout and gta have established their own universe and are expected to follow tradition, and i'm fine with that. they are pushing the boundries of the genre..it's the "same game-new skin"model i find a bit disturbing..

To be honest we as gamers want to always point the blame at developers and publishers for the "state of gaming", when in reality we have ourselves to blame on how entitled gamers can be, how in the hell have we determine that a 7 or a 8 scoring game somehow = crap lately is also fubar. Lastly the constant qqing about AAAA games is not only getting old fast but quite annoying as well, it's like gamers spend more time qqing about games, than actually playing them.

I don't really think so myself but then again I'm not really one who feels that gameplay has suffered or is bad. Personally I feel that gameplay has for the most part continued to have improved over the years. As for innovation I really don't subscribe to the notion of doing innovation for innovation's sake. If you have gameplay that does the job and does it well then there's really no need to change simply to make it different. Also it's easy to be innovative early on but it gets more and more difficult as time go's by and all the new paths have been explored. We've had dual analog controllers with triggers for some time now so I think it's gotten pretty difficult for developers to be more innovative in a way that improves over current gameplay methods.

No, people buying the same shit over and over again ruins gaming. Developers are less willing to take risks and want the safe bet. If people keep buying shit like COD every year, they will keep putting out a shinier turd every year.

Another thing to consider is that it's gonna be harder to push boundaries the longer that the medium has been around. Like, take photography or movies for example. Around the mid 1800's when photography was relatively new, it was relatively easier to push boundaries because of course it was. The medium was new, so there was more of a chance that what someone wanted to do ended up being something that had never been done before. But fastforward to 2015. Technology has made the medium more accessible than ever, and the medium has had more than 200 years of people doing the best they can with it. The result is a LOT of absolutely amazing work, but not nearly as much of that amazing work is gonna be groundbreaking or push boundaries simply because the medium has been so thoroughly explored. If you're the fifth guy to do a thing, there's a chance that whatever you end up doing is gonna be new and novel, something that pushes boundaries. But if you're the BILLIONTH guy to do something, there's a far greater chance that whatever you do is gonna fall into the "already been done, I've seen it before" category.

It sure does have a part in this, but I blame the obsession of making everything online and multiplayer(and "social" ugh) to be a bigger problem.

I think in some ways it does but if you look at most games they tend to downgrade the graphics a lot because of consoles, so even tho some game developers may sacrifice time spent on story and other gameplay elements for time on making the game look good, there is also many who does not. But in any case the better the graphics the more staff is usually needed, programmers, 3D artists, animators etc....

But with that said , graphics is no excuse for a bad game but look at Crysis, it has never been about the story there, it´s all about the graphics and nothing else.

It's not a theory. It's a thought; a hypothesis, at best.

Sure, they take the same open gameplay as Far Cry (where it was lauded), add in the suit powers, and the game was "all about the graphics and nothing else." cue eyeroll

What are you on about?

Crysis has never been about anything but to show of the max pc graphics.

It's hard to say. I think what really is killing game is the amount of money flowing into the industry. If you think about it, the gaming industry has grown so much in the past decade.

Case in point,
http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Games_Economy-11-4-14.pdf
In under a decade, the industry has increased in sales alone by 2 times. The industry is growing 4times faster than the economy. What is even crazier is that the industry did not get hit hard by the recession in 2008 despite the fact that a huge amount of other industries did. With that said, if you look at industries that have also experience this type of exponential growth in short time, they almost all did it through media/commercials. You would be shocked to see how much companies have invested in understand how to create incentives for the brain to like certain products and how to make sure the consumer doesn't know this. For example, look at some studies chocolate/sugar companies did on the human brain; how to overdose the human brain with sugar without the brain know it's being overdosed so that it keeps wanting more (ie more of their product)

I think the gaming companies are doing something similar to that. They have figured out how to create this incentive in many ways. Pre-Order incentives, graphics likely play a part too.

I'm saying that claim is completely inaccurate.

@PETERAKO: @BassMan: Those are also clear factors, along with what tc is saying. Of course the largest contribution to the imagination-less state of gaming these days has to fall on the gaming consumer.

Focus on graphics over game design, originality and content? Check.

