Why graphics SHOULDN'T be the "be all and end all" of Next Gen consoles.

With all the build up and hype around how plausible "leaked" next gen tech plans, X amount of RAM, using X GPU etc. Discussions and comment sections almost always recede into resolution comparisons and how many FPS a game runs at.

Strictly speaking, "Next Gen" graphics are already here on beast gaming PC's of $1000 and above, and those specs increase at will, there are no gens in terms of PC.

Why don't we start using this new hardware we shall migrate to next gen to start pushing the boundaries of AI, environmental interaction and general use for the benefit of the overall way games are designed and played, instead of merely how shiny and hi-res you can make a game look.

Even the best looking games out there can have MAJOR flaws at a basic design level, so when it comes down to us gamers sitting and playing it, it doesn't really matter if it looks like MGS1 or true to life like LA Noire.

Crysis is always an example franchise that springs to mind when i discuss this with people. Sure, Crysis 2 maxed out on my PC looks absolutely fantastic, but when something as basic as ill designed AI creeps in, it throws the whole experience out th window as i'm not prepared to suffer design flaws that break my immersion for the sake of some 1080p wallpaper in that one room. One minute i'm walking around admiring the beautiful scenerey and looking at all my potential suit powers and think "great! this is pulling me in, looks good, plenty of depth and variation etc". Then while stalking at least 300 yards away from one soldier while crouched in a bush i decide it's safe to remove my stealth cloak. Upon the very millisecond of dropping that stealth, the guy swirls 180 degrees screaming "Intruder" and pounding me half to death with precise headshots and all of a sudden, i have half an army on top of me...

I could probably make similar examples of all different games from all platforms and point these immersion and often fun breaking fundamental flaws all day.

What's my overall point? With a fresh leaf turned over for a new generation of both hardware and software, why don't we take a step back, assess what makes us love the games we do, and what turns us off. Something as simple as the realisation that dropping a few pixels here and there to have those resources used in intelligent enemy spawns and overall AI, at the end of the day, it's really not going to be that much worse off in the aesthetics, but be worlds more enjoyable to actually sit and play.

Let's cut back to basics, start something new, and make this coming generation something to be proud of!

[Valenka]

I'd like to beat with a wet noodle those who think that visuals make the game. I can think of a handful of games in which the visuals were poor in comparison to others, but excelled in brilliance in aspects that visually excellent games failed in.

[imtheman2013]

Basically every indie game - Super Meat Boy, Lone Survivor, Spelunky, Fez, etc. All of those are wonderful games with very little graphical power.

[Hufandpuf]

Little graphic power, but great graphics nonetheless.

Gamers tend to think great graphics means the best in tech. That isn't the case. There are pleasing graphics on older games and graphics that have a distinct style that can be better than technically advanced graphics.

I believe that graphics accentuate a game and are as important as the game itself. The graphics don't have to be cutting edge, but they do have to be ascetically pleasing to the eye.

[imtheman2013]

@Hufandpuf I get what you mean by that. Like Fez has pixel art, which isn't graphically challenging, but I can't imagine it with any other art style. It works with the game and that's part of what makes the game great.

[SilentNegotiator]

No one thinks that visuals make the game. Certain people just become angry at others that are upset when the graphics of a game are disappointing.

And you're aware that you have to LOOK at games the WHOLE time, right? Graphics are important.

And we're of course seeing more of "these" articles and blogs because of a certain new system that clearly hasn't made the expected leap. It's a good example, really.
Gamers: "We're disappointed by the graphics"
Developers: "We're disappointed by the hardware"
Fanboys: "ZOMG you guis only car aboot graffixs!!!!!!"

[Valenka]

Obviously graphics are important, but they should not take precedence over gameplay. Of course I'm aware you have to look at the game the whole time--I wasn't born this morning.

Seeing as you clearly missed my point, allow me to reiterate: graphics do not make the game, and should not take precedence over gameplay. Yes, graphics are important, but they do not contribute to the fun factor or replay value as much as gameplay does.

[SilentNegotiator]

Again, no one thinks graphics take precedence over gameplay.

Fanboys just take comments about graphics and assume that is the ENTIRETY of the opinion of that game/system from that person.

NO ONE THINKS GRAPHICS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN GAMEPLAY.
It's just sensitive fanboys getting upset that someone said something about the graphics of a game.

[Nicaragua]

Beat with a wet noodle, so that would be hardly beat them at all.

...ok

[Megaton]

I don't think they're the "be all, end all", but it's certainly a reasonable expectation to see a graphical leap with each new generation. What's the point of releasing new tech if you're going to use old graphics?

[Godmars290]

Not it not. Not when high-end PCs are considered the standard.

I mean Crytek is asking for a console with 8GB of RAM when that's still not standard for PCs. If the PS4 and NextBox have over 3GB I'll be surprised.

[Bladesfist]

8GB is standard minimum for a gaming PC. Most people I know have between 8 and 16.

[2pacalypsenow]

Pc's need more ram because they have more programs running at the same time. as im writing this my Computer is using 2.26 gb of my 8gb with chrome,origin,steam
and the game Rage in the background consoles DONT need 8gb ,3-4 max.

[cpayne93]

I would say art style is more important than textures or just how powerful the system is. What's the point of all that power in a system if the games art is boring? That's part of the thing that annoys me about this gen, too much realism.

What kinda wierds me out is when some people act like games are automatically outdated and worthless if they aren't current gen. It's ridiculous, some of the best games you can experience are still from the nes-n64 days.

