The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
There has been some talk on this forum recently of people losing their love of gaming. Despite being a avid gamer for 17 years, it's also happened to me. Until recently i'd just put it down to getting older and moving on to other things but i dont think thats the answer. I'm still a big kid and i would have no problem spending the next week locked up in my room going through a decent Final Fantasy game.
So whats changed? Simple answer, the games have. They've got more advanced, flashier. There was a time long ago when i felt better graphics gave added enthusiasm to the latest edition of your favourite franchise but in the last couple of days i've finally come round to the idea that they're actually limiting in a way. I'll explain.
Last week i bought my first game in about a year, Broken Sword 4. Now i loved the first 2, mainly for their surrealism, humour and puzzles. I could quite happily go back and play them but i'm going through 4 and although it's not bad, something is missing. I think it's the puzzles. They seem far simpler in comparison to previous installments. Essentially it's find A, place in B, move on to next section whereas it there used to be 5 or 6 things to do in each area. So why have things been streamlined? I dont think it's anything to do with my usual complaint of dumbing down for the masses.
In the end my blame falls on graphics. The game has moved on from animation to a proper 3-D world and i got to thinking about development time and production costs. There's no doubt BS4 cost more than 1 or 2 but how much of that time and money went towards flashy graphics and new game engines instead of the game itself?
Looking back now i can see other examples of style over substance. The difference between Final Fantasy IX and X is a perfect example. The first was free-roaming and encouraged exploring, the latter linear because Squaresoft couldnt create a similar sized world and keep the same advanced graphics. Would something like Final Fantasy VII, with all the extras and open-endedness even be made in this generation? I think not and thats most defintely a bad thing from where i'm sitting. And so i finally get to my point.
Are graphics holding games back?
Would you rather have a huge game with reasonable graphics or a fairly restricted one that looked pretty? Are the days of epic games finished?
So whats changed? Simple answer, the games have. They've got more advanced, flashier. There was a time long ago when i felt better graphics gave added enthusiasm to the latest edition of your favourite franchise but in the last couple of days i've finally come round to the idea that they're actually limiting in a way. I'll explain.
Last week i bought my first game in about a year, Broken Sword 4. Now i loved the first 2, mainly for their surrealism, humour and puzzles. I could quite happily go back and play them but i'm going through 4 and although it's not bad, something is missing. I think it's the puzzles. They seem far simpler in comparison to previous installments. Essentially it's find A, place in B, move on to next section whereas it there used to be 5 or 6 things to do in each area. So why have things been streamlined? I dont think it's anything to do with my usual complaint of dumbing down for the masses.
In the end my blame falls on graphics. The game has moved on from animation to a proper 3-D world and i got to thinking about development time and production costs. There's no doubt BS4 cost more than 1 or 2 but how much of that time and money went towards flashy graphics and new game engines instead of the game itself?
Looking back now i can see other examples of style over substance. The difference between Final Fantasy IX and X is a perfect example. The first was free-roaming and encouraged exploring, the latter linear because Squaresoft couldnt create a similar sized world and keep the same advanced graphics. Would something like Final Fantasy VII, with all the extras and open-endedness even be made in this generation? I think not and thats most defintely a bad thing from where i'm sitting. And so i finally get to my point.
Are graphics holding games back?
Would you rather have a huge game with reasonable graphics or a fairly restricted one that looked pretty? Are the days of epic games finished?
pb wrote:
> But graphics artists work exclusively on graphics these days,
> while the programmers are allowed to get on with the game
> itself, so therefore it seems that they're letting the graphics
> guys do all the work. Gone are the days when one programmer
> would do the whole game.
Irrevelant. There is no point designing a huge game if the graphics artists havent the time, money or disk space to do it. They're essentially the lowest common denominator that everyone else has to work within the limits of.
> But graphics artists work exclusively on graphics these days,
> while the programmers are allowed to get on with the game
> itself, so therefore it seems that they're letting the graphics
> guys do all the work. Gone are the days when one programmer
> would do the whole game.
