Are Graphics Alone Enough to Make a Video Game Title Truly “Next-Gen”?

There’s been a lot and I mean A LOT of talk about what is “next-gen” in this current console cycle. Opinions are polarized and no one can seem to agree on what makes a game next-gen and what doesn’t. I know that this has been debated ad nauseum but I still feel compelled to give my explanation of what I think makes something next-gen.

[Iltapalanyymi]

Never.

[osu22duke]

Agreed. I know PC is far far superior in terms of graphics but you can't honestly say they are a different gen compared to current consoles

[4Sh0w]

Call it what you want but on March 11th I'll be PLAYING Titanfall on my X1 so don't call me at all.

[starchild]

Games on "next gen consoles" are by definition "next gen".

Next gen has never been consistently defined by anything but the generation of hardware and the graphical jump.

The graphics get a lot better and that is the only certainty.

Sporadically we will see innovation in different areas: AI, new game mechanics, social aspects, new forms of control, etc.

These things don't happen all of a sudden or all at once. And they don't happen all in the same game. We see areas of innovation periodically throughout the generation in different games.

[ShinMaster]

Graphics alone aren't enough.

But it shouldn't be used as an excuse for Titanfall's last-gen graphics.

[GribbleGrunger]

Agreed. The only next gen game I've played so far is TLOU but it wasn't just because of the graphics.

[SourShoes]

The entire package that TLOU brought made it, what I think, one of the greatest video games ever created. It should be THE example to current gen devs of what kind of experience games need to bring to the table in order to be considered a great game. Kind of like a beautiful woman, graphics are only skin-deep. Its the heart that makes it worth buying (marrying).

Edit: Why don't we just drop next gen labels. We're far enough into PS4/XB1 era to lose the next gen bs. Let's just talk about games.

[GribbleGrunger]

'And my trolling history'? Are you sure you looked at the right history?

This is a trolling history:

http://n4g.com/user/comment...

"no. most 12yo old sony ponies are just pretending they have.
its just easier for them to hate. thats all"

[johndoe11211]

I really have to disagree with you there. Don't get me wrong, the last of us was for me the best game of last gen. A lot of devs should look at that as a lesson in good game design but as far as I'm concerned, as the writer of this article correctly states, no game that runs exactly the same way on last gen and current gen can be considered nextgen. Hence, a game that is solely on a last gen system can't really be considered nextgen.

[bmx_bandit]

Is a game next-gen when next-gen arrived and is this next-gen then still next-gen or only next-gen when next-gen is next-gen?

[BallsEye]

Most next-gen game I've played is Dead Rising 3. Why? IMMERSION!. So here I am playing DR3 with my friend on-line. We're running together with NPC survivors through some tight alley, going out on open road and BAM!!! Literally like 1-2 thousand zombies infront of me...and my friend goes like "F!@#". Guess he shouldn't yell cause zombies turned around (yep, they hear you) and suddenly whole horde started to "run" towards us. We fast backed out into nearest store to defend ourselves. I gave guns to our NPC followers, pointed with my finger at the back room and said "go there" (kinect tracks your fingers to see where you point, also listens to your voice) so they can shoot from there. So here we are hacking through hundreds of zombies, defending our position with our last breaths untill finally my REAL LIFE CELLPHONE had a message that airstrike is available (help from survivors I saved). I've called it in! We wiped them out...then I just said "scavenge" and NPCs started to look for food and better weapons in the store we hid in. Didn't take long untill I literally had a phone call on my real life cellphone from in game NPC that surivors at safehouse need some food...and here my next mission begin. That is next-gen for me.

Thank you Kinect and smarglass! Haters will hate, but I'm having a blast!

[Sci0n]

While all that was going down was you getting single digit or teen digit frames?

[Blinding_Solo]

I am sick of these articles. Why do these companies upgrade hardware if graphics are not to be considered a nice requirement. It is a huge part to me for a next gen. Yes game play is very important but this is not fucking 2004 Games like call of duty shows and inspires not to take advantage of the machine but rather our pockets. To me it is a 60:40 ratio and if I bought power hardware I want it to be taken advantage of other why do leaps in hardware and do a Nintendo. -_- Oh this generation of society is ass backwards. Let me buy a race care but on the track I am going to drive it like a prius cause I want comfort. Hell no I want to take full advantage but not ruin the experience. Sorry for my out lash but if we are going to be this way encourage being like Nintendo fuck tards. That is all

[Godmars290]

Need to stop making it all about graphics.