[shutUpAndTakeMyMoney]

"Strictly speaking, "Next Gen" graphics are already here on beast gaming PC's of $1000 and above"

Funny this next gen demo is running on a 2 year old laptop(geforce 555M)

"Turns out it was running on a two year old laptop with a mobile GeForce 555M"

http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

[ProGrasTiNation]

I remember playing C&C red alert on the ps1 & loving it to bits,then when the ps2 came round my bro & i had a long discussion about how the next one would be now that they had the power to make it bigger.
We were hoping for bigger maps more weapons & maybe a branching story(failed mission continues you down a different path),instead we got nothing.
Well my main point is that we were happy with the graphics,it was the gameplay we hoped they improved 1st & it still should be this way today but unfortunately big publishers couldn't give a dam about gameplay aslong the ads look good!

[Welshy]

You hit the nail on the head =)

I don't just want to play the same games, with the same flaws and setbacks i played for the past 6 years with prettier and more realistic skins.

Of course i want to see an aesthetic jump, but my main thing is how games as whole, and how games are designed changes.

The Metal Gear Solid franchise is a great example of how both graphical improvements and innovative idea's and game play can go hand in hand and define the industry and raise the bar with each generation of hardware.

[ProGrasTiNation]

Ye thanks & i do agree with you about MGS(love that series), but even kojima had to add trophy support to 4 even do the game had a perfectly good score system built into the game.
It might not be graphics related but its the same mind set that causes the decline in gameplay.
If the game had trophies to begin with & not their own system i probably wouldn't have been replaying it to get my big boss rating(I FUCKING HATE TROPHIES).
Minecraft spoke to all of us that wanted gameplay over graphics & i make sure my kid plays games that dont dumb the experience with flashy visuals over gameplay.
I think its up to parents to make sure their kids no what is good & bad in the industry because that's who those console makers & devs target the most.

[Welshy]

My point isn't necessarily that graphics that should be neglected, but that better graphics are a given and are a natural progression as far as consoles go.

I just think that graphics shouldn't be the primary concern, as how hi-res and how many FPS a console can run a game seems to be the dominant topic in most threads regarding next gen, i think alot of people may be missing the point.

Generations bring their own innovations and noone seems to be discussing the potential innovations over how many more pixels they can squeeze onto a texture.

If everyone merely focuses on the graphics alone, then next gen consoles may not be what the masses expect them to be.

[jessupj]

I'm not really hoping for better graphics. Of course a small increase would be good.

I'm more interested in everything else that can be improved. Bigger draw distance, less jaggies (I REALLY hate jaggies), better AI, quicker load times,

and hopefully, and this is a big one...

Much better environment interaction.

I'm talking about being able to demolish entire skyscrapers, cut down trees, dig holes, moving small objects and furniture.

How many times has our immersion being broken when a stupid environmental issue happens. If I had a dollar for every time a flimsy wooden door blocked my way and was impenetrable to a direct hit from a rocket launcher I'd be rich.

I really hope developers focus on this. I've been wanting this for the past 10 years.

[landog]

@jessup

totallly agree

the current level of detail is quite good in games, its the fact that on console they have no Anit aliasing, so everything is agitated and moving, windows and doors and telephone wires look like they are alive, it looks terrible and pulls you right out of the game

i'll be happy if next gen consoles can maintain 1080p @ 30 frames with zero jaggies and pop-in and no TORN FRAMES, i hate that too

also, more interactive enviroments, destructability, better ai...these things make gameplay more enjoyable

no one in their right mind is expecting next gen ps4/nextboxes to compete with a high end gaming pc in terms of power, but they should be able to come in the ballpark, although at lower resolutions, framerates, aa, af ect.

[retrofly]

Content
Scale
Technology

This is what we need. More stuff to play around, more textures, characters, weapons, vehicles, maps, gamespace.

Bigger, bolder, interactive set pieces, I want a whole war goign on around me that I can interact with. Whole cities bustling with life, every last detail captured, wether it be a street, a race track or another planet.

Physics, AI, Sound. Push the ondaries, make everyting interactive and destructive. Make AI fool you into thinking they are real players. Emphisis on sound and voice technology. Its amazing what a slight refinement in audio can do to raise a game to another level!

Oh and integration with the Oculus rift!

[Dark5tar1]

Crysis is my personal example of "Gameplay over Graphics".
The gameplay is barely average in everything but the graphics are amazing. The gameplay is a turd and what Crytek did with 1 and 2 was paint and polish that turd gold.

[smashcrashbash]

I don't think that any gamer really thinks that graphics is all that makes a game (at least the sane ones)I don't mind if the graphics of a game aren't spot on, are super realistic and every blade of grass doesn't look real but at the same time that doesn't mean I want graphics that look like a SNES or some sloppy mess. I am also tired of people trying to excuse a mess of a game by insisting that graphics DON'T matter like with ugly games like Conduit. To some extent they do.I at least expect the developer to make the game not look like he just threw it together on a weekend or look like he didn't give a damn and is trying to con you by insisting that the graphics don't matter. Journey was a simple game but it's message was increased by the sweeping sands, atmosphere and land marks. And would have Drake's plight in UC2 be as nail biting if the snow and ice didn't look as if it was freezing cold? Or would God of War have looked as epic if the lighting and the shadows weren't done right or the beautiful back drop and giant set pieces were not there or used low rate graphics? Graphics do matter but of course it is not all there is to a game. I have played many highly graphical games but they were pointless snooze fests. However I wouldn't mind the stunning graphics to go along with a great story, good dialogue and character development etc. They don't have to give up a single pixel of graphics just make sure that they develop everything else. I don't need you to make the city picture perfect then give me a whole lot of boring missions to do in it. However I would still like you to make it at least some semblance of a city for me to run around in.