Where do graphics go from here?

marshbaboon

satchmo wrote: »

People talk about art direction and graphics tech like they're two mutually exclusive aspects of game development. They're not - achieving an art director's vision is directly dependent on what graphics tech he has at his disposal. You can't have one without the other.

Speaking of VR, I just got a demo of the Rift prototype from the Oculus guys. Very cool tech, it's got a huge amount of potential. I was on the fence about getting a devkit, now I think I'll have to!

There's crossover yes, but it's most certainly not directly dependant on the tech available.

Personal taste obviously enters it but I can think of dozens of examples. All you need to do is look at indie games to see how art direction and style can far exceed the limitations of the game engine.

satchmo

marshbaboon wrote: »

There's crossover yes, but it's most certainly not directly dependant on the tech available.

Personal taste obviously enters it but I can think of dozens of examples. All you need to do is look at indie games to see how art direction and style can far exceed the limitations of the game engine.

There's nothing subjective about it. I'm not sure if we're talking about the same tech here, but every game is absolutely and unquestionably limited by what the engine can do. The games that are lauded for their artistic style are the ones that excel by working within these limits and still produce something unique and compelling.

And the studios that do this best are led by art directors and tech directors who work together to produce the best tech for the design of the game that they're making. This is true for a 2-man indie shop as it is for AAA developers.

Peebro

I feel graphics progression is definitely going to slow down immensely, with our next consoles going to have a much smaller step up as comparison to the previous generation in order to keep the intro prices at a clean €300 mark (instead of the colossal 700's we once saw)
however there is still huge amounts to learn as regards using the hardware we have more efficiently and creating more effective graphics by means of artistic methods over pure technicality. Although to truly get to the level of VR we're going to need the likes of the 'Oculus Rift' to provide immersion rather then just a monitor.

JohnMarston

Game developers will eventually no longer be able to use the convenient crutch of 'better graphics' in a video game to compensate for lack of plot or lazy gameplay mechanics.

ShadowHearth

JohnMarston wrote: »

Game developers will eventually no longer be able to use the convenient crutch of 'better graphics' in a video game to compensate for lack of plot or lazy gameplay mechanics.

ID gets away every single time. doom 4 wount be different.

hooradiation

JohnMarston wrote: »

Game developers will eventually no longer be able to use the convenient crutch of 'better graphics' in a video game to compensate for lack of plot or lazy gameplay mechanics.

Since when has plot ever mattered a damn in games?

Peebro

Oh Hooradiation.... Don't go there buddy. For your own good.

JohnMarston

hooradiation wrote: »

Since when has plot ever mattered a damn in games?

Nope, not going there. No way :cool:

Retr0gamer

hooradiation wrote: »

Since when has plot ever mattered a damn in games?

hooradiation

JohnMarston wrote: »

Nope, not going there. No way :cool:

It's ok, spectacular graphics hiding deficiencies in other important areas is definitely a thing, but "plot" isn't one of those areas. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important.

If graphics were ever to plateau then work would go into UI design, audio and the other areas that get less love currently.
Which'd be nice.

marshbaboon

hooradiation wrote: »

It's ok, spectacular graphics hiding deficiencies in other important areas is definitely a thing, but "plot" isn't one of those areas. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important.

If graphics were ever to plateau then work would go into UI design, audio and the other areas that get less love currently.
Which'd be nice.

Depends on the game with regard to plot. We could be talking about Pro Evo 6 or Baldurs Gate 2 here.

hooradiation

marshbaboon wrote: »

Depends on the game with regard to plot. We could be talking about Pro Evo 6 or Baldurs Gate 2 here.

Basically, the plot is the contrivance for why I'm going to B from A in order to do C.

Quite why I have to go to point B is of no real consequence, and as far as I'm concerned no interest, just as long as going to B and completing objective C is fun.

And if it's not then no amount of frippery with the plot, of all things, is going to fix that.

The same is true of the visuals, in a manner. The game may look fantastic, but if it's not fun, then there's only so far the graphics will carry it. Bioshock is a fine example of this in action. The graphics (for the time), aesthetics and sound were all top notch but the gameplay was unrelentingly dull.
The plot? I'm sure there was one beyond pointing out that libertarianism is bunk, but it really didn't matter when the game itself was a tedious chore.

Conversely, Bulletstorm is a dumb, loud, fun shooter - the graphics weren't anything too impressive and who's plot is threadbare at best.

The things that made these games awful/great never, ever had anything to do with the plot.
And if graphics ever hit this magical plateau of being just consistently amazing, this would still be true.

Retr0gamer

I don't really buy that. A lot of games are based on a reward system where the player is rewarded for certain achievements, be it overcoming obstacles or exploration. Then you have RPGs based on the classic DnD template where player choices shape the story and are an integral part of the game.