[greenyboi]

No.

[admiralvic]

The term "truly next-gen" is just a meaningless term the media created, which simply sounds better than saying the game looks impressive. It's part of the ongoing trend of making everything more bold of a statement than it really is.

This game looks good (on a new console) = System Seller
Poor sales after a month of two = System is Dead
High sales after 3 weeks = Could that system win this generation?
This game vaguely resembles something else = if positive? inspired by / plays like. If negative? Clone / Rip off.
This game looks impressive = It's the blank series killer
etc

[truechainz]

Wow bubs for displaying a lot of what's wrong with the industry in a short and sweet way.

[Alex_Boro]

Nothing next-gen about Titanfall.

[4Sh0w]

Except the Titanfall Beta had more pixels at 792p than KZ SF multi did at 960X1080, yet supposedly for months now every one could tell the difference.
http://m.craveonline.com/ga...

Pedro, bu, bu, bu that excuse doesn't work anymore since whenever Ryse was highlighted for its graphics due to all the other aspects than can make a game less than 1080p look better than a that is 1080p native, I was told gtfoh, pfft its only 900p.

Karma.

[pedrof93]

You can't really compare the graphics between the two can you ?

[scott182]

And COD ghosts multiplayer on PS4 is full 1080p, 60fps... what's the point.

Killzone is full 1080p single player, no good looking game on the x1 can claim that.

[rafaman]

@4show, you just owned Alex-Boro lol

[Gazondaily]

"bu, bu, bu that excuse doesn't work anymore since whenever Ryse was highlighted for its graphics due to all the other aspects than can make a game less than 1080p look better than a 1080p, I was told go for its only 900p. "

Well said. Gotta agree there 4Sh0w. People trying to downplay Ryse for its sub 1080p resolution should be eating crow now.

They were remarkably silent when the article on KZ's mp's sub 1080p res popped up , after of course, it was shamefully failed by the community and certain others.

But visuals alone don't make a video game next-gen. Something like No Man's Sky is proof of that (at least conceptually).

[rarity]

technically the game is rendering at 1920x1080, just not on each frame: http://www.neogaf.com/forum... their words not mine.

[Ck1x]

Damn...

[ziggurcat]

you're not understanding what's going on with the KZ MP...

it's not 960 x 1080 for the whole image. it's 960 x 1080 *per frame*. because the image is interlaced, not progressive, it alternates between even, and odd lines of pixels per frame (ABABAB one frame, BABABA the other frame). its full pixel dimension is still 1920 x 1080.

now go back to your bridge.

[4Sh0w]

ziggurcat

I understand perfectly, fact is sony themselves said it's was 1080p, just like the campaign (do you need that quote again) now you and 100 neogaf links aren't going to change that standard to mean anything less than 1920x1080 lines progressive. The whole point in putting a numerical value on it is because it's a mathematical equation representing a TOTAL PIXEL COUNT in resolution of a 16x9 aspect ratio. Which is why mathematically the resolutionpixel count for KZ SF multi is lower than Titanfall's beta= I'm only talking about res, which ps fans made so important, I'm not talking about textures, lighting, engine, tech etc, etc which makes KZ SF graphics good. Just the math, which again when I bought up those other asstes for Ryse I was laughed at. Now if suddenly we can change the meaning on this one special occasion for sony then that means 10X1080 is "its still 1920x1080 though", no its just not because it's dropping lines each time and then filling the old one, in other words as Digital Foundry said it's "halving fill-rate" and using a temporal upscale to fill the gaps.
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

There's is no all of a sudden "special 1080p" its the same standard it was before the KZ news.

I'm not making a big deal about it as I said DR3 is my favorite on X1 so far and its not 1080p but the double standards from ps elite is ridiculous.

[starchild]

It's still only having to render 1,003,800 pixels per frame, instead of the 2,073,600 pixels you would have to render at full 1080p.

Why do think Guerrilla did it if not to decrease the rendering load?

[webeblazing]

why are we still talking about res and why people are still downplaying titanfall? people need to move on. it good to point out the hypocrisy in fanboys but lets move on to a different subject the article makes some good points.

i agree with what he said about shadow of mordor, but bf4 and the new batman. all they had to do was scale down gfx. its understandable why they didnt because people are going to want the new game to look better graphically than the last game no matter how much features and innovative the gameplay is. i constantly talk to people saying that the lower the settings to play a game and hey are not bothered, they just care about playing the game if the gameplay is good.

so even though he is right in this article gfx will always define next gen for console gamers. and its crazy because most of the best games for me, in the last 2yrs wasnt graphically intense games.

