Topic: If graphics are so important to developers...

[tendoboy1984]

Then why are so many people leaving these big companies to focus on making smaller games with minimal effort? Most games on the App Store look like they were made using Flash. That's hardly pushing graphics or hardware.

[ShyGuy]

welcome to the Dichotomy of Man.

[broodwars]

Personally, I think it's because most of these developers aren't competent enough to develop games for actual gaming consoles/handhelds that people will buy.  Take for instance the media's love affair with Tim Schafer, treating Double-Fine like they're some great developer when they've never developed a game that people actually bought.  Seemingly the vast majority of these companies go bankrupt making poor or mediocre titles no one buys on the consoles, so they blame the market as the problem and go into business making cheap mobile or download-only titles.

I respect the download or mobile realms' ability to sell niche titles cheaper and more directly to consumers, but the only reason most of these developers are doing it is because they either could not develop quality product or they could not adapt to the shifting interests of the mass market audience.

[tendoboy1984]

I respect the download or mobile realms' ability to sell niche titles cheaper and more directly to consumers, but the only reason most of them are doing it is because they failed as mass market developers.

Or it could be that they hated working at the big company and wanted more creative freedom. But once they leave, they're essentially on their own, scraping the bottom of the barrel.

[NWR_insanolord]

Personally, I think it's because most of these developers aren't competent enough to develop games for actual gaming consoles/handhelds that people will buy.  Take for instance the media's love affair with Tim Schafer, treating Double-Fine like they're some great developer when they've never developed a game that people actually bought.  Seemingly the vast majority of these companies go bankrupt making poor or mediocre titles no one buys on the consoles, so they blame the market as the problem and go into business making cheap mobile or download-only titles.

I respect the download or mobile realms' ability to sell niche titles cheaper and more directly to consumers, but the only reason most of these developers are doing it is because they either could not develop quality product or they could not adapt to the shifting interests of the mass market audience.

Tim Schafer has always been a critical darling; even though his games aren't big sellers they have, for the most part, been popular with the people you talk about in the media who call him great. Mainstream popularity ≠ quality. Sometimes it is the market's fault that something great fails miserably. Granted, a lot, probably most, of the things you're talking about don't fall into that category. I think one of the biggest problems is that we've gotten to the point that people expect every game to reach a mass market audience, and if you don't then you don't belong on a "real" game platform.

[tendoboy1984]

Kind of related to my original post:


Perhaps the whole debate of "more power, better graphics, blah blah blah" is a moot point, considering that most indie developers are content with making simplistic games that have a solid gameplay element, instead of relying on flashy graphics and hardware power.


Maybe those big-budget developers could learn a thing or two from the indie developers. Do games really need to be graphically advanced, filled with shaders, HD textures, millions of polygons, massive open worlds, cinematic presentation, photorealism, etc?


If games like Angry Birds and Cut the Rope are any indication, the answer is "no". Some of the most popular games of this generation have been the most simplistic, and the most fun. Minecraft, Wii Sports, Angry Birds, Cut the Rope, Cave Story, etc. all prove that you don't need a big budget and Hollywood-caliber production values to make a good game.


If that is the case, then why have people raised the graphical bar so high, and are expecting Nintendo to go balls-out with the Wii U? Look at the success of all those smaller games that I mentioned. None of them relied on powerful hardware, fancy graphics, voice actors, etc. They got buy with a simple gameplay hook, and that's it.


Developers say they need more power to create the games that they envision, but many developers on the App Store are perfectly fine with the simplistic games that they're making. So my point is, perhaps graphics and hardware power really DON'T matter at all.

[NWR_insanolord]

Those games sell to different audiences. The kind of people who buy first-person shooters want highly detailed, realistic graphics. Nobody except Ian really cares about the detail of the graphics in Wii Sports. Different audiences want different things, and as a console maker you want to be able to support as many of those different things as possible.

[Oblivion]

Nobody except Ian really cares about the detail of the graphics in Wii Sports.

Are you being serious? Ian, you card.

[tendoboy1984]

Those games sell to different audiences. The kind of people who buy first-person shooters want highly detailed, realistic graphics. Nobody except Ian really cares about the detail of the graphics in Wii Sports. Different audiences want different things, and as a console maker you want to be able to support as many of those different things as possible.

