Are Good Graphics Killing Good Games?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 лис 2017
- Video games sure do look pretty nowadays, but are developers shooting themselves in the foot by pursuing extreme visual fidelity?
Poll: www.strawpoll.me/14433702
The Collapse of Visceral's Ambitious Star Wars Game: kotaku.com/the-collapse-of-vi... - Ігри
I think one thing that many of the big mainstream companies (excluding nintendo) tends to forget, is that "great graphics" does not equal "most realistic". I'm an animation student, and recently, in animation class, we've talked about how to "push the boundaries of the realistic". Take Kung Fu Panda as an example; the artstyle in that movie is far from realistic, yet the graphics are still amazing. What makes them so amazing? The most important thing is how everything in that movie is realistic, yet is not. Take the fight scenes, Each scene has been choreographed and motion captured with the help of martial arts experts, but then the animators have been given the freedom to play with the new technology and see what they can do with it. As a result, the fight scenes became faster, the movements became wilder, wackier and more expressive. Everything is based on realism, but pushed to the boundaries of what the viewer could still perceive as "realistic" within a world of cartoon. If you have a strong new engine, why not use it to experiment and how far you can push things within a certain art style?
The Legend of Zelda, breath of the wild, is an amazing example of that.The environment is more realistic, but not to the point where it would clash with the people and creatures, who are cellshaded. Those people have realistic proportions, a lot of detail on their clothes, weapons, hair, etc, making them easier to animate, while still looking exceptionally gorgeous within a rather realistically rendered world. Instead, the the engine is used to create amazing like the slo-mo when shooting in midair. The poses Link takes during those are still realistic, but pushed to the point where it looks more exciting, more epic and more fitting with the art style. Everything works together very well, and is rendered exactly as it needs to be within the style it has set for itself. That way, it's actually far prettier to look at than most of the 'realistic' games, that just kind of look off because everything is too realistic. Even in action live-action movies, things like lighting, character expressions, etc is usually purposefully made in an overkill way to make it more appealing, something that video games don't do. Use your stronger engine for more creativity. If you have a robot made out of 5000 parts, make use of those parts within the game and maybe give it an artstyle that is a little more cartoony so you have more room experimentation instead of using all your PC power for rendering. Focus more on blending artstyles, studying cinematography, and so forth. Paying attention to detail does not mean rendering every single hair. It can mean small things like Link almost fainting in the desert, but being okay in the shadow, or his cheeks going pink when in the cold. THAT is what you should use your engine for!
Yeah! Honestly, I think one of the worst things that happened to non-indie video games is the Xbox 360-onward rejection of more "cartoony" and stylised asesthetics for Real And Grown Up visuals that ironically destroy what a lot of people loved aesthetically about games. Like, give me more Decap Attacks or Nights Into Dreams or Demons Crests, I don't give a shit if they have perfect CG realism, as long as there's a good art design that makes you feel like you've found something truly fantastical.
Hell, games playing with low-poly like Heavy Bullets or playing with Speccy-style colors-on-white like L U C A H have produced amazing visuals without the need for super high-end graphics! You need good aesthetics not good graphics, and you need imaginative worlds that take us to places we've never been, not the same locations we've seen every day rendered down to the nostril hair.
Of course, like in film, I blame Andre Bazin for this...
Thomas Johnson That is one of reasons why the 7th Console Gen is one my least favorite generations in gaming. Also, who is Andre Bazin, and why do you blame him for it? Also, i think the success of GTA 3 was start of this problem as well, and is partially to blame for it.
Disney were perfecting that stuff in the 40's. Crazy to think lessons are still being forgotten by some studios.
But I need to see the characters nosehairs when I scroll in!
honestly i prefer stylized to realistic any day. Breath of the Wild is somewhere in between realistic and stylized and it doesn't have the most cutting edge graphics, but it's a fantastic game! it's fun! i think that's the most important aspect of any game, is it fun?
I for one am 100% on board with you here, this is something I've been thinking for years. I don't give a shit that I can see every strand of Gladio's chest hair I'd rather have a good game.
Ahegao Account That Actually Gives Source your pic tho
Source please
Devon G
Kono Daraku Shita Onna Kishi ni Syukufuku o! by Comex, page 14
Ahegao Account That Actually Gives Source tx
Gameplay. Good story and good performance. More important than graphics
Not to mention that with pretty graphics, they're also adding repetitive side content in a wide open world area and needless grinding to justify the amount of content and a huge length. They're better of making a more focused game with less impressive graphics and tighter level design. I believe there's a reason behind Square's choice for an U4 engine that FF7 remake is going to use due to cost efficiency.
