Graphics vs Gameplay

[Rift120]

Looking through various new games coming it out it seems to me that companies tend to focus  on makeing the game look pretty and/or more realistic.

What bothers me is that many of htese enwer games coming out however, seem to sacrifice story, Gameplay, and controls in exchange for the better look of the world the game takes place in. Having rushed development time doesn't help matters either.

Ineveitably you get a bunch of games that look 'pretty' in the demo version but play like crap when they are released. Thus producing flops... over and over again.

Yet each year you get companies promoting new games and inevitbly the major boast the majority make is how the graphics look sharper, the enviorments more 'real'.

THis is not a selling point for me actually. If I wanted to play through a story that looked more 'real', I'd go see a movie. I want a game that plays well in a fun way, and has good storyline. Graphics are really secondary for me.

Still good graphics do make a game more enjoyable. I just think that graphics should play a secondary role to gameplay itself, not eb the star selling point.

So what do you guys think?

[Shuten]

Gameplay is far more important. It doesn't matter how good a game looks if it plays so badly it's painful. Of course that does not mean that bad graphics are justifiable. Afterall, even if the gameplay is good, if you can't make anything out it can make the game just as unplayable. Ultimately games that look good are a dime a dozen nowadays. Games that actually play well are a rare breed. Games that achieve both... well they're an even rarer breed.


Sincerely,
Shuten

[Dracos]

Gameplay is more important... BUT...

These are business.  They must sell these products.  Most often, you cannot put game play solidly onto a few second clip and catch people's attention or understanding.  Good gameplay has depth that is generally not revealed in short commercials or (more commonly) statiic web advertisements or magazine footage.

Graphics and sound are two things that are very easy to deliver and often the first thing customers judge on.  It's no surprise that businesses are going to focus on them first because the quality of their game won't even come into play if they can't keep pace with the pretty that's delivered in countless other games.  There's a massive population that judges first and foremost on whether  the game is pretty enough and losing that ensures  you don't have a chance at the big bucks usually.

This is why graphics tend to be hailed  first.  They can be hailed and immediately demonstrated via pictures or movies which don't often capture gameplay well.

Dracos

[Kwokinator]

Grapics are ALL! O_O

It doesn't matter if the gameplay sucks, if there're pretty graphics and pretty girls, the game is good! O_O

More 3D hot girls for all! O_O

Aaaaaaaaaaanyway... like Dracos says, this is a business.  With the computing and graphic power of even the current generation of consoles, let alone the next-gen consoles, people have come to expect a certain level of visual experience, and that level keeps on increasing yearly as technology progresses and more games pushing the boundaries of the possibilities of the console ^_^

The end result is a lot of people (at least the general populace/casual gamers, not, say, the hardcore gamers who'll buy games purely because it's supposed to be good) judges by graphics, and think that if the developers don't even put a good effort into creating the graphics, they must not have a lot of love for the game and wouldn't put a good effort on gameplay, and therefore the game isn't worth buying ^_^

Since the developers and publishers want to appeal to a larger mass than hardcore gamers of the genre, they need that graphics for mass appeal ^_^

...now that I think about it, this is mostly a rehash of Dracos' post... <_<

[twentytwo]

Actually, I think this Graphics problem will turn out to be a good thing in the long run.

As time goes on, the demand for more graphics horsepower will put pressure on the hardware companies to build faster and cheaper cards. New technologies (or old tech, like shaders) will soon appear that will give us the ability to create more realistic worlds. Eventually, the ability of the graphics cards will catch up to display resolution and will force us to move on to bigger and better things. Now: HiDef LCD, plasma, SED. Later: 3D Holograms? As we approach the limits of each technology, we will reach a threshold of diminishing returns, and it will be at that point that game play and story will become the determining factors for success.

Staying up with the current trend is expensive, and we should be thankful that there are companies like Square-Enix and Microsoft who are willing to invest millions in trying to surpass them, even at the cost of their own company's livelihood.

Those people who are willing to jump on the bandwagon for an early taste of the new phenomena will pay back the investment of the companies who invented it, and this will fund each company's research into making bigger and better things (and diminishing the cost of the previous high-tech).

