Cutting edge graphics. Anyone else bored ?

[QUOTE="Ps2stony"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Ps2stony"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]

[QUOTE="Ps2stony"]You can't call yourself a PC gamer if you don't think graphics make the game.sSubZerOo

True story. Better looking graphics enhance the enjoyment you get out of a game by much more than anyone cares to admit. There's a reason why outdated games are so difficult to go back to and replay, and it's not cause the gameplay was much worse back in the day ;) Many people seem to consider gameplay as the holy grail, and graphics as the devil, and renounce graphics quicker than the Pope renounces gay marriage, but graphics are a huge part of a game.

Tell that to the huge amount of people playing Starcraft, Diablo 2 and WoW.. All games with huge fan bases that dwarf all other communities usually...

And it completely depends on the game.. For instance I still think Baldur's Gate 2 is still pleasing to the eyes due to its art direction..

Starcraft graphics are pretty decent (although everyone will very likely migrate to SC2 when that comes out) and WoW is hardly an outdated game. Diablo 2, I guess, but how many Diablo 2's are there in the world? There's always an exception to every rule.

WoW isn't that graphically intense game... It gets no where near the visuals of say Half-Life 2, a game 4 years old.. Sooo thats my point.. Graphics arn't king..

No... I own a 8800 GTS and played Crysis as well.. It looks fanastic.. But it ISN'T NECCESARY.. Half-Life 2 and FEAR for instance still look fanastic in my eyes.. Yes its a plus to have better graphics but I do not need bleeding edge graphics to begin with.. And apparently neither does Gamespot with how their ratings go.. Or really any professional reviewer..

Ironic seeing as the majority of great games out there for the pc are by no means cutting edge :lol: thanks for the laugh though.. I am glad you set me straight, sense games like Sins of a Solar Empire have become so popular and its by no means the best looking game..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Ps2stony"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Ps2stony"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]

[QUOTE="Ps2stony"]You can't call yourself a PC gamer if you don't think graphics make the game.Ps2stony

True story. Better looking graphics enhance the enjoyment you get out of a game by much more than anyone cares to admit. There's a reason why outdated games are so difficult to go back to and replay, and it's not cause the gameplay was much worse back in the day ;) Many people seem to consider gameplay as the holy grail, and graphics as the devil, and renounce graphics quicker than the Pope renounces gay marriage, but graphics are a huge part of a game.

Tell that to the huge amount of people playing Starcraft, Diablo 2 and WoW.. All games with huge fan bases that dwarf all other communities usually...

And it completely depends on the game.. For instance I still think Baldur's Gate 2 is still pleasing to the eyes due to its art direction..

Starcraft graphics are pretty decent (although everyone will very likely migrate to SC2 when that comes out) and WoW is hardly an outdated game. Diablo 2, I guess, but how many Diablo 2's are there in the world? There's always an exception to every rule.

WoW isn't that graphically intense game... It gets no where near the visuals of say Half-Life 2, a game 4 years old.. Sooo thats my point.. Graphics arn't king..

No... I own a 8800 GTS and played Crysis as well.. It looks fanastic.. But it ISN'T NECCESARY.. Half-Life 2 and FEAR for instance still look fanastic in my eyes.. Yes its a plus to have better graphics but I do not need bleeding edge graphics to begin with.. And apparently neither does Gamespot with how their ratings go.. Or really any professional reviewer..

Ironic seeing as the majority of great games out there for the pc are by no means cutting edge :lol: thanks for the laugh though.. I am glad you set me straight, sense games like Sins of a Solar Empire have become so popular and its by no means the best looking game..

No it is not :| Homeworld 2 which came out in 2003 or so is superior looking game then Sins.

Oh god, make the quote abuse stop!