Shoehorning online mode in to almost every game even when it's not needed or wanted? Check.

Devs being lazy by repeatedly making "new" games just like old ones year after year with simple roster updates? Check.

Gamers eating up the same shit year after year while avoiding new things like the plague? Check.

There are plenty of games with great graphics and gameplay. Such games age well and people continue to play them for years to come. Just take a look at Thief: The Metal Age or Mafia: The City of Lost Heaven or Max Payne 2 etc, all of them were ahead of their time in terms of graphics and that's why they are still easier to get into, even for newcomers.

HOWEVER, most casual gamers of today prefer style over substance. Give them something shallow like Battlefront with pretty graphics and it'll sell MILLIONS. Others take notice and follow the same trend. But I think gamers should be blamed, not graphics.

@Berserker1_5: https://www.reddit.com/r/DestinyTheGame/comments/2itlvw/destiny_addictive_formula_detailed_by_bungie/ this article blew my mind..

If anything, I think retro graphics are ruining gaming a bit. I'll say, I like crisp graphics but i don't need them to always be next gen for games that just don't need that. But the terrible and lazy effort that i see in these retro games really puts me off.

So if a game has great graphics, i can't see how this makes it anything but a better game. My favourite game when i was younger was Ultima 7, it had a combination of very detailed graphics mixed with non linear and open ended gameplay and story progression. I can't think of any games recently i liked that had bad graphics, i just don't like playing a game that looks like it could have run on an atari game console from 30 years ago.

Graphics has enable games to be more story focused and less gameplay focus. Game developers who believe their ideas are "cool" and original are finally able to infect the world with their poor writing skills by forcing gamers to endure their unskippable cutscenes that demonstrates their "masterpiece".

@jKryptonite: it's unfortunate this flies by people's head. They attacked each other and graphics instead of attacking the people who are using it for different effects :/

Yeah, I find too many games focus on being pretty these days. I'd rather have a super well designed NES game over a beautifully boring Xbone game any day.

I actually thought of this before. And because of graphics and stuff games are taking longer to come out. So I guess it kinda did, but there are still lots of games that manage to still be pretty fun too and not just pretty.

@jKryptonite: what games are you talking about, specifically?

call of duty / assassin's creed aside (because as franchises we know there'll only ever be small incremental gameplay improvements so as not to steer too far from the formula that sells), in the past twelve months i can only think of the order 1886 as a game that i felt had focused on graphics to the detriment of the gameplay

crysis is a really good example of how great graphics can further enhance what already is a great gaming experience

And i could not disagree more.

Crysis was a lackluster attempt to make a game that had nothing going for itself other than amazing graphics, the story , the mechanics and the rest was beyond mediocre.

A reason why it was never a major success and why we are not seeing it in a 4th .

Most casuals only look at the graphics and sound when purchasing, which is why we get games like Star Wars: Battlefront. Sadly games like that are normal now.

By the number, checking off all the boxes games that take little risks. I understand why big publishers do it, but it still sucks for gaming as a whole.

ditto.

it actually sold really well on the pc, at least 3mill+. plus there was a spin off, a second and third instalment. if it wasn't a major success we wouldn't have seen a second game.

and i really can't be arsed getting into a debate over whether crysis was good or not. some people get it. some don't. for the people who did appreciate the semi open world levels, the myriad of choices to approach a situation, the destructive environments, the top notch shooting mechanics and everything else so good about the game, the graphics were like the icing on the cake and took a great gaming experience and further enhanced it

What it did was make it to costly to make more specialty games. Instead everything need to be main stream which mean many games have good complexity taken out and bad simplicity is added in.

Hmm

"Big-budget shooters Crysis 3 and Dead Space 3 did not meet Electronic Arts' sales expectations, despite topping sales charts, the company revealed today in a post-earnings financial call. EA CFO Blake Jorgensen said sales of these titles "came in below our forecast." Specific sales figures for the games were not divulged.."

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-crysis-3-and-dead-space-3-did-not-meet-expectations/1100-6408060/

i believe the expenses of great graphics is what caused konami to quit AAA. nintendo and other japanese companies are struggling to keep up...i remember nintendo said they needed twice the time and staffsize to make games in hd.

