Graphics Obsession Is Holding Gaming Back

Modern gaming has come an incredible way in a short amount of time. Growing from a relatively niche hobby to a full blown inter-generational obsession, video games have become art, entertainment, and more. Read our special feature by Jack from The Nerd Stash!

[OB1Biker]

Its not all about photorealism . . ND are a good example of studio focusing on having believable characters and graphics is just a part of the means to achieve that.-
Graphics obsession is not holding gaming back,; its pushing it.
In the 80s when playing an adventure game it was rewarding just to be able to see the next screen and be amazed by the graphics.
It was just the beginning

[Fin_The_Human]

Please name one feature this gen that has not been done last gen?

This is NexGen so:

Why do we still have copy and paste NPCs

Why can't I go into every building

Why can't everything be destroyable

Why are maps so tiny

Why can't charaters have more realistic facial features to express emotions

Why can't I have 1000s of enemies on one screen.

I could go on but the fact that apart from pretty graphics what have games achieved this gen that weren't achievable last gen.

Hopefully Crack Down 3 delivers with its promises.

[Picnic]

Play Hitman (apart from fully destructible environments - but it has setpiece destruction).

[t-hall785]

Someone gets it.

[_-EDMIX-_]

I have no clue what you're talking about Hitman has a ridiculous number of NPCs something that for a fact could not do on previous Hardware all you have to do is look at the Dev Diaries of many games to see technical things that they were unable to do on last generation's Hardware.

We also have a generation with arguably some of the most open world games to be released, up to this point anyway.

From a technical standpoint it's not subjective its objective it's an absolute fact that there are features on a technical stance that could not have been done last generation that's being done this generation.

Read what Rocksteady stated about Arkham Knight and understand how that game was created with something that could not be done to its scale last generation with all the features they had in the game.

Even you asking for a game where you could go inside every building you would have to understand that that is of a technical standpoint, it means that you have to have specific Hardware to do such a feat, consider Assassin's Creed Unity had more Interiors than any Assassin's Creed before it....

So I don't entirely know what you're talking about as you made a list yet you don't actually have real comparisons by real developers stating otherwise lmfao.

Go look up the developers I just told you about and come back to me bud.

We saw with titles like The Witcher 3 and Fallout 4 having ridiculously large worlds with a whole bunch of weather settings and features in a load of different Interiors. What you are trying to compare is a degree of, and yes the degree of difference is absolutely substantial to the point where for an absolute fact it was not feasible last generation because it didn't happen to that degree.

[ChronoJoe]

Some of the advanced particle effects seen in games like Resogun, Infamous Second Son and Aliennation could not have been delivered on previous gen systems. The games themselves prove that, as Resogun is actually on PS3 and Vita too, where its effects look rather ugly in comparison to the PS4 version of the game.

In terms of gameplay mechanics like destructibility, it's not that there isn't additional power in this generation, over last, it's that developers choose to balance this between distribution towards visual performance, and gameplay mechanics. Games could be developed where you can destroy everything, but they would in general, need to compromise other aspects of their presentation to achieve that, in addition to expending a large amount of money on other aspects of the games development. For instance, AI are very difficult to program in games that feature destructible environments because they then need to adapt to the players actions on the environment, not merely his character movement.

Some of it does come down to those factors too. Just because we're on more powerful hardware doesn't mean that the publishers and developers are willing to spend the extra development costs to achieve these features. A graphical update is an easy inclusion that's afforded by more powerful hardware, but more sophisticated AI requires a lot more input from the development team. Thus far, when adjusting for the rate of inflation the retail price for video games has remained relatively static. That then presents an issue, because if consumers want games to push the boundaries, offering the type of features that require considerable additional development time, then I would argue that they need to be willing to pay more too. Star Citizen is a good example of that I think, although the funding platform is relatively unconventional, it demonstrated that if you truly want to see an experience that pushes the genre forward both mechanically, and visually in considerable ways, then there really needs to be a financial drive behind that. Star Citizen's fans have been willing to - collectively - part with a lot of cash to make that game and everything its offering a reality.

Much of the issue stems from consumers seemingly being quite happy to continue purchasing the games they already are. Why push the limits of game design and incur heftier development costs when you can push out a similar game with a graphical enhancement that features mechanics you already have experience working with? Ultimately it's the sway of money that shapes the industry and so long as good money is still being made by games like Destiny, Call of Duty and The Division, there's no reason for publishers to finance more expensive, ambitious projects.

I disagree with your thoughts on facial animation though, I think animation in games is something that's progressively improved throughout each generation. Games today are animated far better than last generation, and the generation before that, and much of that has been able to translate over to facial animation too. Facial motion capture has been employed in many big games (either directly or indirectly), including Uncharted, and LA Noir, while smoother and more fluid animation styles present themselves in other games. Street Fighter V's animations are some of the best we have seen on a 3D fighting game, absolutely stunning. Most of that just stems from the animators getting better at what they do though. You can see it very clearly in MOBA games for instance, where early characters often have worse animations than those introduced later, simply because the animation team have improved their craft during the time the two characters released.

[DarthZoolu]

Crackdown will be the most important game of the Generation. If it delivers people will flock to it. Then maybe we will actually see the future. IMO there has not been a true advancement since Games like Morrowind hit PC. Things have changed but not truly new. VR is about it.

[kevnb]

im sure they could do all that, but then games would cost way too much to make.

[thekhurg]

So much QQ over things that simply won't happen. No developer is going to take the time and resources required to make a video game that mimics real life down to every detail you've cried about.

[Cindy-rella]

Cheap gamers are holding gaming back

[KentBenMei]

Yeah, developers need to step it up. I KNOW that even as far back as SNES they could have had at least recolored NPCs, not straight copy & paste.

[ginsunuva]

1. Cost of labor / manpower required to implement and test all the new features. If we up development time to 5+ years and up costs to $200/game, you'll have it.

2. Design choices because not every game might want big maps, full destructability, and 1000s of enemies on screen.

It's also worth noting that even though it's "next-gen," it's a small leap in terms of power, and most of that new power is already being used on higher resolution and framerate, which are easy to implement and people like them.