[JokesOnYou]

No, no starchild what ziggurcat is trying to say is that GG chose that "unique" res to make it more "cinematic", nothing to do with difficulty of 1080p 60fps. lol

4Show let 'em keep talking, the defense is comical given the last 4 months of "resolution gate".....even normal pro ps fans have to be shaking their heads listening to some explain why sony didn’t "technically" lie and why KZ'S multi is "technically" 1080p. Yep now we have a new resolution created called "technically 1080p". lmfao, just embarrassing, some here should run for office.

hmmm, Any takers to run for Mayor of N4G? $20, you got my vote. pfft.

[Alex_Boro]

Pixels don't matter when your running on a 10 year old engine. The game looks last gen and it is on Xbox 360. And don't know what you are talking about. The game is 1080p on PC and it still looks no different.

[Godmars290]

You'd think it being on the 360 would say that, but apparently not.

[hamburgerhill]

Does the 360 version of titanfall also have more pixels compared to kz sf?

[TM333]

If the game can run on the previous gen's hardware, I'd say that's a pretty good sign the game is not "next gen".

[thief]

And to add to that, if the game barely looks any different compared to the version running on the previous gen's hardware, it's definitely not next gen at all

[TM333]

Exactly. I'm all about the gameplay being a huge factor (as all the disagrees seem to think I'm not or something LOL), but if graphics are such a non factor and "running on next gen hardware" isn't, then wouldn't we all still just have an Atari and be happy?

[webeblazing]

i think the point is that technology advances so it will always be a step up in gens, but the gameplay mostly is stay the same. nothing that has been shown yet define as not being able to run on last gen consoles. most of it is gfx. and if a game can be play on a last gen console wouldnt that mean their engine is scale able. unless we see some gameplay element that is doing some intense workloads, i dont see how it wouldnt work without scaling the gfx back.

even with the batmobile pr talk, seems kinda funny. you mean to tell me games like gtav, just cause2, spiderman, saints row, and countless other open world games that have cars, choppers, planes, and all, can have this while have crazy gameplay mechanics, way better gfx with explosions, dense populations, and etc. but they could add a batmobile and redesign city. they could of just remade arkham city like they did.

i know batman series is in a different more close up and the scale of batman to his environment is also compare to the games i state. but i just dont blindly fall for pr bs and a lot of devs are doing it because new console are out and they know people are happy they have them. i get they are happy about the new consoles and want to take full advantage of them without lower their vision, but i feel like they should state that instead of some pr bs and constantly blow smoke up people @$$.

@bobacdigital
i agree with what you said about the wiiU vita, plus with the feature of the next gen consoles. i do get what you mean about game at a high gfx fidelity for years, that why i rarely get hype or downplay game because the gfx isnt great. but even though pc has better gfx its more of the same. just like console each have their games. the games coming out are more of the same ol same ol. its some great games but tend to get hooked to the indies more.

oo i think next gen is define by the console regardless. when they stop supporting the system what do you make of it. its nothing but "out with the old and in with the new". if you love gaming on consoles you have no choice but to eventually buy a new console unless you re gonna be gaming on last gen console without any new releases to look forward to.

but no matter what the only way to enjoy the best games is to have every platform.

[FITgamer]

For me personally if the game can be made in full without compromising gameplay or reducing content on last-gen consoles it's not next-gen, regardless of how pretty it is.

[bobacdigital]

My main gaming platforms PC / Nintendo kinda blur the lines on graphics and next gen... I generally look for things I couldnt previously have done on the previous generation... IE 480p Wii to 720/1080P Wii U .. games look MUCH much better than the previous offering... With PC it is different... I can tailor the gaming experience to my liking .. the graphics I get on PC have been much higher than anything ps4 / x1 are doing NOW so im not as impressed with those offerings... That is only because ive been gaming at 1080p / 60fps on PC for years... So to me the X1 / PS4's graphical capabilities arent Next gen to me.

To me the gamepad / Kinect / vita remote play , ps4 twitch streaming, x1 snap function are next gen ... because im doing something much much better than I preciously had done before... The only thing in this generation that will matter are exclusive .. what I can get that I cant get somewhere else.

