Graphics Are a Crutch

I feel that games tend to take a dive as graphics advance. Of course, there are many titles that can handle gameplay and graphics quite well. Yet, it is not a common occurrence. It tends to be one or the other in most cases. Graphics seem to mask most games and hide their true potential. It is a setup of self deception that even I fall for at times. The problem, for me, is that I can’t play graphics. With such heavy emphasis in that department, games are no doubt suffering.

[Orpheus]

The writer of this article has gone nuts. Its true it takes a lot of resources to invest in graphics but compared to the games of the 1990s the competition in the graphics department has not increased much. At that time no game could have the graphics crown for more than a year. Crysis held the crown for around 3 years didn't it.

2012 may be nice for graphics but else the last few years have been a lil dull in the graphics department.

[christheredhead]

Actually, I was the writer of the article and no I have not gone nuts haha. Graphics haven't been advancing drastically year to year, but the focus is still overwhelming. "Our game has the best graphics on console." "We pushed the limit of what is possible." So on and so fourth. I see those statements repeated over and over seen this generation has started. Yet, the same games that carry such bold claims are almost always lacking in content, design, longevity or a mix of everything.

Good graphics are fine. They just seem to take away from the experience when its supposed to draw you in. The HD era has definitely caused games to suffer in more ways than one. Some games do encompass greatness all around, but overall it tends to be one or the other, in most cases.

[Orpheus]

Oh bro sorry :D ur not nuts for sure. Apologies.

[WitWolfy]

An engine I always loved till this day is SCUMM, where it it was all about art style like The Curse of Monkey Island.

Too bad they dont make games like those anymore.

[Kthalas]

Nice article man. I agree with you on it.

I see a lot of posters who base their gaming decisions off of Graphics. If the game in question has what they consider to be bad graphics, they won't pick it up. They also won't pick up older classics that have great stories and game play because the graphics are "dated".

Graphics are nice. They're like eye candy. But without substance, that's all it is. Eye Candy.

[dark-hollow]

Developers, get this,
Graphics gets outdated over the years but a good art style is what truly will lives on for generations.

Many developers focus on graphics but their art style is very dull and boring.
That's why wind waker still looks good even by today's standards.

[dedicatedtogamers]

Graphics are one of the things being advanced the LEAST. Nowadays, devs focus so much effort into storylines (most of which end up being crappy) and online features. Physics and graphics are one of the main ways that videogames progress.

When you have 25 enemies on the screen instead of just 2, isn't that an advancement in graphics?

When you shoot a wood beam, it splinters, and a building comes tumbling down, isn't that an advancement in physics?

When you can actually walk across a landscape with hills, forests, rocks, and valleys instead of walking across a flat mini-map, isn't that graphics?

When you can see damage and blood on your enemy instead of relying on a generic health bar to see how much damage, they've taken, isn't that graphics?

[christheredhead]

"Graphics are one of the things being advanced the LEAST. Nowadays, devs focus so much effort into storylines (most of which end up being crappy) and online features. Physics and graphics are one of the main ways that videogames progress."

-True. At this very point in time, on this day, yes graphics are being advanced the least. They have been developed enough that they aren't being pushed so heavily on every single occasion. Yet, there are expectations that people rely on so predominantly that makes me wonder. Gamers flock to what is shiny because it looks good. Wii, for instance, is the obvious underdog in the visuals. Some gamers refuse to play it because it looks "so hourendous", among a culmination of other things. Same instance is applied to other games outside of the Wii library.

As, for the rest of your questions you are right, I'm not arguing or trying to downplay graphics. The HD generation has ruined many franchises for me though. Some are completely non existent. Which, like I said, there is a certain expectation that must be met. If any thing falls short it will automatically be a terrible game. "Game looks horrible, I'm not playing it." "Wow, this looks amazing. This is next generation good." My example of BF3 sums up how I feel. Yes, the game looks great, but I feel like so much emphasis was put onto the visuals that the rest of game suffered for it. Yet, gamers feed into it, hyping the game into something it was not. It's a great game, just not what is was being made up to be. This was implied by the visual standard. Similar situation for most games.

[dedicatedtogamers]

IMO that has less to do with graphics being a "crutch" and more to do with most devs these days lacking the talent to make a game with good graphics AND good gameplay. Yep, a lot of gamers look to graphics. Part of that is because - "back in the day" - great graphics almost ALWAYS meant great gameplay because only the most talented developers could manage to push graphics.

[christheredhead]

Agreed. I'm not trying to knock graphics, just the over emphasis on visual quality. True It might be the devs fault, but if they can't manage both, what do you think they would fall back on? The visuals of course, and that's what I mean by crutch. You'll see that the game looks great and you might be suckered into purchasing or playing it. Publishers use it as a tool many times.

The main point of the article though was the inclination of next gen. If you apply the ideals of this current gen to the next then prepare for a boring round of consoles. I mean, gamers gauge the worthiness of consoles and games just on graphics alone. I dont expect next gen to be any thing more than a prettier version of this gen. That is, if they appeal to what most people want. You can already get a good idea of the mentality of most just by reading the comments relating to the samaritan demo.

[Baka-akaB]

I feel it is yet again some recurrent case of nostalgia .

Graphics werent less important in some distant golden era , or else we'd have come that far along that quickly .

"Gamers flock to what is shiny because it looks good. Wii, for instance, is the obvious underdog in the visuals. Some gamers refuse to play it because it looks "so hourendous", among a culmination of other things. Same instance is applied to other games outside of the Wii library"

The wii has been the underdog in far more than graphics . It has been in every area so far except sales .

It is because of a mix of both it's archaic hardware , but also of it's lack of 3rd party support while relying on a widely underused control gimmick .