Anyways, I agree. Graphics are given way too much importance. I still go back and play Half-Life, Jedi Knight, Fallout, etc. all the time, and I enjoy them a whole lot more than most games that have come out in the past couple years. Hell, I still get a kick out of Zork! By no means is gameplay the holy grail of gaming, it's a broad term that gets thrown around too easily. Every genre needs to focus on different aspects. FPS's need excellent level design and atmosphere, graphics are secondary. Anyone can make a dark corridor look good after a few minutes with 3DSmax, but it takes creativity to think up the vertigo-inducing levels that made Jedi Knight so crazy. Same goes for Half-Life's atmosphere.

Anyway, that's my two cents

Some excellet points here, but let me redirect this thread now..

I agree Crysis is probably the best game right now when it comes to graphics AND gameplay. But, many Crysis players (I'm pretty sure) needed to upgrade their computer in order to run the game correctly.. Personnally, this is the only game I can't run right now on my computer, and I would probably upgrade myself if I had the money to do so right now.. But why ?

A console life expectancy is about 5 years.. right ? Xbox 360 and PS3 are still worth around 400$.. If the tendancy is right.. another generation of console will come out in 3-4 years by now.. and their cost should be around 500-600$.. A computer need to be upgraded every 2-3 years to keep up with the games.. each time several hundred dollars is needed...

I mean the fault is ours.. We are the ones asking for better graphics at the expense of gameplay (sometimes ! Not all games are like that.. Crysis is a right exemple)

Now.. how can we turn this around ? The Orange Box, Sins of a Solar Empire are just two good exemples of what developpers can do with, not bad graphics, but something everyone can probably run with a 2-3 years old computer...

Again.. Speak up people ! :)

I think crysis set the standard for future games, there really isn't much or anything left to improve graphic wise imo.

I mean what else can a game have graphically that crysis doesn't have? not much from my view.

i think it should end with that, and devs shouldnt be trying to show off any new shiny crap.

I have to disagree with a few of you

Graphics do not a game make....

I have a computer that can chew up any game and spit it out including Crysis ( not maxed true...but pretty sweet notheless !!!!)

GoW, CoD,FFoW,Bioshock,Oblivion etc all maxed with V-sync on, 4 to 8 AA ,with 16AF etc at 16x10 blah blah blah...

Want to know what game I'm playing ....???

Baldurs Gate 2....

Just because it looks almost photo-realistic doesn't make it great game....

Sure, I'll agree that it does enhance the game if the graphics are great ( aka Crysis) but you don't play a game for the graphics...or do you ?

STALKER, Witcher etc are not among the most next gen looking but they are better games then any listed above ( except BioShock...I liked that game...not the story so much but the atmosphere.....)

Wait ....isn't that just playing a game just for the graphics....!!!!

So I wouldn't mind a grat game with next gen graphics.....I just haven't seen any yet....

lol Homeworld 2 is not superior to Sins in graphics. It maybe has better looking explosions, but textures are better in Sins, and the overall look is better in Sins.F1_2004

Disagree, the textures mabye the only better looking things.. But models, effects, explosions in general are far better looking.. This is not to say Sins is a bad looking game, they wanted it to run on multiple systems and the game is pleasing to the eyes.. My point is now a days all games are looking great, and it should by no means be the deciding point in purchasing or rating a game...

I have to disagree with a few of you

Graphics do not a game make....

I have a computer that can chew up any game and spit it out including Crysis ( not maxed true...but pretty sweet notheless !!!!)

GoW, CoD,FFoW,Bioshock,Oblivion etc all maxed with V-sync on, 4 to 8 AA ,with 16AF etc at 16x10 blah blah blah...

Want to know what game I'm playing ....???

Baldurs Gate 2....

Just because it looks almost photo-realistic doesn't make it great game....

Sure, I'll agree that it does enhance the game if the graphics are great ( aka Crysis) but you don't play a game for the graphics...or do you ?

STALKER, Witcher etc are not among the most next gen looking but they are better games then any listed above ( except BioShock...I liked that game...not the story so much but the atmosphere.....)