[osprey19]

Gameplay>graphics. Prettier graphics is nice but a brilliant storyline and fun gameplay will trump that everytime. Look at skyrim,lets face it not the best graphics the world has ever seen but was one of the best games of the previous generation of consoles. On the other hand, crysis has the best graphics of any previous generation game yet no-one can day crysis is better than skyrim and not get laughed at.

[Agent2009]

Visuals are definitely the most prominent factor that separates one generation from another. But it doesn't necessarily define the "next-gen" gameplay - as for that, only things like a very well scripted AI behavior, destructible environment or advanced online technologies can lay down the modernity of one title.

[UnHoly_One]

I'm sick of people using "next gen" to mean something it doesn't.

It has NOTHING to do with graphics, it has NOTHING to do with innovative gameplay.

"Next Gen" is a term that means "a new console generation" nothing else.

Every PS4 game, and every Xbox One game is a "next gen" game by definition.

Write an article about graphics and innovation or whatever, but don't refer to these things as "Next Gen". That's an improper use of the term, plain and simple.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves every time a new batch of consoles come out. This guy is trying to make up his own definition for a phrase that is already defined.

[ziggurcat]

... except with each new generation there's something that separates it from the previous one - and it's almost always graphics or innovative gameplay.

[Saithraphim]

Not at all, from just a purely visual perspective I believe that next gen should be more about creating a very natural look with a believable story...whether the graphics are cartoon like, photo realistic or some other imaginative type it doesn't matter if its done right

[hamburgerhill]

Graphics very important but never the sole reason I would buy a console. What I would like to know is if hologram gaming will ever return. The good old days of walking into a game room and being wowed have been a long time coming for me.

[1nsomniac]

Graphics are extremely important. If you're a PC gamer play your favourite game through on the lowest graphical settings & then again with its highest graphical settings. It makes a monumental difference that it almost cannot be believed that it makes so much difference.

..But for a game to be truly next-gen it has to be not possible on last gen i.e. Titanfall is not next gen in any way!

[andibandit]

Most games are built with some scalabillity incorporated, so that they can run on weaker hardware...lower graphics, fewer players, dumber AI and so on. I dont see how that prohibits a game from being next gen.

[Godmars290]

The over focus on graphics is what caused the PC game crash and many PC game devs to switch over to consoles.

Come to think of it, now that PC devs seem to be in the majority on consoles, we've gone right back into the asinine rut of worrying about system power.

[1nsomniac]

I don't see how that can be true as it's the only feature that it has over consoles & other gaming tech & has constantly pushed the boundaries for 20 maybe 30 years now so this is nothing new & certainly isn't the cause of "the PC game crash", whatever that is (misleading media BS).

There's been a lot of games released on the PC over the last few years that were accidently released in beta form on release day instead of the finished product i.e. Rage, & possibly Dead Island I think... if you played them while you were waiting for the developers to release the fix you would see exactly what I said previously about how truly massive the impact can be with improved graphics alone!

It's very easy for people just to go along with that same old cliché that graphics don't mean anything & gameplay is all that matters. You can take your best gameplay & strip down its graphics & guess what, suddenly as if by magic the gameplay isn't quite as good as you thought it was.

If you strip them both down, gameplay cant improve graphics, but graphics can improve gameplay.

[Godmars290]

No one, especially the PC Master Race, wants to admit that PC gaming "crashed" but it did.

At one time the model for PC gaming was about developing on the bleeding tech edge, to force gamers to upgrade and update their rigs at key releases, but with titles like Doom 3 Rage and Crysis it was finally realized that such a business model could not sustain itself. Because devs realized they needed to make money but weren't because of the way they were doing things, primarily PC game engines like Rage and Crysis were retooled for consoles, where they've largely fallen on their face because they still focused on high end PC specs.

The worse thing is that since no one admits that there was a problem, its basically still going on. Though of course now devs are rushing through consoles, trying to max out what can most easily be done with them, rather than actually trying to understand and exploit the hardware.

They're the ones who will be begging for new consoles in few years just so they can get better textures.

[gedden7]

Not for me....

Its funny I see a lot of posts saying gameplay over graphics but when the Wii U was talked about, what was your response???

Wii U is last gen,

WHY?

"Graphics" look like 360 or ps3. It was a rare thing someone brought up gameplay... Hypocrites!

BUT almost 100% of you people wouldn't consider it the other way around. Meaning it has to have next gen graphics and gameplay. ALL OF THESE SO CALLED NEXT GEN GAMES COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE 360 OR PS3. And guess what most of them are and will be.