[Wyleray]

I guess you are just unaware of the fact that if visual fidelity and the general level of detail etc. were left at last gen levels then these things would be possible, but developers tend to care more about those things then letting you walk into every building. It really depends on what they choose to focus on, much more is possible. If it looked like an N64 game I'm sure every model could be different and you could destroy every building and have a huge map and oh you would just be so happy... buuut I tend not to care for the ability to randomly destroy important pieces of my game that would alter any normal story dramatically and require significantly more time and money to develop, or how large the map is, as long as the content is interesting. Crackdown 3 does in fact have piss poor graphics AND relies on a most likely unstable, (always online required) connection to even see these effects (only one of the effects you have listed. You may not realize this but consoles aren't all that powerful and basically prevent these types of effects from appearing in games.

[Software_Lover]

Because resolution means everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!

[rainslacker]

Most of those things you mention are achievable. Some were achievable last gen. Graphics don't really have much to do with it. It's just it takes a lot of time and resources to implement all or some of those things.

Gonna call out this one specifically.

"Why can't I go into every building"

Why would you want to? Games have to be designed to keep the player engaged. Most people aren't going to go into every building, so it's better to simply allow people to go into the buildings that have something for the player, otherwise, people will just grow bored and stop going into any building.

I liken it to JRPG's of old. Many of them had areas where you could go into most buildings. If there wasn't a reason to go into most of them, you just stopped going into them altogether, because it's boring.

My point is, what games do and don't do is more design choice than it is limits of the hardware, and certainly not something affected by the graphics.

Also, a point of note...Heavenly sword had a scene with over 1000 enemies on the screen at once. Used heavy LOD, but still had them. Dynasty warriors will probably have it eventually. Overall, outside of some instances, there isn't much need to.

@ChronoJoe

Resogun is an interesting example. Beyond the particle effects, every object in the game was made up of blocks. Basically they had the same kind of makeup of old 8-bit sprites in a 3D way. They didn't use a lot of object models like you'd see in other games. The older systems had to reduce the number of blocks used to make up each object, and when things blew up, it was less awesome.

resogun did some interesting stuff which showed off what was possible on next gen. But like most things this gen, the advances are much less obvious than prior generational shifts because they're less tangible, whereas in the past, for the most part, graphics were about the only thing that really marked any difference. Last major shift where it was more than just graphics was the jump from 2D to 3D, where it was obvious. Games went back to looking like crap because the rendering was subpar to high quality 2D art. But the game play and mechanics advanced. Nowadays, there aren't a lot of new mechanics which can be implemented, and instead most things are just refined...or copied. So we're back to graphics and less tangible advances....which have shown up this gen if you know where to look.

[duplissi]

"Why do we still have copy and paste NPCs

Why can't I go into every building

Why can't everything be destroyable

Why are maps so tiny

Why can't characters have more realistic facial features to express emotions"

I can answer these at least. Budget and/or performance limitations.

[URNightmare]

You smell like an Xbone fanboy.

[The_KELRaTH]

And by 2000 we could go in ever crack and if there was a viewable ledge chances are you could stand on it - now it's all pretty images with invisible walls that stop you climbing / interacting (Call of Duty games are an excellent example) etc.
Gameplay has taken a huge toll in favour of pretty graphics and cinematic effects.

[game4funz]

No. Believable character and realism don't necessarily go together. And if you think naught dogs are the only ones who have created believable characters then you clearly have been missing out

Graphics obsession is the wrong direction for gaming. It is not good for gaming.

[PhucSeeker]

And it's about time to start doing believable npc too. That's the one thing i want from this gen the most (especially now that leaning bots is becoming the new things that big company like M$ is testing it out).

I want a shooting game where you only encounter 2-3 guys at a times but they behave smartly, learn your moment, move around the environment avoiding you, use advanced tactic to fight you (like distracting you with one guy and the others would shoot you when you pop out of cover), then try to flee when they're outnumbered. They would have specific names, faces and strategy as well as what they learn from your movement and act accordingly.

[glassgannon909]

i dont think its the graphics, i think its just straight up brand loyalty faced with usual internet trolling. all these people on the internet who pretend to know everything about frame times, pixel distribution etc and reflect upon how much they matter to them, its all a joke. everyone with the more powerful hardware seems to notice and feel the difference way too much for the tiniest thing, everyone with the weaker one dosnt seem to care and calls the others graphics whore. everyone who owns a pc seems to have the absolute confidence of running everything at 4k,120fps/ saying thats somehow the standard for gaming these days, something even a 5000 dollar setup cant guarantee you .

[nitus10]

You are quite right, to get into gaming that will output 4K games (basically a game with ultra settings turned on) then you need a powerful PC. While it is possible to get away with an i5 or equivalent processor (particularly if you can over-clock) you also need a decent graphics card as well.as reasonably performing memory. Of course for decent loading times an SSD is also preferred. All of what I mentioned does not come cheap and I have not even mentioned the 4K display yet.

As for a 144Hz or even 120Hz 4K monitor you can get them and surprisingly they are not that expensive (under USD$900 for 27" or higher) however outputting 4K resolution at 120fps is possible but not guaranteed if you have two or more high end graphics cards in tandem but unless you are a complete graphics whore or just someone who wants to boast and has money to burn then why bother.

The thing to remember is that no matter how powerful a PC you build there will always be someone who will build a more powerful one and usually within the hour. 😉

Anyway 8K screens are now available although very expensive at the moment however they will come down in price within about two to three years and I would love to know what graphics cards can output 8K content @ 30fps or better.

[Mikefizzled]

You completely contradicted yourself. "4K" isn't a game with ultra settings on at all. It's a resolution. Individual settings can be changed so you can have everything set to low whilst outputting at 4096 x 2160.

I nearly spat out my drink when you said not that expensive, Under $900 for 27". You're running the risk of making gaming an elitist hobby if you need $1000+ of kit to get started. That's the void consoles have filled so well. $300-$450 for a decent box and nearly any TV that you can find will run new games for the next 8-10 years.

[glassgannon909]

a $900 27 inch display isnt that expensive? and no, not even a normal sli will get you 4k@120
battlefield 4 with 2 titan x's gets you around 75 avg. and thats a 4000+ rig just to accomodate for those cards.