Irrevelant. There is no point designing a huge game if the graphics artists havent the time, money or disk space to do it. They're essentially the lowest common denominator that everyone else has to work within the limits of.
I'm beginning to think you dont like programmers, pb. :P
Programmers play a major role in a game's graphics. They might not produce content like models/levels yet they're still responsible for the graphics engine and all it encompasses (special effects, lighting models etc.). It can take at least as much time to get the engine done as it can to produce the actual content to be used in it.
Programmers play a major role in a game's graphics. They might not produce content like models/levels yet they're still responsible for the graphics engine and all it encompasses (special effects, lighting models etc.). It can take at least as much time to get the engine done as it can to produce the actual content to be used in it.
But graphics artists work exclusively on graphics these days, while the programmers are allowed to get on with the game itself, so therefore it seems that they're letting the graphics guys do all the work. Gone are the days when one programmer would do the whole game.
Damn those casual gaming basts!
Nin wrote:
> Yeah thats my point. They've got finite time, money and disk
> space for each game. If you take a step back graphically, you
> could make the whole game bigger with more to do. Despite games
> costing more (for us and the developers), they're getting
> shorter with each generation.
Yeah I know, it was pb suggesting this was down to some sort of laziness on the part of programmers that I was objecting too.
Anyway, I think perhaps you cant identify one element thats "holding games back". Its perfect true that amount of content is going to suffer if it takes more resources to produce the same amount of content at a higher quality. But I think this is something they tend to adjust to over time as developers build up libraries of stock content and/or find easier ways to produce assets. Even if you reduced graphical quality, you're still eating up far more time in other areas like sound, gameplay mechanics, AI, physics engines and so on. You'd only be delaying the inevitable essentially.
And you have to add in your "dumbing down" point as well. I think theres been a clear recognition from developers/publishers that producing content that 95% of games players wont ever see is pointless.
> Yeah thats my point. They've got finite time, money and disk
> space for each game. If you take a step back graphically, you
> could make the whole game bigger with more to do. Despite games
> costing more (for us and the developers), they're getting
> shorter with each generation.
Yeah I know, it was pb suggesting this was down to some sort of laziness on the part of programmers that I was objecting too.
Anyway, I think perhaps you cant identify one element thats "holding games back". Its perfect true that amount of content is going to suffer if it takes more resources to produce the same amount of content at a higher quality. But I think this is something they tend to adjust to over time as developers build up libraries of stock content and/or find easier ways to produce assets. Even if you reduced graphical quality, you're still eating up far more time in other areas like sound, gameplay mechanics, AI, physics engines and so on. You'd only be delaying the inevitable essentially.
And you have to add in your "dumbing down" point as well. I think theres been a clear recognition from developers/publishers that producing content that 95% of games players wont ever see is pointless.
Garin wrote:
> Ahem, given that graphics consume more time in game development
> than any other element I'm not sure you can call it laziness if
> they concentrate on that rather than gameplay.
Yeah thats my point. They've got finite time, money and disk space for each game. If you take a step back graphically, you could make the whole game bigger with more to do. Despite games costing more (for us and the developers), they're getting shorter with each generation.
> Ahem, given that graphics consume more time in game development
> than any other element I'm not sure you can call it laziness if
> they concentrate on that rather than gameplay.
Yeah thats my point. They've got finite time, money and disk space for each game. If you take a step back graphically, you could make the whole game bigger with more to do. Despite games costing more (for us and the developers), they're getting shorter with each generation.
I do tend to think that gameplay is far more important that graphics. Sure, a great looking game is a plus but it should never be the be all and end all.
I think the Wii is a good casing point. Not as sharp graphically as it's rivals but there are some great games with good, not great graphics.
I'd much rather play a game tuned to gameplay than graphics but I think people tend to buy games by what they see.
I think the Wii is a good casing point. Not as sharp graphically as it's rivals but there are some great games with good, not great graphics.
I'd much rather play a game tuned to gameplay than graphics but I think people tend to buy games by what they see.