Titan Fall
CoD
BF4
NBA 2k
EA Sports line up
KillZone
Tomb Raider
MGS (PS3 and 360 versions are very comparable, to my surprise. Only the frame rate and lighting is different)
Ryse
Forza

All are basically last gen games with "slightly" better graphics (except for maybe Killzone and BF4, which have a bigger jump in graphics). These games even have bad AI and THE SAME GAMEPLAY...

Please someone tell me I'm wrong...

[Godmars290]

No one is making or even porting games over to the WiiU because they don't want to build down for graphics.

So in a sense you're not wrong, but its a case of catch 22 and a hold out from the Wii, which sold well to casual gamers who then didn't really buy games for it.

[Sevir]

Hardly, but it is apart of the package! I couldn't fathom playing Last of Us and be as immersed in the experience if it released on PS2. The nuances of the game couldn't be achieved on a generation prior to the PS3... Visuals helps bring it all together. The game play, the physics the AI all made it a generation defining game, visuals alone can't do it, but it helps to make the leap in generations more apparent.

Looking forward to generation defining titles of the PS4/XBO generation. I think one of the first to really deliver that will be The Division, The Order: 1886, and the New Uncharted, and Black Tusk's XBO game

[PizzImperfect]

If graphics were everything, the Wii wouldn't have had so much success, last generation.

[1nsomniac]

The Wii was a fad/novelty, that's all, plain & simple. it certainly didn't win on quality gameplay!

If you believe what you say then why is the Wii U doing so bad?

[PizzImperfect]

I worked at GAME for the release of all the last generation consoles. Wii was more than a fad, it outstripped us far more than 360 or PS3 did, it was a beast of a sales machine.

Wii U is failing because it's nothing new, nothing innovative.

[bosoxs505]

I hate "Tech Demo" games like Crysis and Killzone.

[Gamer-40]

Awesome graphics alone? NO.

Excellent art design, fun gameplay, nice graphics, distinguished music and mood.

[Hugodastrevas]

Graphics are nothing, art direction, atmosphere and gameplay are everything (i just noticed i described Dark Souls!).

[Soldierone]

I think it would be part of it, but you could have a "groundbreaking" game and still not look better than say Crysis. Lets say for argument sake Crysis 1 is the best looking game there is (its not, but whatever). Does that make it the best game in the world? Actually no, it was one of the most boring games I played.

It looks visually stunning, but overall lacks in so many other areas.

So to me "next generation" is when they fix flaws that couldn't be fixed on old consoles. Better hit detection, bigger maps, more players or AI, more stuff going on, and overall just functioning right.

Also don't forget "visuals" also include animation.

[Lukejrl]

When Snake Eater came out for PS2, it was truly a next gen game. The only thing that was less was the graphics. The CQC, sniper battle, and all the awesome story sequences made it a next gen game before the ps3 was announced.

From experience I can surely say that graphics are only a small part of a generation leap.

[clouds5]

If you want next gen gameplay and concepts you have to look at the pc (indie!) or ... yes ... Wii U.
The xb1 and ps4 are limited through the controllers. They have stronger hardware than ps 360 but other than that, there is not really a difference.
But that is not what people want. People don't want "next gen" games. They want more of the same. Why else would cod sell like crazy every year..

[kenshiro100]

Gameplay will always be more important than graphics.

[WheatBread]

no we need new boob physics.

[level 360]

Yes - first impression counts

and

No - game play will always be the deciding factor.

[XboxFun]

Wow, where are all the resolution gate warriors of the last three months?
You would think they would have populated this article by now. I suspect a few have been humbled, but we still have a couple of stragglers that haven't gotten the memo yet.

[purp13m0nk3y]

It's honestly a difficult question to give a definitive answer for.

First you gotta ask. What defines "next gen". If you mean not possible on last gen hardware then I'd say graphics are a pretty important factor in defining what qualifies for a true "next gen" game.

So far I don't think we have seen a "truly next gen" game (by the definition that it couldn't be done on last gen hardware). Sure there have been heaps of games released on the 9th gen hardware that have visuals that are only possible on the new hardware. But so far gameplay wise, there is nothing that couldn't be done on last gen with downgraded graphics.

There was the Jump to 64 player BF4 but that doesn't qualify as the same core gameplay remains unchanged.

Can anyone think of any game (already released or soon to be) that offers gameplay that is only possible on next gen hardware?

I think untill the devs start thinking outside the box and we see some truly innovative and new gameplay experiences, graphics will be the only thing that separates the "last gen" from the "next".