[mochachino]

I'm not saying this to be rude, but I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

@Mikefizzled A gen actually last anywhere from 4-5 years, not 8-10. Last gen was abnormally long.

[WhoCaresWhatMyNameIs]

Why do people get resolution and graphics all mixed up? Here is the good example of the difference. You have two JPG files. JPG 1 is set at 1080p. JPG 2 is set at 4k. The contents and visuals on both images look the same, same graphics, art style, etc. The difference are the canvas sizes. If you stretch JPG 1 to 4k, it's gonna pixelate. If you downsize the JPG 2 to 1080p, sure it's gonna look a tad sharper, but hardly noticeable cause the screen size is small. It might even pixelate cause you're pushing too many pixels on a small size. Resolution is exactly what it means, it references the screen size. Sure you need killer hardware to output to that screen size, it doesn't mean the game has 'better graphics'. It will look sharper...that's all.

[starchild]

Yeah, but resolution is part of "graphics". Just as anti-aliasing can go a long way to making a game look better, resolution can improve how a game looks as well.

Texture resolution, texture filtering, ambient occlusion, post effects, anti-aliasing, geometry/tessellation, resolution...all of these things contribute to how good a game looks. It's not one thing by itself, it's a host of things together.

Anyway, I don't think 4k is at a sweet spot for most people yet. 1440p on the other hand is very nice and quite affordable. You can get a 144Hz 1440p 27" monitor for like $300 (probably lower). You can even get a Gsync monitor with those specs for around $480 right now.

[Kiwi66]

Guess we can blame those who only seem to care about fps/res over gameplay which is mostly from some who don't ever seem to be satisfied with a game

[The 10th Rider]

It's not frame rate that's the issue.

Frame rate dips below 30fps are pretty bad. 30fps is definitely acceptable for games, but 60fps is ideal. A smoother frame rate will make a game feel so much smoother.

I actually find frame rate to be an excellent example of people caring for graphics over gameplay, by sacrificing a little bit of graphical fidelity a game could at least maintain a solid 30fps, but oftentimes devs opt for the better graphics over a steady, smoother playing frame rate.

[garrettbobbyferguson]

FPS resolution literally affects gameplay.

[_-EDMIX-_]

I mean I sort of disagree as you can very much care about having a stable frame rate if it affects your experience with the game if you're playing a game and you're trying to have a deeper immersion and it keeps dropping frames and slowing down it very much takes away from the satisfaction of what you're looking at so I don't know if I entirely believe that because that doesn't really make sense.

Yes I'm playing games to play them of course but that doesn't mean I'll just play a game with a terrible frame rate that cannot be stable or that as muddy Textures in a very low-resolution.

If part of the game is believability it's going to be difficult to build that type of immersion with so many frame rate drops and muddy textures.

Of course we all like gaming but that doesn't mean we're going to play unoptimized, frame rate dropping trash I'm sorry but that's just taking it to a bit of an extreme.

[garrettbobbyferguson]

It's pretty much graphics. Developers/publishers have latched onto the idea of trying to fit as many polys as many effects as many explosions on screen as possible now. It's the reason why games are running at 900p 30 fps. Just you watch, people will be singing the praises when 1080/60 becomes the standard. Unfortunately it won't be until there are significant leaps in technology that allow this idiotic graphical craze to exist along side that performance minimum.

[NohansenBoy]

I don't really get why some have the mind set that indie title means it's subpar though. Of course retro indie titles get the most flak.

[Movefasta1993]

I think devs are too afraid to take risks now,people want everything/formula to stay the same.If it changes the majority get mad.Games are getting too expensive to make i hear.That's why it's mainly indies that we see taking risks,trying something a little different.
A few examples of what i am talking about is halo 5 and uncharted 4's mp.FAns basically just want the gameplay and modes to be like halo 2 and uncharted 2 and them to look better,anything new and it gets ripped on.

[DragonDDark]

Imo, Media Molecule is the only development team that innovates with every new IP they make.

[s45gr32]

Your opinion, but for me its games like Portal a puzzle game unlike anything before it. One of those puzzle games that had no relation to Tetris. To the moon a game about marriage, true 💘, the ups and downs of relationships, etc. Also check out, Among the sleep a horror game played from the point of view of a 2 year old kid. Is on PS4 and it tells the story via gameplay.

[UltraNova]

@s45gr32

Little Big Planet is leaps and bounds more advanced, has deeper more complex and varied game-play mechanics than Portal ever wished it had.

Dreams is LBP times squared.

In fact mentioning LBP and Portal in the same sentence is unfair for the latter which is a great, smart, fun game in its own right.

When it comes to bold, innovating ideas in gaming Media Molecule is in a league of one.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

Remedy was not with QB which was a spectacular game.

[_-EDMIX-_]

I don't know if I'll say all that because there's lots of games that are changing their formulas to do new things.

We still have many Developers that are evolving their formulas from previous generations to take advantage of the hardware available.

[rainslacker]

I don't think that it's they're afraid to take risks, it's more that risks are risky. Games have to sell, and a flop on a big budget game can ruin a dev house. Heck, even if it makes money, but not enough, it can cause problems.

People focus on what they know, and it's hard for new IP's to get a foothold without substantial marketing, which in itself is expensive and adds to the risk. Even if they get such things, it doesn't guarantee success.

Unfortunately, it's just a matter of risk vs. reward, and long gone are the days where titles could be made cheap, and at least break even with some sales, or make a ton of money with just modest sales. When it comes to investing 50-100 million dollars, those investors want things which are more likely to return that investment.

Sadly, I don't think there's a real solution to that problem which doesn't involve going back to antiquated games, and I can't imagine most people, or even all devs, would be content with going with what indie is doing on the middle levels.

[Godmars290]

Been saying that for some time. Ever since Crysis graphics have been an excessive fixation.

[FlexLuger]

You were not lying. In all honestly, I ghave yet to play a game this cycle that actually feels next gen. All I hear is '1080 ' this '60frames' that.....yet all we been playing is prettier versions of game designs that have not changed that much since PS2 and og xbox days. Just goes to show how shallow and easily pleased gamers are....