So, rather than complain, I think I'm going to ignore it and play some RPGs...

Unsung Heroes...
-22

[Dracos]

The pressure is good...to a degree.

There's always the danger of market burnout when you press for rapid speed advancement in an area.  Folks, rightfully, ask why they should care about many of the incremental improvements that are pranced out each week.  Price points skyrocket.  Neither the NES nor the SNES was the prettiest machine on the market in it's era, but it was the undisputed king of it.   It did push graphics, don't get me wrong, but their businessmen also recognized that the higher technologies of the time weren't really mature for use.  Sony is a definite example of going into immature technologies and many developers I hear being irritated at trying to make these PUSH THE EDGE things work.

Dracos

[twentytwo]

Folks, rightfully, ask why they should care about many of the incremental improvements that are pranced out each week.

I would agree, but... one look at Metal Gear Solid 4 and Final Fantasy XIII shuts me up...

Incremental improvements are one thing... but what they're doing is nothing of the sort...

A good weapon/tool is only as powerful as the one who weilds it...

I believe the addage says that a good weapon will eventually find its way into the hands of a master, so it's only a matter of time until someone learns to take advantage of the advancement and demonstrate just how non-incremental it can be...

(And as I said, good improvements are risky - most are not willing to take the risk and as such, the norm is incremental improvement... but there are those who will risk it, and they are the ones who we should praise...)

Neither the NES nor the SNES was the prettiest machine on the market in it's era, but it was the undisputed king of it. It did push graphics, don't get me wrong, but their businessmen also recognized that the higher technologies of the time weren't really mature for use.

I don't know if I can agree with that.

(NOTE: For one thing, they were the kings because of availability and targeted user base... ALSO, there was no pressure for that technology to be used, especially in a toy for kids...)

The way I see it is that during the beginning, with systems like Atari / NES / SNES, the limiting factor was graphics hardware: the artists who worked with those graphics were limited in their choice of expression due to the immaturity of the technology (the silly Final Fantasy sprite animations are an example of that - Opera scene, anyone?). However, the ability of the graphics hardware is starting to catch up with the ability of the artists who use it, and this is making it much more difficult to produce "new" things (which up until this point were really just finding hardware techniques to duplicate artistic styles).

Also, many people belly-ached about the move to 3D. Why? It takes a LOT more work to make 3D animations than it does to make sprites. It also takes a LOT more skill (which is actually arbitratry - the skill is in a completely different field, which means you need an Artist AND an animator... $$$). Those artists who drew beautiful sprites often produced lousy polygon models (and some art isn't feasible in 3D, like Goku's hair, which is drawn in a flat 2D plane). As the technology increases, the skill gap is becoming apparent and their deficiencies are becoming obvious. Even I would complain in that kind of situation. However, in the end, people stopped complaining: they accepted it and moved on.

On the other hand, I don't see it as a bad thing to give to people like Kojima, Toriyama, Sakaguchi, Wada, and Miyamoto the tools they require to push the limit. Demanding that everyone else keep up... that's a different thing entirely.

Living in Einstein's Shadow...
-22

P.S.
I am aware that Sony tends to push technology on people, but that's not a new thing. They've been doing that since the beginning of the Playstation, with their 3D Polygon Man. In the end, it actually set them apart. Personally, I don't think they want to fix it because to them, it doesn't look broken (I mean, for the PS3, they still did the fake Tech demo scheme they used to hype the PS2... Emotion Engine my @$$).

Then again, that's marketing...

[twentytwo]

Actually, Nintendo's just as bad...

Now, everyone has to find a way to use that Wii-mote. If they don't, then it won't justify making their game on the Wii (besides user-base).

Worse, they can't port the game if they do...

At least graphics can be scaled down...
-22

[Dexie Oblivion]

Actually, Nintendo's just as bad...

Now, everyone has to find a way to use that Wii-mote. If they don't, then it won't justify making their game on the Wii (besides user-base).

Worse, they can't port the game if they do...

At least graphics can be scaled down...
-22

Wii supports the GCN controller, so developers can use that, like Nintendo is doing with Brawl.