Ahem, given that graphics consume more time in game development than any other element I'm not sure you can call it laziness if they concentrate on that rather than gameplay.
Isn't it just lazy programmers who use great graphics as an excuse to not bother with the gameplay dynamics?
Great Graphics + Great Gameplay = Great game. Take the first away and you still have a great game that just doesn't look so hot, take the second and you have a crap game that looks nice.
So the ideal is both, but that's down to the programmers and not the artists.
Great Graphics + Great Gameplay = Great game. Take the first away and you still have a great game that just doesn't look so hot, take the second and you have a crap game that looks nice.
So the ideal is both, but that's down to the programmers and not the artists.
There has been some talk on this forum recently of people losing their love of gaming. Despite being a avid gamer for 17 years, it's also happened to me. Until recently i'd just put it down to getting older and moving on to other things but i dont think thats the answer. I'm still a big kid and i would have no problem spending the next week locked up in my room going through a decent Final Fantasy game.
So whats changed? Simple answer, the games have. They've got more advanced, flashier. There was a time long ago when i felt better graphics gave added enthusiasm to the latest edition of your favourite franchise but in the last couple of days i've finally come round to the idea that they're actually limiting in a way. I'll explain.
Last week i bought my first game in about a year, Broken Sword 4. Now i loved the first 2, mainly for their surrealism, humour and puzzles. I could quite happily go back and play them but i'm going through 4 and although it's not bad, something is missing. I think it's the puzzles. They seem far simpler in comparison to previous installments. Essentially it's find A, place in B, move on to next section whereas it there used to be 5 or 6 things to do in each area. So why have things been streamlined? I dont think it's anything to do with my usual complaint of dumbing down for the masses.
In the end my blame falls on graphics. The game has moved on from animation to a proper 3-D world and i got to thinking about development time and production costs. There's no doubt BS4 cost more than 1 or 2 but how much of that time and money went towards flashy graphics and new game engines instead of the game itself?
Looking back now i can see other examples of style over substance. The difference between Final Fantasy IX and X is a perfect example. The first was free-roaming and encouraged exploring, the latter linear because Squaresoft couldnt create a similar sized world and keep the same advanced graphics. Would something like Final Fantasy VII, with all the extras and open-endedness even be made in this generation? I think not and thats most defintely a bad thing from where i'm sitting. And so i finally get to my point.
Are graphics holding games back?
Would you rather have a huge game with reasonable graphics or a fairly restricted one that looked pretty? Are the days of epic games finished?
So whats changed? Simple answer, the games have. They've got more advanced, flashier. There was a time long ago when i felt better graphics gave added enthusiasm to the latest edition of your favourite franchise but in the last couple of days i've finally come round to the idea that they're actually limiting in a way. I'll explain.
Last week i bought my first game in about a year, Broken Sword 4. Now i loved the first 2, mainly for their surrealism, humour and puzzles. I could quite happily go back and play them but i'm going through 4 and although it's not bad, something is missing. I think it's the puzzles. They seem far simpler in comparison to previous installments. Essentially it's find A, place in B, move on to next section whereas it there used to be 5 or 6 things to do in each area. So why have things been streamlined? I dont think it's anything to do with my usual complaint of dumbing down for the masses.
In the end my blame falls on graphics. The game has moved on from animation to a proper 3-D world and i got to thinking about development time and production costs. There's no doubt BS4 cost more than 1 or 2 but how much of that time and money went towards flashy graphics and new game engines instead of the game itself?
Looking back now i can see other examples of style over substance. The difference between Final Fantasy IX and X is a perfect example. The first was free-roaming and encouraged exploring, the latter linear because Squaresoft couldnt create a similar sized world and keep the same advanced graphics. Would something like Final Fantasy VII, with all the extras and open-endedness even be made in this generation? I think not and thats most defintely a bad thing from where i'm sitting. And so i finally get to my point.
Are graphics holding games back?
Would you rather have a huge game with reasonable graphics or a fairly restricted one that looked pretty? Are the days of epic games finished?