How many open world game do you even know on wii as opposed to how many shovelwares ? And how many of the best wii titles arent from nintendo itself ?

And how many of the truly great Wii titles dont have some distinct artistic and graphical qualities ? I think you'd only find wii sports in such list alongside stuff like zelda SS , Last Story , Mario Galaxy , Xenoblade etc

"Yep, a lot of gamers look to graphics. Part of that is because - "back in the day" - great graphics almost ALWAYS meant great gameplay because only the most talented developers could manage to push graphics. "

this ^^ , except i dont think it's something "back in the day" .

Do we even remember any time lately a great looking game had mediocre gameplay ? And i'm not talking dissapointment after months of media hype , but truly subpar gameplay .

I dont think we can find a game these days that would look gorgeous and play like crap . The cost is too big for any studio to even pull that . And people know and notice that hence why they by default and association follow graphics .

Even a dissapointed Crysis fan , can't pretend Crysis 2 is awful .

[Capt-FuzzyPants]

Amen to that. This guy's speakin the truth.

[WiiUWiime]

U hav to remmbr to that good graphics doesnt always mean good framerates!!! I would rather hav a decent lookin game with smooth framerates than a great looking game that suffers from framedrops and slowdown...u guys know what i mean...

[theeg]

there has benn no focus on graphics on consoles since uncharted 2, since no console game since has look as good, consoles peaked with uncharted 2, until new ones come out, graphics are the least thing they can focus on, since the consoles are not capable of anything beyond uncharted 2, in fact games are starting to look worse, like uncharted 3, not even close to uncharted 2.

[christheredhead]

I think I remember God of War 3 and Killzone 3 being "maxed out." Both are great games, but for being "maxed out" they lacked a major amount of content. They turned out to be grossly underwhelming, at least for me. There was very little depth as they took a 'more is less' sort of approach to the user experience.

[WitWolfy]

I still think people take "MAXED OUT" out of context, when the developer actually means they maxed out ENGINE X on the current hardware they're running on.

Optimization is the key I think.

[hiredhelp]

God of war 3 had graphics, longativity,replayability,and unlockable game modes witch many games lack this gen..

[christheredhead]

@hiredhelp

I would have to agree to disagree. I bought the game on launch day and beat the game in five and half hours. Granted, I wasn't rushing nor did I mean to beat it that fast. Afterwards you have the challenge modes and that is about it. Not much to it really. Sure I could go back and play it on hard to artifically extend the experience, but I don't see the point. Lastly, they decided to cut out all the unlockable content that you would have normally got with past installments. Instead of really great creative costumes, like the fish suit, you were treated to a few and the rest were up for sale as DLC.

That 5 hour experience I had was absolutely amazing, but it was underwhelming. I spent 65 dollars on a game I beat the same day that I picked up. Worst purchase in a very long time. It offered nothing outside your main story. Nothing wrong with that, but God of War 3 does not encompass what games lack. It is actually the prime example of the what current gen games lack. The game went for cinematics and graphics leaving the rest of the aspects behind.

[ACEMANWISE]

Graphics can be a crutch. The biggest warning sign for myself is when a developer boasts the graphics as it's focal selling point.

Yet anything outside of gameplay can also be a "crutch". Motion control, 3D, 1080P, story, multiplayer, etc. can all be used as the main "crutch" to carry a video game. I consider all things outside great gameplay to be enhancements to further benefit an already great video game. I do believe story to be the greatest impact for enhancing a single player video game but the gameplay will always represent the foundation.

[Bimkoblerutso]

I just kind of wish the emphasis would shift away from "graphics" and more towards "technology." I mean think about things like AI and physics. There are LESS than a handful of games out there that utilize AI as successfully as Halo did over ten years ago. And on the physics front, there are games like GTA4 that have made concerted efforts to move the technology forward, and yet 90% of the time we're still stuck with the archaic, floaty, Havok-powered physics we've had for nearly a decade. It's absolutely ridiculous.

I mean, sure. Games like Battlefield 3 are pretty and immersive until you shoot some ridiculously stupid bot in the head and he flops around on the ground like he's made of light rubber.

[Detoxx]

What are you talking about? Play BF3 multiplayer it has very good ragdoll animations

[PersonMan]

I wanna start seeing games that are more fun instead of pretty.

Everyone cries that CoD needs a new engine because it looks old and crappy, but it has something that most other games lack "fun". There are so many game modes, perks and guns for every single type of player. CoD makes you feel comfortable and the gameplay is addicting.

That being said... I think I've played CoD too many times over the last 4 years and I'm now starting to get really bored of it. There's only so many ways to kill a player over and over again. That's just my opinion of it. However, a couple years ago, I couldn't put it down.

Now I'm into Uncharted 3 (amazing), inFAMOUS 2 (also amazing), GTA IV (fun when I'm bored), Red Dead Redemption (fun multiplayer with my girlfriend)... but I don't play these games because the graphics are good, I play them because they're fun.

I did fall for the hype of Crysis 2 (still haven't beaten it due to getting bored every time I play it) and Killzone 3 (what a dull predictable SP campaign).

By the way... why do First Person Shooter campaigns fail to have an engaging story? It's always like "Shoot the wave of enemies and when you get to the check point, shoot the next wave of enemies". That's why I love Uncharted games... everything you do in the game has a purpose... never once do I feel like I'm shooting things just to make the game longer or harder. I actually feel like I'm experiencing a great game instead of grinding through waves of endless enemies. More games need to do this.

Where was I? Oh yeah... graphics are definitely holding back gameplay innovations and good interesting stories. Maybe I need to quit gaming because I think I'm asking for too much....haha.