[twentytwo]

Graphics are really secondary for me.

I don't know... The awkward body movements for the characters in Star Ocean: Till the End of Time is REALLY starting to annoy me... (when a girl holds your hand, her fingers should cling to your hand, not float above it and temporarily move through it...)

This is why graphics tend to be hailed first. They can be hailed and immediately demonstrated via pictures or movies which don't often capture gameplay well.

Actually, everyone wants a good story, from movies to comics to cartoons. Good stories are hard to come by because they require creative innovation, which is terribly difficult. Sadly, most of the better innovative storyline ideas are not being put into games - they end up in independent films.

The real reason, in my opinion, that graphics get hailed first is simply this: good Graphics have demonstrated to sell a game that doesn't play good or have a good story, good Gameplay will only moderately sell a game with poor Graphics and a lousy Story, and good Story will not sell the game at all if it looks like garbage or plays terribly (RPGs are still considered by many to be a niche market, unless you're looking to sell in Japan).

Wii supports the GCN controller, so developers can use that, like Nintendo is doing with Brawl.

I would agree they CAN, but WILL they? Nintendo, yes. Others, I don't know... (the system doesn't come with the old GCN controller, so you can't assume people have it; why make a game that demands the purchase of an accessory; Nintendo is infamous for that very problem...; N64 RAM upgrades..? Gameboy E-Reader?)

The DS has a dual screen system with a touch screen. I can count the number of games that DON'T try to at least make some use of the touch screen on one hand. The GCN can be used, but the Wii-mote is the main attraction of the system: there is pressure to use it, even if you have to add it in as a simple minigame.

Still, you can't port a game that uses either, so I'm not certain how feasible it is for larger projects (and if you can't port it, you might as well take advantage of what the system has, so if you use one, you'll be pressured to use the other).

The Wii may turn out to be the superior system, but that doesn't change the fact that I view Sony's drive for better graphics as a benefit in the long run...

Apparently, in Graphics vs Gameplay, Sony vs Nintendo, there's room for both... (I know I'll get both... will you? Doesn't that question answer itself?)

There's always the danger of market burnout when you press for rapid speed advancement in an area.

Ah, but isn't what Nintendo's doing with the sudden rapid speed advancement of new accessories and bizarre gadgets the same thing? Great games can cost millions and take years to make. Which is actually the easier thing to adjust for: better graphics (which is just more of what you've already got) or new gimicks (which can influence the user interface, play control, play-balancing, user experience, and... gameplay).

It seems to me that Graphics are the least threatening issue...

As for Gameplay, what does it mean to focus on Gameplay? Usually that means Innovation, which is an entirely NEW concept. Gameplay is hard to innovate. Usually, they just tack on some variations on old themes, like Sphere Grids, Dress Spheres, distributable Skill Points, equippable abilitiese, leveling up items, etc etc. God of War = Ivy + Ico + Zelda. God of War 2 will just add Shadow of the Colossus...

Honestly, I'm not sure that people really understand what they're asking for when they demand better Gameplay. Last time I checked, I had a lot of fun playing Final Fantasy, even though it was just a tad bit better than the last one. God of War was good, even if a tadbit rushed. LaPucelle, Disgaea, Phantom Brave, Makai Kingdom, Disgaea 2... are all the SAME thing over and over again, yet I still buy them (for the pretty sprites?). Shadow of the Colossus and Ico were unbelievably enjoyable even though you only had five or six actions you could do (jump, stab, ride horse, arrows, climb, scan, grab stick; jump, lift, swing stick, horns, grab girl, sit on couch).

Isn't gameplay ultimately measured by how fun it is to play and not how similar it is to other games? If you're enjoying it, does innovation really matter? (why do a new thing poorly when you can do the same thing perfectly?)

For those games that DO sacrifice a good experience for graphics, that's a loss and those games DO suffer for it with decreased sales...

I think the masses can speak for themselves...
-22

P.S.
I still see that wii-mote as a good AND bad idea. It's bad enough that kids can get joint problems from repetitive motion / button mashing, but add wrist and shoulder motions with awkward motions and a tendency to get a little over-excited... (Dance Dance Revolution may get players active, but I see hip replacements on the horizon...)