But perhaps most gamers these days are spoiled by all the high-tech graphics and cinematic games. We don't really NEED that stuff to make video games enjoyable. Some of the best games I've ever played were extremely simple in design, but were also very unique and bursting with creativity. Out of all the games I've played this gen, I still love going back to New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Smash Bros. Brawl, Angry Birds, Cut the Rope, Wii Sports Resort, etc.


Again, look at the success of all those indie games on the App Store. Angry Birds is the most popular game on iOS, perhaps it's the most popular game ever made (next to Pac-Man and Tetris)? (Some people say it's just a fad, but I digress)


Isn't that proof that most people don't really care about graphics and cinematic presentation?

[Oblivion]

We aren't "spoiled". Technology advances, as does our expectations. You seem to just be preaching that realistic graphics suck and that the "fun" games with a more stylistic graphics is better, simply because a game can't be good because it has photorealistic graphics?

[tendoboy1984]

We aren't "spoiled". Technology advances, as does our expectations. You seem to just be preaching that realistic graphics suck and that the "fun" games with a more stylistic graphics is better, simply because a game can't be good because it has photorealistic graphics?

No, I'm saying look at the success of indie games on the App Store. Very few of those games have "realistic" HD graphics, yet they are constantly some of the most popular games available. Angry Birds and Cut the Rope are two of the best-selling games out there. And they're based on extremely simple gameplay concepts.


This proves that graphics don't matter to the general public. If graphics did matter, then those indie developers would be trying harder to make their games look better.

[NWR_insanolord]

Or maybe it proves that people have much lower expectations in terms of graphics for things that cost 99¢ than for things they're willing to pay $60 for.

[tendoboy1984]

Or maybe it proves that people have much lower expectations in terms of graphics for things that cost 99¢ than for things they're willing to pay $60 for.

Those developers obviously don't care about graphics if they're fine with making games like Angry Birds, Cut the Rope, Wii Sports, etc. If they really cared about making their games graphically intense, then they'd put more effort into it.


So they're either purposefully gimping their games so they can make them for cheap, or they truly don't care about having the best graphics.

[broodwars]

Different games have different graphical needs, and with them different audiences.  iOS titles are meant to be simple, pick-up-and-play affairs for people who only have a few minutes of spare time.  They don't need to be graphical powerhouses that require high-grade phones and loading times because it's somewhat counterproductive to the needs of that type of gamer.

This actually reminds me of a game I just finished: Lumines Electronic Symphony on Vita.  That game is quite the graphical showcase filled with animation (both background and on the blocks themselves), bright colors, and flashing lights.  Here's the interesting thing, though: the visuals are a trap.  If you are actually paying attention to them, you will lose and you will lose badly, especially on the faster songs where the blocks appear much faster and the timeline scrolls faster.  In fact, the developers openly try to throw you off whenever the game switches songs because it replaces the background animation and the appearance of the blocks, so you have to think quickly and adapt.  Here the nice visuals, though not necessary and actually mechanically detrimental, are actually a critical part of the game's challenge and nicely complement the electronic/techno soundtrack.

Another Vita game I recently finished was Uncharted: Golden Abyss.  The Uncharted series prides itself on grand vistas; exotic locations; large environments; and sheer over-the-top presentation.  It would not be an Uncharted game without the exceptional presentation.  By contrast, the downloadable title Escape Plan uses a simple art design modeled after 1930s black & white animation that's nowhere near to the level of Uncharted, but it still looks very polished and its look is very fitting for that experience.

I hold every gaming company to a high standard, but especially Nintendo because so many other seem content to hold them to a very low standard.  Nintendo's spent most of the Wii generation creating games on the cheap, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to put a great deal more effort into presentation on the Wii U.  I don't demand that every Nintendo game be up to the graphical standards of an Uncharted game, but I do demand that every game they make look good for its respective genre needs, not "cheap".  "Cheap" brings us extremely bland-looking games like the New Super Mario Bros. series.

[tendoboy1984]

Different games have different graphical needs, and with them different audiences.  iOS titles are meant to be simple, pick-up-and-play affairs for people who only have a few minutes of spare time.  They don't need to be graphical powerhouses that require high-grade phones and loading times because it's somewhat counterproductive to the needs of that type of gamer.