Wait ....isn't that just playing a game just for the graphics....!!!!

So I wouldn't mind a grat game with next gen graphics.....I just haven't seen any yet....

OgreB

lol, I was thinking about getting Baldur's Gate 2 but I was put off because I think the graphics won't look good. Does it look like Sanitarium or Planescape Torment? Because I'm OK with that. Graphics were getting quite good when they were 2d, but when 3d came everything became more complicated.

I don't think you really need cutting edge graphics. I have fun playing Civilization which doesn't have good graphics. I think that before graphics were so great imagination filled the gaps.

I think that what developers should work on now is A.I. and physics. Both can give quite a lot of eye candy, but they can also serve the gameplay.

[QUOTE="JP_Russell"]

Yes, I covered that in my post. Yes, there are games with great graphics, but gameplay that could use a lot of work. But the point I was trying to make is that the devs of those games wouldn't do any better on the gameplay even if they hadn't tried to make the graphics better. It would be possible to make the gameplay better, but not for the developers of that game. In every game I've played with good graphics and lackluster gameplay, I've felt the gameplay suffered due to the incompetence of the particular devs who worked on it, not because of the areas of focus they chose. They made the gameplay as good as they personally were capable of at that time, as good as their competence allowed for (again, barring cases where the game was unfinished for whatever reason). It wouldn't matter how much more they focused on gameplay, I don't believe they could do any better. Some other dev team, sure, but not them.

I don't know much about Halo 2 as I'm strictly a PC gamer, but okay, let's say they did add all those things instead. That doesn't mean they would have implemented them as well as they may have promised, or that they would make the game experience any better (my money in both cases would be on that they wouldn't).

Srinivassa

I never said they were retarded. When I say "competence," I don't mean they don't have any or enough. Every single development team will not be perfectly competent in some areas. That's what I mean when I say their own incompetence holds them back; I'm not saying that they are in fact incompetent, I'm saying that while they may be competent (very competent, even), they're not competent enough. Until they improve their own capabilities, they will almost never surpass their limit.

And I never said anything about them being unable to make good gameplay. You seem to be mistaking what I'm saying here as only applying to devs who create what I feel are bad games. What I'm saying applies to all devs. Every single developer will have their limits for a certain project they undertake. And all games with good or great gameplay could have been better one way or another, but their developers themselves likely couldn't have done much or any better.

[QUOTE="Srinivassa"]

Really, I do buy most of these games for the visual upgrade, but I always feel like I'm playing the same games I have been playing since about 1994. Not that I have any great ideas for gameplay. Maybe no one else does either, including game designers. That would be kind of sad, but it may be true. Maybe they really can't improve the gameplay of their games because they are out of ideas. Maybe they have no choice but to make the same games over and over again with better visuals. I like to think there's people with ideas that just keep getting shunted out though.

Srinivassa

First of all, I don't agree at all about the gameplay. I don't feel we're getting the same games over and over. There are some instances of that, yes, but that of course does not make the game bad automatically. I don't need innovation from every game I play, I need some quality first and foremost. I also feel that saying they're the same games is an overstatement in most cases that lack innovation. Most games I've played that do not innovate still have some freshness to them, their own interpretation of an old idea, if you will.

Which brings me to my second point. You seem to be basing how good the gameplay of games these days is entirely on how new and innovative they are. I'm not. So there's one reason we don't agree about the gameplay. Overall quality of the gameplay that's there is what matters to me most. Innovation is great, but without quality it's nothing (the reverse isn't true for me, though having both is of course always better). I think this is perhaps why you're misunderstanding my original point; you see what determines how good a game is differently from me. Since quality is a much more variable thing than innovation, how good a game is, how "competent" and capable the devs are, is also variable for me. For you, it would seem it's either good, or it's not, dependent on what they did that was new.