[Godmars290]

The 1080/60 issue is that it shouldn't be an issue because it wasn't pre-HD. It didn't need to be thought about with DMC2, but was with DmC: DMC.

Then there was the first FF13 which was the prettiest that didn't need crowds or towns, then the later entries in the sub-series which were progressively less pretty yet reintroduced crowds and towns.

[rainslacker]

I remember the days when it was always awesome to see what was the best graphics. They weren't expected from every game like they are now. I think people always were drawn to the better graphics, because that's just the way tech lovers are. But I don't really recall people ever obsessing over them if they didn't exist. Sure we compared color palates and number of sprites on screen, but we didn't have places like digital foundry with comment sections numbering in the hundreds of comments range.

@Flex

I feel the same way. I think that game design has kind of hit a wall. Most principals of game play mechanics are all adapted from things that have been around since the PS1 generation. Some new things have come about of course, but then those just get rehashed and refined, and made to look prettier. Most of the advances of this gen have been less tangible, and I can't really argue that no game has truly redefined anything when it comes to actual game play. Even games lauded for their advancement are just improvements on older things.

I don't know if new things can be thought of because practically everything is possible now, or even how they'll be received, but you are correct that most game design changes nowadays are entirely superficial.

Maybe subconsciously, people just realize it's the last boundary which can be criticized, so the obsession with graphics has taken over.

[s45gr32]

Come on we are obsessed with graphics why lied about it. On every console launch what the corporations, media, and even gamers talk about visual fidelity. Come on, a lot of gamers went ooh and aaah in regards to Donkey Kong Country's visuals. Is just the internet really exposes our obsession that's all.

[rainslacker]

Of course we talked about it, but we didn't obsess over it. We were attracted to the better looking games. But when Super Mario Bros. 3 came out, we didn't suddenly stop caring about other games which didn't look as good.

[Kyosuke_Sanada]

It is shame really. Just as great box art have gone to the wayside, so has great art direction in the games themselves, It's good to see games like Borderlands, Demon Souls or KIller7 that are instantly recognizable even from afar and I hope that similar titles increase in number. I am worried about gaming society's aesthetics 10 years down the road.

[Sirk7x]

Agreed, art direction always trumps polygons, lighting and shading (unless lighting is used very well as part of the general art direction). In time, all games will look dated. The ones with soul poured into their creations will still look beautiful long after. Case in point, games such as Final Fantasy IX, Xenoblade Chronicles, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, hell, even Super Mario World.

[jeremyj2913]

No love for Okami, huh?

[sullynathan]

Crysis is a bad game but has good graphics.

[Movefasta1993]

none of the crysis games are bad. People who say the games are bad haven't played any of them . They're no bioshock or half life 2, but they certainly are not bad games.

[sullynathan]

Crysis is fucking terrible. The gameplay is poor, the AI is retarded, the story is nonsensical and the lack of level design especially for later levels is appalling and worst of all, the game is boring as hell. The only saving grace was the graphics which aren't as impressive today.
Even though the sequels were more linear at least they had better mechanics that the original.
Crytek did things better with far cry.

[starchild]

That's your opinion. The Crysis games are some of the smarter shooters around, in my opinion. There's a lot of strategy and different ways to approach conflicts. I enjoyed them. And it seems a lot of other people enjoyed them too because they have pretty good metacritic averages. YMMV.

I'm not saying YOU have to agree with the metacritic average, I'm just saying you shouldn't speak as if your opinion were a fact.

[sullynathan]

Do you guys always have to remind someone that it's their opinion? The game doesn't need anymore strategy than other shooters.

[_-EDMIX-_]

I have no clue what you're talking about Crisis was actually a very good game.

Though it's not my top favorite FPS of all time I would never actually say it's bad in any respect.

[MegaRay]

I concur. Developers shouldnt priority graphics over performance, but they do that anyways just to impress people.

[s45gr32]

Game developers should focus on making a game not profits

[Ozmoses]

These kids nowadays (graphic whores) would have HATED being born in 1984 like me...

A game is a game regardless of graphics... Open your mind and take a chance... You might find a gem.. You might just find your favorite game.

[Kiwi66]

Or like me who was born in the sixties who played video games at the local arcade in the 70's i just call it as i see it but you can't deny the fact that a small minority on here keep saying they want fps etc over gameplay @MRMagoo so if that makes me childish then what does that make those who downplay one console and praise another because of graphics and when have i ever made childish comments about the ps4 fan base sure i may say something to an individual who says something stupid just like others do yet you somehow turn that into talking about the whole ps4 fanbase then your being childish

[MRMagoo123]

for someone born in the sixties you seem to make a whole lot of childish comments especially about the ps4 fan base......I guess age and maturity aren't hand in hand.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

@ Magoo
To be fair, every fanbase has its childish elements, but ever since the PS4 became the market leader, its fanbase has become toxic and big-headed to the point where I'm ashamed to consider myself a part of it, despite having been with Sony since the PS2 era.

[_-EDMIX-_]

I've actually never heard a single person say they wanted frames over gameplay that doesn't even make any sense lol.

The two are not related in regards to who's stabling them and who's creating the elements of gameplay.

Just like the artist that are rendering those photo realistic games are not the programmers who are also making gameplay elements they have nothing to do with that lol oh boy...too funny.

If you're downplaying a console based on the graphics it's most likely due to a multi-platform game in which graphically could be superior elsewhere that actually doesn't change that gameplay element the game is clearly still going to be the same elsewhere in regards 2 Gameplay to a degree.

Meaning I could be purchasing Fallout 4 because of the things I want to do in Fallout 4 but that doesn't change the fact that I might speak differently about its other versions that might look lesser of course I want to play the best-looking Fallout 4 but I ultimately still want to PLAY Fallout 4.

You are very much allowed to look at other versions of a game and be able to judge which version is the one you want but still ultimately still want the game for the game itself. Just because I want Fallout 4 to play it as a game doesn't mean I also want it as the worst possible version...

@wonder- ashamed? Buddy all communities will have all types of people I have no clue how you could be ashamed to be part of a community that doesn't even have much in common other than owning the damn platform. Do you think someone's proud to own another platform based on its perceived community?