[Dracos]

Man, that's a muddled response, Twentytwo =p

Anyhow, let's see.

On NES/SNES king stuff...

Neither was the Sony the best in graphics of either of it's eras so far, nor were either anywhere near the most expensive unit on the market, even if that's easy to ignore given sony being in the upper price ranges and flaunting what tech they did have.

Inevitably, there's a question on how much people will pay for having that slight change now over having that slight change later.  Frankly, I've not been stunned by any real game footage that has been pushed out on either Xbox 360 or ps3, and given the degree to which artists were making the end era PS2,Gamecube,Xbox games sing, They've got to do a lot better before I see it as anything more than incrementally more pretty.  And the fact that the tri-ace crew sucks ass (and has pretty much always sucked ass) in that area isn't a great example.

Asking me to lay down fifteen hundred dollars to theoretically enjoy the BLASTING GRAPHICS of FFXIII isn't really endearing the notion to me.  As it stands, I'm perfectly willing to wait for HD tvs to hit their next generational advancement in price decrease and polish while also waiting for PS3 to stop charging me for hardware I don't give a damn about.

Looking between PS2 and PS3 graphics, it seems incremental gain for the cost and a largely irrelevant one to me at this point as many games are pretty enough not to detract from the experience.

Re: Graphic hailed first...

I have no idea where you're coming from here?  It doesn't seem relevant to what I said.  Graphics are hailed first as they are the first things people see about a game usually, concept art and marketing bullshots coming out often long in advance  of anything more  than "This game has a boy and a girl in it" storywise.  It isn't usually until very late in the cycle of perceiving a game that folks start to get enough detail to make a consideration on story.  Even if it is what they're interested in and there for (everyone wants a good story?  Hah.  Experience maybe, story?  You're broadening the term too much if you even think that).  Many, notably go after games for many different reasons and only post-emptively mention story on why they liked or disliked an experience.

Graphics get  hailed first because you can actually see and make judgements on them very early.  This is where the whole industry around faking the graphics coming out came about.  They realized the first and often most important impression was made by graphics, so being exceedingly deceptive and utilizing graphics that are  in no way representative of the greater game worked wonders in deceiving an audience.


Finally, gameplay...

Yes there are many excellent games out there...  there are equally many games that were really pretty and didn't even bother to incorporate genre standards leading to a pretty piss poor experience.  Gameplay isn't versus graphics, by any sense, but there's been enough examples of graphics openly driving the experience that there's reason to say "Woah there, buddy boy...you didn't forget to work on the game too right?"

Most immediately (Yay controversy), Okami comes to mind.  A game with superb artistic direction but only so-so gameplay in a zelda vein.  Some of this was technical incompetence, but many of it was simply not working more strongly on the gameplay chops that really defined the experience.  Sure, it was okay, worth playing and all.  But in the end, I can't help but think it deserved it's lacksidasical sales numbers in light of the facts that they did goof both the game design and game convienence, spending massive amounts of time (and marketing dollar) on crafting their pretty environments and often designing the world to showcase them over being cleanly navigatable.

It's a particularly good example because it's fun as a second rate zelda clone, but it's easy to see how it could've gone so much further with the same design concepts at the for.  A really neat mechanic that was fun to use hampered by the fact they special cased most of it's uses instead of general casing them, leaving the gameplay innovation they did have to flounder under simply cloining another successful product and shipping the art direction.

Gameplay isn't about innovation, it's a lot about implementation.  And demonstrating that an implementation is good, well balanaced, solid throughout, and particularly suited to the experience is a complicated thing that doesn't map to a 30 second marketing clip.  As long as an overwhelming majority of most games total sales are  in the first few days, many companies are going to continue to acknowledge that their art direction is likely the most important part of selling their product.  You can show the latest bullshot images from FFXIII or Gears of War or whatever, but you can't show that you've incorporated any of the clever designs that really made last generations genre stars in your game's genre stars.  I've played more than enough 'modern high graphics games' where forget innovation, they don't even bear the signs that they've investigated the great gameplay produced ten years ago that solves their very issues.  You can't show that you won't stick a person with a shitty slot machine creation system that is the primary new item mechanic.  You can't show that your experience has the polish worth spending 50 hours on.