For the time being, yes. History is repeating itself again but this time around we have far less noticeable improvements yet games priding themselves on them are more shallow then ever.

No, the fandom did.

Konami quit AAA gaming because they suck and ruined their games with insane microtransactions.

Oh and because they lost Kojima, without him they have as much talent as a 2$ .........

well yeah, it all went to shit after the first game and warhead. c2 was good but story / enemy / style wise a whole new game, c3 was just horrendous. we were talking about the first game though or at least i was.

the point i was making irrespective of crysis was how great graphics can make a good gaming experience even better. fallout 4's atmosphere is good but could have been improved with better visuals for example. i wouldn't want to see developers place less emphasis on them. i'm still waiting for op to give examples of all these games that place more emphasis on graphics than gameplay / content which aren't call of duty or assassin's creed

This isnot theory. Its truth.

Sad truth. Studios are pushing for bigger or more open worlds and better graphics.

Focus seems lost on tight and compelling story and fresh n better gameplay.

Most titles are iterations. Assassin creed goes on for a decade.

Cod for decade

Battle field for decade

Farcy for decade

I rember playing original far cry in 2005!

Hitman codename 47 perhaps in 2000! And sice then not much improvement in AI.

Just crazy open worlds

@phoenix5352: For Batman:AK(I won't comment since I didn't played it), for rest of game I will agree except MGSV:PP because sorry that one was huge disappointing game when it comes to MGS it just doesn't hold water when it comes to everything compared old MGS except having nicer graphics.

Huge MGS fan myself, just wasn't impressed one bit with MGSV becuase for "last game"(yeah right, we all know what that means when Kojima says it =P) it was way too much incomplete plus they messed royally up old MGS characters(WTF they did to Ocelot? Who is that MAN they gave me in MGSV? That ain't my Shalashaska no sir!). So MGS V:PP isn't good example to debunk OP's theory since MGS V is exactly the case OP mentioned, great graphics though lacks game content,story and everything that isn't making 'rule 34' version of Stefanie Joosten.

I'd say it plays a factor. This gen, it feels like all the quality gameplay focused games are found from indies and on Wii U. Neither of which boast cutting edge visual tech.

Thing is, let's not blow smoke up each others' asses pretending we all lived once in a gaming utopia with all great games simply because graphics weren't able to reach the level of fidelity they are capable of presently. There were games in the past that were terrible looking AND played like shit, just like they're games today that look amazing, and play like shit. Graphics are not to blame for that, it's the developers' priorities. Mostly what pisses me off these days is developers always choosing 30 fps instead of 60 so they can squeeze out a bit more presentation. All games should be running at 60 fps standard by now.

But if you want to blame someone, blame developers and by extension the audiences that prefer graphics over solid gameplay. But they don't even prefer it, as nobody says to themselves, "**** gameplay, it's got good graphics!". It's just graphics are the first impression.

@thatsnotmyname: yes , agreed on that, mgs 5 did screw up the story, which is actually the main part of the series, but when it comes to graphics and game play it has done a pretty good job. but it doesn't look like that in the pursuit of graphics they have spoiled the story, it is mostly because of the konami and kojima issues

Perhaps ! My theory is that Guitar Hero and the arrival of Xbox pretty much shitted everything after. Why ?

Guitar Hero boosted the sales of the PS2, many people whom would laugh at gamers wanted to play and so started to play other shallow games and started the Dude/Bro gaming.

Xbox shitted gaming by bringing PC title to the consol market. I know other PC games found a way to a consol in the past but this time around it was the same quality. Before that, consol had their own unique games and PC had its own unique games, which started the graphics war and blurred the lines.

@Archangel3371: See controllers are a big problem. Before the Xbox, PC always had the same schematic to control games, now they can use a consol controller to play. Since PS2/Xbox days, everything has been streamlined. PS2 started the trend of always having the same controller gen after gen and Xbox bring PC games to consol ... so in a way, consol games to PC and so PC adopted our controllers and so we are now stuck because of multiplat games that need to have all the same controller layout.

Only Nintendo still try to change the controller gen after gen to create new game play, new interaction with the game. And this is also why Nintendo don't get any multiplat they don't always have the same number of buttons than the competition.