This actually reminds me of a game I just finished: Lumines Electronic Symphony on Vita.  That game is quite the graphical showcase filled with animation (both background and on the blocks themselves), bright colors, and flashing lights.  Here's the interesting thing, though: the visuals are a trap.  If you are actually paying attention to them, you will lose and you will lose badly, especially on the faster songs where the blocks appear much faster and the timeline scrolls faster.  In fact, the developers openly try to throw you off whenever the game switches songs because it replaces the background animation and the appearance of the blocks, so you have to think quickly and adapt.  Here the nice visuals, though not necessary and actually mechanically detrimental, are actually a critical part of the game's challenge and nicely complement the electronic/techno soundtrack.

Another Vita game I recently finished was Uncharted: Golden Abyss.  The Uncharted series prides itself on grand vistas; exotic locations; large environments; and sheer over-the-top presentation.  It would not be an Uncharted game without the exceptional presentation.  By contrast, the downloadable title Escape Plan uses a simple art design modeled after 1930s black & white animation that's nowhere near to the level of Uncharted, but it still looks very polished and its look is very fitting for that experience.

I hold every gaming company to a high standard, but especially Nintendo because so many other seem content to hold them to a very low standard.  Nintendo's spent most of the Wii generation creating games on the cheap, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them to put a great deal more effort into presentation on the Wii U.  I don't demand that every Nintendo game be up to the graphical standards of an Uncharted game, but I do demand that every game they make look good for its respective genre needs, not "cheap".  "Cheap" brings us extremely bland-looking games like the New Super Mario Bros. series.

With the exception of Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, most Mario games have had a pretty bland look to them (graphically speaking). I play the Super Mario games for their fun hop-n-bop gameplay, not the graphics. In the case of the Galaxy series, I appreciate the graphics and gameplay equally.

[tendoboy1984]

My point of all of this is, if graphics really are that important, then why isn't every single developer trying to push for the latest and greatest graphics?


You have some developers who stick to the PC, while other developers are fine making smartphone games. Clearly, graphics are not a defining point for some developers.

[NWR_insanolord]

Developers make games with their target audience in mind. They go all out when the market demands it, and keep it simple when the audience doesn't need high end graphics.

[GoldenPhoenix]

My point of all of this is, if graphics really are that important, then why isn't every single developer trying to push for the latest and greatest graphics?


You have some developers who stick to the PC, while other developers are fine making smartphone games. Clearly, graphics are not a defining point for some developers.

It depends on the developer and how they want to express themselves, not to mention it is linked a lot to the fact many don't have access to the large teams and huge budgets to make graphically impressive games. I would bet that if you were to give many of these developers access to the right amount of resources for visually stunning games, so they can fully express what they imagine a game looking like (or changing course on a game),  most would take advantage of it in a heartbeat


So yeah, you are right in a way, graphics is not the defining point because many can't afford to take that risk, especially small teams.

[tendoboy1984]

My point of all of this is, if graphics really are that important, then why isn't every single developer trying to push for the latest and greatest graphics?


You have some developers who stick to the PC, while other developers are fine making smartphone games. Clearly, graphics are not a defining point for some developers.

It depends on the developer and how they want to express themselves, not to mention it is linked a lot to the fact many don't have access to the large teams and huge budgets to make graphically impressive games. I would bet that if you were to give many of these developers access to the right amount of resources for visually stunning games, so they can fully express what they imagine a game looking like (or changing course on a game),  most would take advantage of it in a heartbeat


So yeah, you are right in a way, graphics is not the defining point because many can't afford to take that risk, especially small teams.

But then you have people complaining that games are becoming more expensive to make with each new generation. Maybe the problem is that developers are setting their standards too high. Maybe these problems would be solved if everyone just dialed back from making games more like movies. You don't need voice actors, motion capture tech, Hollywood-style budgets to make a good game. None of that stuff is necessary.

[Louieturkey]

My point of all of this is, if graphics really are that important, then why isn't every single developer trying to push for the latest and greatest graphics?


You have some developers who stick to the PC, while other developers are fine making smartphone games. Clearly, graphics are not a defining point for some developers.