You can convince folks that 'boy that girl bouncing around the screen is totally awesomely animated!'

Dracos

[twentytwo]

Man, that's a muddled response, Twentytwo =p

:P

Yeah... a week of no sleep can do that to you...

Thank goodness for weekends...

I think I just kept adding stuff until I ran out of things to say. Not always a good idea...

Now I have to translate my rantings... joy...

Actually... scratch that. I think I'll just pretend it didn't happen (Ignorance is Bliss...).

And the fact that the tri-ace crew sucks ass (and has pretty much always sucked ass) in that area isn't a great example.

Yeah.. that was a pretty poor example...

It was just to emphasize the kind of things I meant: with more processing power, you CAN get rid of that kind of crap (at least, you CAN). Personally, I see it as a limitation in the hardware rather than the people developing it. With more processing power and better graphics systems, you can add fingers instead of blocky hands, you can add hair that can move with the wind, you can add walking that doesn't look like floating, you can add real chains instead of a triangle-stripped texture, you can add some better collision detecting... etc etc...

Now that I'm more level-headed, I think I'll just say what I should have said: Sony was worried that it was gonna get its butt whooped if it doesn't resort to something over-the-top with this next generation. Sony complained that Microsoft was trying to force a new generation too early, and yet their system seems to do just that. It could be that they thought the Xbox 360 would be much more powerful than it is and spent the full development of the PS3 on attempting to outdo this giant shadow that turned out to be in their imagination. I think they got ahead of themselves and are now having to fulfill their over-inflated promises, little of which will actually end up benefiting the system in the long run (HiDef games..? Not everyone can even afford the TVs... I know I can't...). I'm not saying that I'm in favor of what Sony is doing, but I am saying that such gambles are necessary in order to create a better, more competitive industry and their success AND failure will help shape the console market for years to come.

Asking me to lay down fifteen hundred dollars to theoretically enjoy the BLASTING GRAPHICS of FFXIII isn't really endearing the notion to me.

I take it you mean the system, the game, and the HD TV it uses...

I DID buy my Playstation to play FF7, but there's no way I'm buying a widescreen to play MGS4...

No game's worth that much...

Frankly, I've not been stunned by any real game footage that has been pushed out on either Xbox 360 or ps3, and given the degree to which artists were making the end era PS2,Gamecube,Xbox games sing,

It takes a while for game developers to learn to exploit the full capability of a console system. The same is true for every system, and it will be the same for the PS3, as well as the Xbox 360.

Of course, it's difficult to tell if the graphics are really any better. I haven't seen it in full HiDef (I've been limited to just poor screenshots and television previews, which could have lossy playback...).

Looking between PS2 and PS3 graphics, it seems incremental gain for the cost and a largely irrelevant one to me at this point as many games are pretty enough not to detract from the experience.

Personally, I don't think its a good idea to judge the system before it gets out of the gate. The Xbox 360 is out and playing the system can tell you whether it really is any better than the previous incarnation. Once the PS3 actually gets released, we will see if it demonstrates the kind of power necessary to be worth the second mortgage.

I mean, I doubted the Wii would be a good idea when I first saw it (the graphics don't look very impressive at all...), but actually PLAYING it appears to change your mind...

The PS3 may actually have the raw power necessary to create stunning graphics. It may also not be the graphics that it really wins with. Since the processor on it is a multi-core, it may actually give the programmers enough time per cycle to add some better AI than just A* or Fuzzy State Machines... It may actually PLAY better...

have no idea where you're coming from here? It doesn't seem relevant to what I said. Graphics are hailed first as they are the first things people see about a game usually, concept art and marketing bullshots coming out often long in advance of anything more than "This game has a boy and a girl in it" storywise.

I was trying to say that a great Story is difficult to produce and, as a second point, that Graphics have become hailed first because they alone are known to sell games far above Story and Gameplay.