I pity the person that feels any Pride or shame in a specific product or its community, I have no clue why you're gaming if you even feel this emotional attachment to a product or its community lol

Explains a lot.

I don't have an opinion on the community of any platform in terms of shame or Pride or anything like that I cannot speak for 40 million people I do not know of their beliefs.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

Hey! Another '84 lifer like me!
That's pretty rare lately for some reason...

Speaking of Rare; you and me, we're on the same wave-length. I'm one of those people that can still look at a game like Banjo-Kazooie and think that it looks beautiful no matter how blocky it is.XD
I guess it's just a sign of the times; the younger generation hasn't grown up with these older games and lower resolutions, so they don't really have a proper appreciation for many of the classics due to their looks, and have waaaaay too big a focus on the latest graphical block-buster, even when some of them have gameplay depth that goes about as deep as the p*ss puddle a fly would leave behind.XD

[Picnic]

Yes, Banjo Kazooie is beautiful. It took a leaf out of Nintendo's book in terms of having a hub world but the level design of the overall world suggests genius at Rare. In fact, I can pay no higher compliment to either series than to say that, to me, Metroid Prime is Banjo Kazooie set in space with a horror theme.

[_-EDMIX-_]

@wonder - didn't know you are that old sad too as you're still name calling and using profanity like a child, , gas everyone matures at a different rate smh.

Banjo-Kazooie Conker's Bad Fur Day and many of Rare's games at that time we're very impressive-looking Platformers but besides how great they looked for their time they played amazing!!!

No amount of graphical output could ever actually supplement a great playing game. If this was true the worst reviewed games of all time could also be the best-selling the reality is graphical walking simulators where there's barely any gameplay are not moving ridiculous of millions of units.

Which means you're actually wrong on that assumption that Gamers do not appreciate good games over Graphics as people are not purchasing games to look at their purchasing games to actually play. Also I'm not sure how one would actually measure appreciation lol consider the rare replay game released for Xbox One got massive reception and lots of people spoke great things regarding those games being revised.

Also consider great Platformers like the Ratchet & Clank series still continue to do very well and get great reception so maybe that's not true for most bud.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

@ED
Childish ad-hominem attacks now?
Dude, get back under your bridge.
You're a perfect example of that toxic element I've mentioned, and have yet to prove a single point to me or anyone else here since you started opening your mouth.
You were done before you even got started, after BS like that.
Sit down and shut up.

[Wyleray]

So let me see if I understand correctly. You guys are old, and grew up with what are barely considered to be video games, so you are all knowing and your opinion is greater than everyone elses? I was born in 92, I was first exposed to NES then I got a genesis, PS1, N64, Gamecube, no Xbox or PS2, every console and a computer since then. How are you my gaming superior.

[rainslacker]

I was born in the seventies, and my first console was a 2600. Not exactly graphics paradise. But even back then, one could marvel at the good graphics of pitfall, or lament over how bad E.T. graphics were.

Generational jumps are just so much different now than they used to be though. The things that change are less tangible to notice. Resolution and fps are about the last places people have for making comparisons, because things like particle physics, number of objects, animation keyframes, static mesh complexity, and lighting/shading processes, is more technical and hard to express in a non-abstract way. Even number of polygons is becoming hard to discern between what is good and what is bad, because it's getting to the point of diminishing returns.

Even in the 2D days, it wasn't just more pixels, better/more sprites, or more objects on the screen. There were usually lots of advances to make all that look good, and i a lot of cases actually allowed for some interesting game designs. Things like Sonic were born from what Sega called blast processing. Things like star fox were born from mode 7. Some of the games on Saturn like clockwork knight were born from the integration of 2D and 3D processing effects. Games like Final fantasy VII used the PS1's ability to stream video over rendered images to make some unbelievable effects for their time.

When I look at games nowadays, I can see a lot of the things that this gen can do beyond what last gen could do, and it's quite impressive, because I have a pretty good knowledge of what's going on under the hood. I'm impressed with it on a technical level, but on a user/player level, it does appear to just be more of the same, and it mostly is because the kinds of advances we used to see just don't exist anymore, and everything is pretty much on a baseline for core development. There's nothing uniquely different anymore, because every CPU/GPU is pretty much capable of doing everything to varying degrees of performance.

[CouldHaveYelledUiiW]

Focus on graphics is a factor. Because every processor made has to find a balance between physics, concept, and visuals
... Some people won't even touch a game because of framerate and HD res.

[The 10th Rider]

Well, if a game is an actioney game with frame rate dips below 20fps, that's a perfectly good reason for someone to not want to play it. Now if they won't play it because it's 60fps, that's different, but a decent frame rate is a must, and anytime something dips below about 24fps it's going to be noticeable.

[Atomicjuicer]

Xbox one has less input lag than Ps4. This is a huge gameplay factor.

[Stogz]

I've never had any issues with input lag on either system, stop making things up.

[addictedtochaos]

Graphics can help enhance a game, but they don't automatically make the game good, I've played plenty of games that look incredible but we're crap.

[Perjoss]

I'd like to see more advancements in other areas like AI and dynamically changing musical scores. The nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor is a great example of good games design, publishers need to allow the devs and designers to take more risks.

[dasitman]

I disagree, awesome graphics add to the overall game.

[Fist4achin]

I'm quite happy with where things are at right now. This is coming from a gamer who used to rock out a commodore 64 and coleco vision. I don't think that many people are too concerned with how grasses are swaying in the wind as they are trying to not get their head blown off playing some MP game...

[Fin_The_Human]

Have to ask this but are you satisfied with the jump from last gen to this gen console wise?

Tjw reason I ask is because I haven't played a game yet that has made me go OMG this is nexgen.

[Fist4achin]

I totally get what youre saying. I think the best is yet to come as developers get used to the new limits. It usually seems to be the case that the better, more hardware challenging stuff comes about 2-3 years into the lifetime of a generation. I know, we haven't had that Gears of War/Halo 3/Uncharted 2/Bioshock feel yet. It will come, just hang in there...