While I'm sure there are devs with great ideas that aren't being given a chance, I don't agree with your theory that it's because they're not deemed appealing enough to the masses; I don't think it's anymore than devs with unoriginal ideas. Perhaps you're right, but I don't think so. I also want to clarify that I don't think devs are all out of ideas. Like I said before, there are very few cases where I feel devs make the exact same game as before, so I think there are plenty of devs who have somewhat new, if not innovative, ideas. And of course, even for some of those who are out of ideas, so long as they do well with old ideas, I'll still like it.

Either that or stick to old games for the PC, or things like WoW and Sims that don't require you to shell out $1000 every two years.Srinivassa

You don't need $1000 every two years. Heck, I could build an entire, high-end PC from scratch for that much. For $500-$600 every two years, you could easily keep your machine at the high-end consistently (not counting the money you can get back for selling your old parts being replaced). Less to keep it mid-range.

Am I the only one tired of seeing new games coming out with computer killing graphics ? Not that my computer can't run the lasts games but I'm only wondering when will we hit the "graphic limit". When will we see a game and say : "ok.. we can't possibly ask for better graphics now" ?

Because, except for a few exceptions, some companies are really working TOO hard on graphics at the expense of gameplay. And that's the point in a game that will keep me coming back : gameplay !

Speak up people ! :)

Keb101

That and the fact that some games may put graphics 1st and have horrible gameplay.

Good graphics are nice, but I think I'd rather see more developers focus on an art style other than the pursuit of photorealism more often.BladeMaster84

I agree art style is important. We will hit a wall with photorealism eventually and really whats the point. Its so boring. But also gameplay is important. If Daiblo 2 wasn't so fun I wouldn't have played it for years after it came out.

Nice graphics have their place, just like many other aspects of games. I think the main problem arises when developers find out they can do this effect or that effect and just throw it in for good measure when it adds nothing to the atmosphere of the game or how it's played.

When it comes to graphics before gameplay, I do think there is some impact there as well. Developers have a finite budget (and finite time) to work with, so of course if they blow 60% of time/money on graphics that is going to have an impact on other aspects of the game. That is common sense. I've been on the forums for enough games in development to see devs post saying if you want X feature included they will have to cut Y feature. If you want photo-realistic graphics, then the time they spend on that is time they cannot spend on something else. It has nothing to do with the competence/skill of the developer, and everything to do with working to an often ridiculous deadline with not quite enough money to do the job properly (ie, they can't just hire in X amount of extra people to get the job done before the deadline if the money isn't there).

From everything I've read over the years, game development is all about compromises and negotiating the best bang for the buck. All games could be better if you throw enough money (and man-hours) at them.

Personally I won't say I'm 'bored' of cutting edge graphics, but I do feel they have their place and are often included unnecessarily in many games. Making engines/games that will only run on the latest hardware is self-defeating for developers, because they narrow their potential market, which is another reason why I feel cutting edge graphics are not essential in the majority of games. Every now and then, however, its nice to see a game pushing the envelope and letting people know what is possible, and what we can all look forward to running in the future as we upgrade our hardware, even if that's two or three years down the line. When I first got Unreal I could only play it in software mode. I went out and bought my first 3D accelerator card just to play that game - so yes, a game enticed me to 'upgrade' to something new so that I could see it in all its glory. And the game was stunning at the time. Even then I couldn't run it maxed out - but a couple of years later I could, and enjoyed playing through it again.

So, when I play Crysis on the lowest settings on my current rig, with just textures on high, and a couple of other settings on medium, I know that a couple of years down the line I'll be able to play that game with everything turned on high and enjoy it as it was meant to be seen. Crysis is like the current-gen showcase of what is possible, and we need those kinds of games. But we don't need all games to be like that, and that is where the problem lies. Other developers all try and catch up with each other because they have it in their minds that graphics are more important than gameplay, and maybe when it comes to selling games they are right. Too many gamers seem to keep asking for cutting edge graphics, even though the majority can't run them.

Developers are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. :/