Which, after some thought, I realize that... I actually agree with you. I was arguing the same point in a terribly roundabout and confusing manner...

What I think I was trying to say is that Graphics are given more long term development because Graphics have proven to be the number one selling point in almost every game in every genre (well above gameplay and story), which is due to their ability to capture the eye and lure interest (as you said...).

I still hold to the idea that:
Good Graphics have demonstrated to sell a game that doesn't play good or have a good story, good Gameplay will only moderately sell a game with poor Graphics and a lousy Story, and good Story will not sell the game at all if it looks like garbage or plays terribly.

But, I think what you said contributes to the reason why.

It isn't usually until very late in the cycle of perceiving a game that folks start to get enough detail to make a consideration on story.

I think that depends entirely on the genre, or even the game in question. Some actually start with story and create concept art intended to match the themes. For instance, God of War began with a story and so do most RPGs. (Heck, even Metal Gear probubly starts with a story...)

I actually DO disagree there.

Even if it is what they're interested in and there for (everyone wants a good story? Hah. Experience maybe, story? You're broadening the term too much if you even think that).

Maybe I'm broadening it, but then maybe you're narrowing it...

Plot is a series of immutable events. Storylines are the series of character interactions that make up a Story. The Story itself is more of a description of the experience as a whole...

Movies, Cartoons, Video Games, and Novels all need both good plot and a good experience. A plot can be ruined by bad storytelling, and even a bad plot can be saved by good storytelling (it can still be entertaining none-the-less).

I was just arguing that video games are not alone in their search for strong engrossing experiences and that it's difficult to expect INNOVATION in game-Storytelling, especially to the degree that it would compete against Graphics in importance. (I know I would prefer a single well-polished story rather than an aimless create-your-own-adventure anyday...)

Many, notably go after games for many different reasons and only post-emptively mention story on why they liked or disliked an experience.

I think that's a little too narrow-minded. I love RPGs because I love the story AND the gameplay. Honestly, Sound and Graphics don't mean as much to me, though I PREFER it when they're solid as well (good storytelling often requires emotionally-toned music and voice acting, as well as strong facial features and body language).

When I discuss games, story comes up almost first thing.

For instance, I enjoyed playing God of War, but I thought its story was trite and heavy-handed. It was terribly cliche and didn't have much in the way of originality story-wise. Gameplay-wise, it was Rygar with Chained Sickles. The traps were Zelda (it even had a time trap with the Zelda-patented timer countdown sound effect) with Ico.

Honestly, it looked good and was enjoyable to play, but when it comes down to it, I enjoyed the silly antics of the heroic cell-shaded Link much better because it was FAR more entertaining... (it made me laugh - especially the Puppet Ganon...)

I would be willing to sit through hours of irritating sub-quests just to see a good plot, but being a hardcore gamer leaves me little in the way of judging casuals...

They realized the first and often most important impression was made by graphics, so being exceedingly deceptive and utilizing graphics that are in no way representative of the greater game worked wonders in deceiving an audience.

Entirely true. Sorry for the mix-up. I should stop writing when I'm sleepy...

(By the way, this is not a new thing - I actually do stop making sense after so many hours of being awake... - That's actually my prime storytelling time do my unbridled creativity... - I remember arguing with a friend and at one point he said "Dude, you're not making any sense...")

Gameplay isn't versus graphics, by any sense, but there's been enough examples of graphics openly driving the experience that there's reason to say "Woah there, buddy boy...you didn't forget to work on the game too right?"

However, people will continue to make it seem like they're at odds.

Of course, when games are released that have only Graphics to show for three years of production, the argument almost seems valid.

I believe in Opportunity Cost (or really a limited budget). When you work too much on one, you tend to lose on the others, so I do see it as a necessary thing to debate even if the debate is rather meaningless.

I'm just glad that there are enough of the Great Graphics, Great Gameplay, and Great Story games out there that prove it CAN be done, even if it has a price ($$$ and risk).

You can show the latest bullshot images from FFXIII or Gears of War or whatever, but you can't show that you've incorporated any of the clever designs that really made last generations genre stars in your game's genre stars.