[SolidStoner]

i see it otherwise, many games still evolve.. its just those many developers starting going away from hardcore gameplay, giving more credit to graphics hoping people will get the product just for the looks (it works too) but we all know that most of the time critics and gamers destroy these games.. also dont forget that many people on any platform are just regular people who dont read about gaming, they just buy them for the looks or interest (rally games for example) if you dont look into it, you could buy any of it (dirt rally is the best right now with racing wheel btw.).. so my point is its not really developers fault (it kinda is because they let this happen, and dont educate people, instead going the easy route of milking, easy earning money, the game has no soul in the end!).. mostly biggest fault goes for those misinformed people who buy anything that shines... speak with your wallet.. I personally dont get any Pre order bonuses or DLC's for 10 years now, and dont buy crappy games!!

EDIT: Latest EA Star wars game, shines out the most of what I said! it has shiny graphics (one of the best I seen), it has the name on it "Star wars" - now the real pro milking can begin, gameplay wise its really so empty, so similar and small amount of guns, no decent customization, weird game modes and small amount, it just uses the name to sell it for people who are looking for graphics!

[Ysmir6723]

I dont call it obsession,I call it LIMITLESS POTENTIAL for my powerful pc which makes me 800 euro a month and not a trash can by sony,which is to pc what an ant is to a person.

[Gol3m]

No man's sky negs to differ from the narrative of this article

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

No Man's Sky has yet to prove itself as a game that's got enough depth beyond its graphics to make the developers enough cash to break even.
Which won't be an easy feat even if it DOES have good replay-ability beyond its graphics, what with so much of their budget going into graphics in the first place.

[_-EDMIX-_]

? Beyond its Graphics?

The entire appeal of no man sky is its concept, I've never actually heard anybody say they're specifically only interested in no man's Sky because of how it looks by far its greatest attribute is that you could basically travel the universe in a ridiculous infinite gameplay area..

I once again have never heard anybody state that how it looks is its best feature that's kind of strange considering it's not the greatest looking game this gen lol.

I think you need to try to troll harder bud. Did Minecraft need to have Graphics to become one of the best-selling games of all time? Your post is as stupid as it gets bud.....

[Gol3m]

I'm not sure you followed my post wonderfulmonkeyman I'm saying no man's sky doesn't have good graphics. I'm excited for a pure exploration game

[Espangerish]

When developer focus on graphics at the expense of gameplay it's a clear problem. The Order 1886 and Ryse Son of Rome as classic examples of this. While this is clearly a bad trend it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that this then means good graphics are holding gaming back.

I love to see great polished graphics in games. Appreciating the technical achievement of photo real stunning environment (like in The Division) is one of the things I live about this hobby. Surely people can't be arguing that the focus on making the graphics in the Division superb have held the game back. For me they enhance it, always assuming that there is a decent gameplay mechanic behind the gloss.

Great graphics don't have to be just about mega high fidelity, frames and pixel counts either. I enjoyed the visuals of Tearaway and Gravity Rush just as much as any AAA GPU melting beast.

[ibrake4naps]

I wonder what it'd be like to play a ps4 game that had ps2 graphics, with the entirety of the console's remainding resources going to AI, animation, etc.!

[Gol3m]

Imagine. Metal Gear Solid at 60fps same assets higher res. I'll take it

[Iltapalanyymi]

Finally. A human in the internet. graphics are the least important thing in games. if you cant play a game with "poor" graphics like PS1 or N64 era games then you dont like videogames.

[starchild]

Oh, I can play games with poor graphics. I play plenty of indie games and even games from the past like the first Tenchu and Deus Ex. I still play those games because I love the gameplay, but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't like them even more with advanced modern graphics.

Great graphics can enhance a game by adding to the atmosphere and believability of the world, which in turn increases your investment in it and your enjoyment of it.

[susanto1228]

How long is this argument gonna hold 2020? 2030? 2040? graphics has to keep up with the times the writer of this article needs to put down the super nes and jump back into reality.....

[Rude-ro]

To add, those graphics were the best that they could provide to the tvs available and the evolution of graphics and tvs combined is what gave us new consoles and growth in the market.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

There's a big difference between reasonable growth and gross obsession, and this gen, as well as much of the last one, has fallen into the latter, in terms of graphical focus.
"Keeping up with the times" has nothing to do with it; the obsession with graphics is unhealthy, and is affecting the ability of developers to make satisfactory profit.
The people obsessing over it need to put down their wallets and pick up some awareness.

[Rude-ro]

I really do not see anyone "obsessing" over graphics. If you are talking about the disparity arguments then I get it but, the there is no one controlling the market. There is no substantle proof to back up the claim that graphics are the reason to purchase a game. Especially this gen. We are not really getting any block busters to choose from nor new types of games. Games that have done well are not amazing games to begin with and I only see the game it's self affecting that and do not see how the games would be different for the sake of graphics. The graphics is not affecting the over populated fps games or the rng style games.
This article just sounds like a defense force for the disparity articles that now favor another company. Last gen it was not an issue to have tons of articles showing differences.
It is game creativity and lack of new games or games with enough content that is the issue. *added* to say it is graphics is to be blind for the last 8 years where content was getting shortened due to dlc packages and micro transactions and multiplayer only games that are sold as "replay-ability and rising prices of games. To date, the average full game is $100 due to dlc. Battlefield 4 was not effected by graphics nor cod, assassins creed black flag, etc.

[ScorpiusX]

Wonder who started this mindset , but its much more sad that some other plat thinks it will achieve graphic like those that started this awful trend . Its just sad

[jb227]

"Wonder who started this mindset"

I'll direct you to last gen when MS fans were tearing apart the PS3 for more poorly performing multiplats in resolution & frame rate. A lot of those migrated from PC w/ their recognized MS brand. So ultimately it has been around as long as gaming, but it proliferated w/ PC gamers, then hit the console w/ Xbox gamers, now a lot of those same people are realizing the futility of that stuff. Just play the games you enjoy, no reason to turn everything into a competition. Gaming is about having fun for me, but some people just can't turn the competition off at any point.

[Gol3m]

Come on. You are 100% wrong. It's bee going on since the Sega/Nintendo days. And even earlier.

[starchild]

@MyPrescious

I agree, this stuff has been going on since as long as games have been around. Graphics have always mattered. To some more than others, it's true, but it has always mattered.