I've heard the theory that game mechanics are all that important and frankly the people that believe this should wake up and realise that games are much more than just the play mechanics and that sound, visuals and story can be an integral part of the game as a whole. It doesn't mean each component, such as story, is always important and should be present. Saying game mechanics are all that are important doesn't explain why I found Deadly Premonition to be one of the most entertaining games in years despite being a terrible play experience. Even John Carmack has backtracked on his original famous comment about games and story.

briany

I too wish there would be a decreased emphasis on graphical fidelity. I roll my eyes at the incremental graphical upgrades touted by the yearly sports franchises that are advertised as something we should get excited about. I do like a good looking game but good looking does not equal realistic. Realistic, to me, would be better AI and collision detection which has such a long way to go. Ten years ago NPCs glitched out trying to run up against a door frame and they're still doing it today so my guess is that they'll be doing it ten years hence as well, so why not improve that element?

This video sums up my feelings on today's big high graphics franchises vs. the old school retro scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOtao-6QYxE

Overheal

marshbaboon wrote: »

its not that HR didnt have good graphics but the art style was just so forced and bland feeling that I gave up playing it and didnt really feel that compulsion to get back to it

Overheal

hooradiation wrote: »

Basically, the plot is the contrivance for why I'm going to B from A in order to do C.

Quite why I have to go to point B is of no real consequence, and as far as I'm concerned no interest, just as long as going to B and completing objective C is fun.

And if it's not then no amount of frippery with the plot, of all things, is going to fix that.

The same is true of the visuals, in a manner. The game may look fantastic, but if it's not fun, then there's only so far the graphics will carry it. Bioshock is a fine example of this in action. The graphics (for the time), aesthetics and sound were all top notch but the gameplay was unrelentingly dull.
The plot? I'm sure there was one beyond pointing out that libertarianism is bunk, but it really didn't matter when the game itself was a tedious chore.

Conversely, Bulletstorm is a dumb, loud, fun shooter - the graphics weren't anything too impressive and who's plot is threadbare at best.

The things that made these games awful/great never, ever had anything to do with the plot.
And if graphics ever hit this magical plateau of being just consistently amazing, this would still be true.

Like... Vanquish? Looked good, played good, but I think I got a couple missions in before I switched titles. The really, really awful dialog got to me.

Oh and the fact that Mission 0 or Mission 1 or whatever was jut the game giving you control for a few seconds after the first 5 min cinematic, to walk down a hallway, only to engage in another cinematic, and suddenly have it be mission 2. Dafuq?

SeantheMan

Funnily enough I started playing through Bioshock again today on the PC, and was impressed at how well it still holds up graphically (2007)
And then seen this - images of what it would like like on CryEngine 3...*drools*

http://kotaku.com/5933151/what-bioshock-looks-like-running-with-crysis-engine

marshbaboon

Overheal wrote: »

its not that HR didnt have good graphics but the art style was just so forced and bland feeling that I gave up playing it and didnt really feel that compulsion to get back to it

Read the previous comment about someone saying Deus Ex HR wasn't another brown game :pac:

Magill

marshbaboon wrote: »

Read the previous comment about someone saying Deus Ex HR wasn't another brown game :pac:

Whats "brown" about it ? Are you colour blind or does every game that's not got a kiddie sunshine and rainbow colour palette fall under this "brown" category now ? I thought the art style in HR was excellent, it suited the Dues Ex universe perfectly imo... easily one of the best games of 2011.

Overheal

too much time spent in a between-missions office building. it almost instantly put me off.

Now grant you I've been very ADD with my games since Steam happened. Hydrophobia is another one I recall liking, getting halfway through, and then I can't remember why I stopped playing. I think I saw a butterfly.

johnny_ultimate

Magill wrote: »

Are you colour blind or does every game that's not got a kiddie sunshine and rainbow colour palette fall under this "brown" category now ?

Nah. Red Dead Redemption looked good. That's pretty much it.

marshbaboon

Magill wrote: »

Whats "brown" about it ? Are you colour blind or does every game that's not got a kiddie sunshine and rainbow colour palette fall under this "brown" category now ? I thought the art style in HR was excellent, it suited the Dues Ex universe perfectly imo... easily one of the best games of 2011.

You're right it wasn't all brown... there was a fair amount of orangey brown thrown in too...

Magill

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Nah. Red Dead Redemption looked good. That's pretty much it.

eh ?

marshbaboon wrote: »

You're right it wasn't all brown... there was a fair amount of orangey brown thrown in too...

Gold/Black*

Still, even if you consider it brown... there are 8/9 other games i listed that aren't (Not to mention games i missed), more than enough unless the only games you play are shooters.

Overheal wrote: »

too much time spent in a between-missions office building. it almost instantly put me off.

Now grant you I've been very ADD with my games since Steam happened. Hydrophobia is another one I recall liking, getting halfway through, and then I can't remember why I stopped playing. I think I saw a butterfly.

Thats a shame, i guess we all come across some games and just don't get "into" it. Uncharted/GTA are the same for me.