It depends on the developer and how they want to express themselves, not to mention it is linked a lot to the fact many don't have access to the large teams and huge budgets to make graphically impressive games. I would bet that if you were to give many of these developers access to the right amount of resources for visually stunning games, so they can fully express what they imagine a game looking like (or changing course on a game),  most would take advantage of it in a heartbeat


So yeah, you are right in a way, graphics is not the defining point because many can't afford to take that risk, especially small teams.

But then you have people complaining that games are becoming more expensive to make with each new generation. Maybe the problem is that developers are setting their standards too high. Maybe these problems would be solved if everyone just dialed back from making games more like movies. You don't need voice actors, motion capture tech, Hollywood-style budgets to make a good game. None of that stuff is necessary.

Graphics may not be necessary, but they don't hurt a game most of the time either.  Do you really think COW games would be as popular as they are with cel shaded graphics?  Certain games, due to how they are presented and envisioned by the developers, will require a certain amount of realism.  That means voice acting and Hollywood movie budgets and realistic graphics and physics.

If graphics really didn't matter, the Wii would keep selling and be number 1.  But the 360 now does motion control with better graphics and suddenly it sells better than the Wii.  For many people, graphics do matter.

[Ian Sane]

Not every game needs to have balls-to-the-wall cutting edge graphics.  But the system needs to allow it if the developer wants to do it.  My objection with the Wii is that it prohibited cutting edge graphics so everyone who wanted to make those sort of games avoided the Wii.  Who the **** is Nintendo to enforce restrictions on developers?  The hardware should be flexible to allow developers to make whatever types of games they wish.  Nintendo is still free to do whatever they want, but they shouldn't insist that everyone else does it the same.  Until they figure that out their third party support is always going to suck.

As for moving to smaller indie games I think creative freedom is a major draw.  There is also the ability to be one's own boss.  You can work hard on some big publisher's game and get laid off after the game is released.  But if you work hard on your own game, you directly reap the rewards (and also face the full brunt of failure).  Indie games pretty have to be small due to costs.  An indie dev is not going to have the manpower or resource to make a blockbuster.  I don't think they make something more low key specifically because "graphics don't matter" but rather because they can't do more.  Sometimes it can be a stylistic decision but I think the mere budget limitations are the main cause.

I can program and I can write music but I can't draw so if I was to make a game by myself it would have to look like ass.  Now I could hire someone to do the art for me but if it's just a two man operation then 2D sprite art would be more feasible (and would be easier for one man to code).  Want any voice acting?  Well it's either the two of us doing it or me hire someone.  As you add to it, the costs go up.

[tendoboy1984]

My objection with the Wii is that it prohibited cutting edge graphics so everyone who wanted to make those sort of games avoided the Wii.  Who the **** is Nintendo to enforce restrictions on developers?  The hardware should be flexible to allow developers to make whatever types of games they wish.  Nintendo is still free to do whatever they want, but they shouldn't insist that everyone else does it the same.

And that is why I think Nintendo has so much in common with Apple. Nintendo's insistence of doing everything their way is pretty much the same way Apple approaches things.

[KDR_11k]

People enter the industry because they dream of making their own game. Then they get put on 500 man teams painting the moss on cobblestones and wonder if they can even call that game their own. Then they realize that their earned skills are good enough to make their own game. Most of the popular indie games weren't made by first timers or hobbyists, most are made by people who quit AAA game development.

[tendoboy1984]

Then they get put on 500 man teams painting the moss on cobblestones and wonder if they can even call that game their own.

Oh please. It's the same thing when someone joins a movie studio, or an animation studio, or works at a car manufacturing plant. In a team setting, everyone has their job to do. When I worked at McDonalds, I had a job I was assigned to do, and I did it.


You think some random factory worker is going to say "Geez, I sure hate working on this assembly line. All my talent is being put to waste here. I'm going to build my own car from scratch and sell it to the world!"


People these days have such a sense of entitlement. Just getting to work for a video game studio is something I'm sure most of us have dreamed of. Besides, many studios have pitch sessions, where each member lobbies back and forth with game ideas. Game development isn't some totalitarian dictatorship where you are forced to do things a certain way. It isn't like working for Hitler.

[nickmitch]

It's not about "entitlement;" it's about being an artist and wanting to create. You have ideas that you want to get out. The industry experience you're living isn't giving you that, so you make your own studio, make small smartphone games, raise funds, then make the game you've always wanted.