[Artemidorus]

Graphics are a main selling point for many, can have all the good stories you want, always hear the infamous "if it looked better it would be even better"

Usually rare these days but many require 1080p 60fps to be the norm and I agree it should be since it's 2016 afterall

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

THANK YOU!
Finally, an article that expresses what I've felt since the start of LAST gen; the huge focus on graphics has been a big detriment to both gamers and developers.
The more realistic or resolution-heavy graphics that players demand, the harder it is and the longer and more costly it becomes to make games that are actually profitable to the developers.
And on top of that, when gamers become used to games that put such a huge focus on resolution and realism over gameplay, really good games that don't have those things as their focus get passed over, and get less sales as a result.

We've come to the point where some devs are complaining about 2M software sales not being enough to break even with some of their titles.

That shouldn't be a thing, and one of the causes behind that, is inflated budgets, that are inflated precisely because these devs know that graphical quality is an easy sell in this day and age, and try to shoot for the stars with what equates to a bottle rocket instead of a space shuttle.
Sadly, the easy sell is not "easy" enough, or these devs wouldn't be struggling to make ends meet off of 2M software sales.

Look, I get it; people love the shiny stuff, and there are a lot of people out there that think higher levels of graphics are a sign of "innovation". [ A point which I've heard often, and that I still, to this day, thoroughly disagree with.]
But there are other things much more important than cramming every pixel possible into the smallest of slow-motion sweat drops.

It's time to stop striving for the best looking realistic dirt clods and skin wrinkles, and start relying on less labor-intensive yet equally gorgeous art styles to cover for fewer pixels.
I'm not saying that we should be attempting to scale things back to the point where we're only doing games in 720p or anything stupid like that, but devs and gamers alike really do need to lay off of the graphics obsession.

For the sake of the developers, if not the health of the industry, graphical intensity as a goal needs to be given a rest, even if it's only a brief one.

[Wyleray]

Well..written? It isn't just graphics that cause these inflated budgets.. And 1080p probably costs little to nothing at this point to make look passable, being as those same 1080p games on consoles can be run at a million k on pcs with what I doubt was a significant investment from the developer. Is it really a graphics obsession? Graphics hardware is capable of several times the level of graphics of any game that has ever been released, we are asking that games look good. It is appreciated that graphics have been improving over time, and arguing against that is basically retarded. The future isn't "better art". We have always been capable of producing artistically appealing games on every system released. I could have said this at any point in time just like you could have been making a similar argument at any point in time, only now are we capable of making games with the graphics that are possible today, and gamers have every right to be pleased when a game reaches a new high mark. It IS the future, technologically speaking, and people are interested in that. It shows in the sales, people want to be a part of the evolving industry and they see the evolution of graphics as part of the evolution of the industry. People also go out of their way to buy games that make big changes to gameplay that they find appealing. It is supply and demand and you can't just ask people to deny the natural order of it by saying they are demanding too much of developers, when they aren't demanding a thing, they are simply buying what they want.

[InsaneChronos]

You don't say.

[Imalwaysright]

Coudn't agree more. There are so many areas that can be improved upon but all it takes is better graphics for many people to say "next gen is here".

[Ethereal]

Completely agree. Some of us older gamers remember what is was like in the old days.

[starchild]

I've been around since the beginning of gaming and I've enjoyed hundreds, maybe thousands, of games. Even when the graphics were simplistic representations I enjoyed playing them. But that doesn't mean that I haven't loved to see the graphical progression in games.

Unlike some people on here, I don't believe that good gameplay and good graphics are at odds with each other or mutually exclusive. I've been playing Dark Souls 3 lately and it has some of the best gameplay I've ever experienced in a game, but it also looks fantastic. The graphics, along with the gameplay, help to immerse me in its world.

[finite]

for the majority of gamers these days its about FPS and resolutions, even if the game is great, they still winge like babies throwing their dummies out of the prams.

[Wyleray]

You know I see more people claiming this than actual ps4 fanboys attacking X1 owners over it.

[BlahFlahNo]

Completely agree. I don't care about graphics if the gameplay is fantastic.

[masterfox]

is the lack of creativity from developers not the graphics, take for example overwatch and lawbreakers the same mechanism(kill each other) just with different characters, guns and visuals, or Paragon and smite.

[kenwonobi]

What graphics? If they were graphics obsessed they would have built stronger machines. The thing holding them back is their design. Now they have to build for graphics to compensate for not having the juice they promised before the generation. That way they can deliver on a good game with next generation graphics people expect.

[KentBenMei]

Good graphics are necessary to some experiences (example, Quantic Dreams). NOt every game needs cutting edge graphics and that is where indies come in, but AAA has expectations to meet.

[Apocalypze]

I miss them good old days of game boy color when nobody was complaining about graphics.

[Wyleray]

There is nothing wrong with a game attempting to look "photorealistic" although using this term makes the writer sound stupid as I doubt any developer has used this term to describe the graphics in their game. Seriously call of duty doesn't suffer because its graphics are so good (They aren't) it is just a shit game... good games with good graphics aren't uncommon as he would have you believe, as if you were somehow unaware of this fact. Games that go for an artistic art style do age better, but then nobody cares to argue against that. It really isn't an argument for or against photorealism, there are plenty of games on both ends of the spectrum. This article is pointless.

[Christopher]

YES! It absolutely is.

[FlyShootRaceSims]

In my own humble opinion and if it were up to me, I'll prioritize it like the list below. But then again what do I know, I'm no developer.
1. FPS/A.I./Gameplay
2. Story
3. Level design
3. Art Design
4. Graphical resolution

[3-4-5]

* Appealing art style that is pleasing to look at always matters more than realism.

* Realistic graphics won't look as real a few years after release but a game with a colorful & appealing art style will always look good.

Improving graphics matters, but not at the cost of making a complete & fun to play game. A game looking more realistic doesn't make it play better...it doesn't make the experience 100% better.

Realistic and good graphics are only one piece of the puzzle.

[kingjosh1876]

Weak console hardware is holding gaming back.