I don't know about FFXIII. Honestly, I think it has great graphics, but it also looks like it has an interesting play mechanic. From what I can tell right now, you chain commands together in real-time and try to plan ahead for the next set of actions.

I'd consider that gameplay innovation. Much in the same way that Kingdom Hearts 2 enhanced its gameplay with that Reaction Command deus-ex-machina it stole from Wind Waker.

I've played more than enough 'modern high graphics games' where forget innovation, they don't even bear the signs that they've investigated the great gameplay produced ten years ago that solves their very issues. You can't show that you won't stick a person with a shitty slot machine creation system that is the primary new item mechanic. You can't show that your experience has the polish worth spending 50 hours on.

You can convince folks that 'boy that girl bouncing around the screen is totally awesomely animated!'

Honestly, I'm not arguing with that graphics bit (at least not while I'm awake...).

However, Game Demos, Interviews, and some movie clips do actually do a fairly good job to express the Game's gameplay and storyline (the MGS4 Trailers are actually some of the first GOOD game teasers). All of these are very common in Japan, where most Console games are targeted (heck, they even include pop-stars to boost sales...). While graphics DO influence it, it's mostly the artwork, story, and gameplay that get marketed there...

Personally, I see what you're saying as a problem with certain local marketing schemes as opposed to the industry as a whole. To be honest, they may actually see us as superficial sex, blood, and gore fanatics (which seems to be true, since the recent drive to "Westernize" games has only helped to add those three... and maybe cowboys...). In other words, I'm thinking that the REASON we see that Graphics are so important is because WE make it important. If we changed our interests, they might change their strategies...

I still believe the market gets what they want, and ultimately what they deserve... (if all you want is pretty graphics, then that's all you're gonna get...)

The masses DO speak for themselves...
-22

[Dexie Oblivion]

I'll just toss this in: Grand Theft Auto is proof you can have lackluster graphics and a game still be a huge sucess.

[twentytwo]

I'll just toss this in: Grand Theft Auto is proof you can have lackluster graphics and a game still be a huge sucess.

:P

Yes, it CAN be done. Indie games can be quite entertaining (though definitely on an entirely different scale than GTA...), and even older games can still appeal to some people (Collection/Museum games are still quite popular, even without updated graphics) . Cell-Phone games can be an example as well... (if you don't consider portability)

I think I might have said that somewhere in that mess I called a reply...

I think...
-22

P.S.
I SAID I wasn't going to write when I was tired... and yet I did it again... (hope I didn't offend...)

[Dracos]

It isn't usually until very late in the cycle of perceiving a game that folks start to get enough detail to make a consideration on story.

I think that depends entirely on the genre, or even the game in question. Some actually start with story and create concept art intended to match the themes. For instance, God of War began with a story and so do most RPGs. (Heck, even Metal Gear probubly starts with a story...)

I actually DO disagree there.

I mean the customers.  Not the developers.  The customers often don't get any detail about what story they'll be sinking 80-100 hours in until a month or two before  the game comes  out.  If then.  Often it's not until reviews that such information comes out.

Sure, the developers have it from the beginning, but it's quite common that there's ridiculously short clips of story given, if at all, way back when we start getting hammered with 30-60 screen shots and a movie.

What I'm saying is that the perception of a game starts way before it's bought.  And largely this is the most important time to the game publisher as it determines whether a game sells.  Sure, the actual game is  important, but that early perception is what results in a good 80 percent of the sales  companies make on average (the week one sales).  We're often given graphics sans sounds and story before anything else.  Whether these graphics are actual in game footage (RARE), concept art (common) or video mockups (very common, thank you Square for massively leading the way in everyone doing this), they tend to come first, while any details on plot and theme come much later.


On GTA?  They sold on theme.

I suspect the sales figures will acknowledge that their profits went up considerably along the time they started advertising heavily with graphics.  Sure, their gameplay was also advancing and what ensured they had an audience, but it was with the advent of 3d art in their game that they really hit the mainstream, and their 3d art isn't shoddy.

Dracos