C14N

Getting of the Deus Ex thing I do hope graphics continue to improve. I don't think todays games will ever look "bad" like PS1 games look now (imo at least) but I certainly don't think they're as good as can be. When they start to have the same quality as a Pixar film, I think they will have peaked from a technical standpoint.

I do have one question though. As graphics improve, will it make games more costly to produce? If you're going to have more detail, surely you will need more people and more time to create said detail. How would this affect game design? Would all the big-budget triple A games have to start being very "safe"? Would it only heighten the dreadful sequel-mania that the industry is already going through?

hooradiation

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I don't really buy that.

Of course you don't, but you've got a hard on for the whole "games as art" bullshit that could be seen from space.

You're the last person I'd expect to tolerate the idea that the plot of games is an expected but mostly useless contrivance.

SeantheMan wrote: »

Funnily enough I started playing through Bioshock again today on the PC, and was impressed at how well it still holds up graphically (2007)

I think that's pretty much down to the aesthetics of it - I think the fancy-pants term for it is "Art Deco" but basically the style of the whole thing still makes it striking today. There's something similar with Legend Of Zelda: Wind Waker where the game still looks impressive despite it's age.

Hopefully, increased graphical fidelity will give more tools for designers and artists to make more varieties of aesthetically pleasing worlds rather than more "realistic" looking ones.

C14N wrote: »

I do have one question though. As graphics improve, will it make games more costly to produce?

Pretty much. This stuff isn't free.

C14N wrote: »

Would all the big-budget triple A games have to start being very "safe"? Would it only heighten the dreadful sequel-mania that the industry is already going through?

I don't know what age you are, but the games industry has always been fans of safe bets and sequels, in that regard nothing has really changed.

Except you got older.

johnny_ultimate

Great art design is timeless: look at something like the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari which is still as surreal and inventive stylistically almost a century and countless technological advances later. It's harder to call with games, but ones like Mario Bros., Space Invaders, Street Fighter II etc... have proven to have decent staying power: they remain iconic graphically.

It's hard to call which more modern ones will stand the test of time. There's several non-'rainbow coloured' ones that I hope will: Red Dead Redemption, Bioshock (remember how stunning the opening sequence was back in 2007? Don't think that's been equaled since), Half-Life 2, Mirror's Edge, Assassins Creed, even Mass Effect - I'd like to think they'll all age very well. They all were great technical leaps (from crowd technology to open world streaming), but had the iconic imagery and design to really resonate. All the muscular chaps, genetic super soliders and uninspired fantasy worlds on display elsewhere? I can't see 2023 being quite as kind to them.

gizmo

The next step? Top Secret Tessellated Toad Tech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWvgETOo5ek

C14N

hooradiation wrote: »

Basically, the plot is the contrivance for why I'm going to B from A in order to do C.

Quite why I have to go to point B is of no real consequence, and as far as I'm concerned no interest, just as long as going to B and completing objective C is fun.

And if it's not then no amount of frippery with the plot, of all things, is going to fix that.

I was just reading back through the thread and saw this. Have to say I couldn't disagree much more. In fact, I think I could sum up my own playing of games as follows:

Basically, the mechanics are a contrivance for how I'm going to get to B from A in order to do C.

Quite how I have to go to point B is of no real consequence, and as far as I'm concerned no interest, just as long as going to B and completing objective C has a purpose that fits into the story.

And if it's not then no amount of frippery with the game mechanics, of all things, is going to fix that.

Usually the only reason I want to get to the end of a game is for the story and I've pretty much given up on doing side quests that don't give any extra plot. But hey, that's just me.

Retr0gamer

hooradiation wrote: »

Of course you don't, but you've got a hard on for the whole "games as art" bullshit that could be seen from space.

You're the last person I'd expect to tolerate the idea that the plot of games is an expected but mostly useless contrivance.

It's nothing to do with games as art. I just think you have a very old fashioned view on games. A story is not essential to a game but in some cases if you take out the story or change it then it's not the same game. There's plenty of games out there were the story is an important part of the whole, especially in games were decisions in the narrative are game mechanics themselves you can't just dismiss narrative as being important. In the same way you can't dismiss visuals as being important with games like Child of Eden, Dyad and Tempest 2000. Case in point Tempest 2000 which is a completely different expereince to the classic arcade game thanks to those visuals.

hooradiation

C14N wrote: »

I was just reading back through the thread and saw this. Have to say I couldn't disagree much more. In fact, I think I could sum up my own playing of games as follows:

Basically, the mechanics are a contrivance for how I'm going to get to B from A in order to do C.

Quite how I have to go to point B is of no real consequence, and as far as I'm concerned no interest, just as long as going to B and completing objective C has a purpose that fits into the story.

Perhaps you should try books or films or some of the other passive story telling mediums then, because that seems to be the thing you're confusing with games.
Basically, playing a game for the story is like eating soup because you like the spoon