[mayberry]

I'm a 50 year old gamer sincere Odyssey days in the 70's, better graphics were at the forefront of my obsession with the new consoles. Of course games/gameplay was also at the forefront but the new graphics was what "got me excited" for the next gen. If developers stopped focusing on that I'd be very disappointed. Reminds me of the Killzone 2 arguments that gameplay trumps graphics but what was silly was Killzone 2 had both! In hindsight those that actually played and excelled at Killzone 2 agreed.

[NohansenBoy]

Back in the days when technology was still improving and devs had to work with only what they had proves this. There was no internet so that meant polishing up the game as much as possible. Every bug left in mattered and couldn't be patched away. Since graphics get such a large amount of attention, of course other aspects of the game suffers. Why learn how to cook if you can make something look presentable?

[Mega_Volnutt]

It's fu...ng up the industry TBH.

[DefenderOfDoom2]

I think developers today in general, need to focus more on gameplay mechanics .

[Okan-Ru]

consoles are holding back gaming. there limitations are starting to show. it's time to move on and let consoles be a thing of the past. it doesn't' need to die like this. let it peacefully go instead of trying to cling onto something wishing it too be like it once was.

The point is. the age of consoles over. The sooner gamers & the industry accept this, the sooner games will start being entertaining again instead of just glorified tech demos which have been streamlined in order to appeal to the "General masses". instead of appealing to the "General masses" developers and publishers can focus on niche groups of gamers which will make developing a game less risky since they don't have to worry about what the "General masses" want, and can instead of focus on making the game oriented toward a specific niche set of gamers, as well this will make games less streamlined, and sacrificing itself in order for the casual general masses to play it because "it's too tough"

PC Gaming is the future. embrace it. don't reject it and continue to cling onto the past of what consoles once were. the more you cling onto what consoles once was, the more you drag consoles down with you and eventually it will be remembered as something horrible instead of something that was once great.

Grow up console fanboys, it's time to accept fate and leave consoles behind, it maybe "inconvenient" for you to build a PC, it's not that hard, there are many youtube videos, many tutorials you can watch if you need any help building a pc, you got sites like tomshardware, r/PCMR, pcpartpicker, etc helping you pick out the parts you need/want for your gaming experience. There's no need to just buy $400 or $500 console with so few games while missing out on the majority of games on PC.

[NohansenBoy]

This becomes even more true as PC hardware gets more powerful yet cheaper. Imagine what it will we like when a $200-300 machine can do Crysis 3 at 1080P+ 60FPS+. Even if that would only be possible in the age of quantum computing, it will still come to pass.

[joab777]

It's true. U1-4, TloU, TW3, all would have been much been better had they not focused so much on graphics.

[starchild]

Haha nice sarcasm. Hope other people catch it.

There is no either-or situation here. We can have fantastic gameplay and fantastic graphics. There are plenty of games that show this quite clearly. Moreover, indie gaming is thriving. We have a wider variety of games than at any time in history.

I don't understand this negatively from some people. There are more good games that I want to play than ever before. I can't even begin to keep up. The fact we are getting games like The Witcher 3, Dark Souls 3, Uncharted 4 and Deus Ex Mankind Divided all in roughly a year time frame is just incredible.

[ziggurcat]

No it's not.

[destroyer11687]

Honestly, when everyone cries out that gaming has somehow stunted in growth or is being held back this generation, I honestly don't know what they're talking about at all.

I think, for some very odd reason, that people expected this generation to somehow blow last generation so far out of the water that people have unrealistic expectations. For me personally, this generation has expounded and refined everything that last generation did fairly well, which is exactly what I thought it would do. The graphics are better, the worlds are bigger, the AI is a bit smarter, the controls are tighter, the transitions between cutscenes and gameplay are smoother. Sure, this isn't true across the board, and I think devs are rightly getting flak for what seems like negligence. But honestly, I fully expect next generation to improve upon all these things by a certain margain, as has been true since the days of Ps1 and N64. I don't expect they'll pull some miracle in gaming out of their asses.

To me, it seems like people are waiting for some major breakthrough that we couldn't have imagined, almost like with what happened with the birth of Xbox live, but really, what else is there? I mean, VR is now a thing, which is the only breakthrough I can think of. I personally am very happy with this generation and I can't wait to see what's to come. Sure, not every game is one I care to play, and a few have been disappointing, but gaming is more amazing now than it has ever been, and I'm thrilled.

[s45gr32]

Graphic obsession yeah right more like 💰 obsession (DLC, microtransanctions, season passes, etc.), too much time wasted on how to screw consumers financially. Seriously, now that consoles are easy to develop game developersl have become lazier. Graphics in regards to animation, hair, facial expressions, trees, etc. still to this day have not advanced.

The same caricature facial expressions or the robot look. The same cheaply made body animations, lack of body language, with the same walking/running movements. Even the hair in characters is still plastic . Now the only attempts at improving graphics have been L.A. Noire in regards to body language/facial animations, a bit wooden or canned but great effort nonetheless. The reboot of Tomb Raider/Witcher 3 in regards to hair. Witcher 3 does a better job in regards to hair. Outside of these games the end.

Gameplay mechanics have not moved forward since PS2 era. I challenge anybody to mention a game that has brought new GAMEPLAY mechanics to gaming.....

[showtimefolks]

as long as there is the pc master race there will always be arguments about graphics

[Lbrize]

In response to the article title, No, it's not. Throw 500 people at graphics; the prettier the better, I say, and that kind of artwork eats up major production time. Then (or before or during) include a Miyamoto and a Kojima for gameplay, mechanics, puzzles & story, and we have what I've preached about for years...cake and eating it to. We don't always have to be in opposition about something folks, games can BOTH play and look awesome, and that is better for everyone! Why limit yourself? Why say it's okay for one thing to suck if the game plays well, or if it's fun? Not demanding that our AAA games do everything amazingly well and look ridiculously sick is just making excuses for your favorite franchise, developer, platform, etc. Every advance pushes everything forward, and that's always a learning experience for everyone, from the passerby seeing an on-screen demo that says "wow, that looks nice, maybe I'd like to try that sometime," to the anti-aliasing, dithering, real-time shadow nitpicker, to the programmer that was able to include a new shader algorithm. It all adds to the whole, all the time.

[Segata]

It always drove gaming forward but last few years is obsessing over photo realism has been annoying and it ages fast.