I think art direction goes a long way too. I mean technically speaking, the SoulsBorne games, while gorgeous, aren't technically pushing the envelope. I mean Bloodborne and Dark Souls 3 in particular have relatively low-poly models and the textures aren't the sharpest, but the art direction and lighting do leaps and bounds to help the games look stunning. The fact that the gameplay is awesome helps too of course.
I think this is the only youtube video I've watched to actually persuade me on a topic and make me change my mind. Great video.
When graphics are trying to be more realistic than real life, particularly in an action game, I'm often unable to actually focus on the game- not because "it's so beautiful," but since there's often just too much happening on screen
Tralfazz74 I tend to be distracted to compare that to the Xbox 360 and Wii gen where I can Focus on the game
THANK YOU!!!
I won't say that graphics quality are >never< a concern, but if I like the story and enjoy the gameplay, graphics are ALWAYS the last concern.
bleachbleachBLEACHER graphics always come last for me in Gaming why everyone expects it
Determines on how complex the game is. The more complex the gameplay the more simplified I prefer things to look, so I can streamline my actions. Though I don’t mind high end graphics in more experiential story based games or cut scenes.
Dude i just discovered your channel and i'm now just catching up on your videos, you inject just the right amount of humor into your content, as well as keeping it focused on the topic at hand. Happy to be a new subscriber!
Dude, I thought your videos couldn't get better, and you are always showing that they can.
Keep up the work, and good luck with Research Runs!
Persona 5 works graphically because it oozes style, It really didnt have to look perfect because it had such great design and art direction my eyes trained on the game play and atmosphere rather than if the walls had a texture lower than 1080p and I wish Devs knew that
Good gameplay with good enough framerate is enough for me. Though a really great art style helps. I love that you showed Hyper Light Drifter when talking about style. It's one of my favorite games of all time~
Some games have such busy screens it’s just exhausting to watch, all the clutter that is the games universe just leads me back to previous gen games for simplicity’s sake
Really, creating assets isn't technically going to delay games. FFXV in particular had numerous delays because it was practically reinvented many, many times as the scope ballooned from Final Fantasy Versus XIII. An enormous hurdle for FFXV was just getting Luminus Studio to support all of the new technology that SqEnix just straight-up never needed for FFXIII. Beyond visual effects and graphical fidelity, they had to tackle technical challenges like large-scale terrain, dynamic animation (especially IK for non-bipeds), complex pathfinding, dynamic weather, brand-new AI that handles the aforementioned terrain, animation and pathfinding and general game structure.
A huge reason for FFXV's protracted development cycle was making the technology core to the game that doesn't have much to do with graphics. I suppose they could work on individual parts and release games with those in pieces, but it'd mean making games with hardly any finished tech. Without that tech, any smaller increment in the Final Fantasy series wouldn't have been anything like the great vertical slice MGSV: GZ was since MGSV: GZ already had most of the final game's tech in it.
About your poll, I would have no problem to buy a PS2-looking game for full price not only because of its gameplay and content but because of its artistic directing. I think a stunning visual doesn't mean high fidelity, but graphic design IS important for a AAA.
I do think that AAA are not able to raise graphics originality, compared to indie games that can easily try things a lot more.
It's crazy how 2 years later.... we're still here. I thought you would mention Final Fantasy VII Remake, but then I realized this was made in 2017. The entire video still holds up.
The next generation is most likely a power arms race, and I'm honestly not sure what to expect anymore.
great video man, something i’ve been thinking about for a while too. feels like graphics are kinda plateauing and it’s nearly impossible to make something that really impresses me more than, say, even Uncharted 3 did back then. I just wanna play a good game, not interact with a beautiful movie. Except, except maybe Heavy Rain lol. beautiful graphics are a great plus, but in the end, it’s all about the game.
Personally, I do enjoy games for their aesthetic and that's a big deal for me. But I agree with you. Connecting to the more traditional art history, the painting genre has already been through this issue. The Baroque period was full of WOW factor and naturalism that hadn't been seen in painting before, but frankly, it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between a lot of these paintings, and, let me tell you, a Baroque exhibit at a museum doesn't bring in a ton of people. The impressionist ones do. I think this is a phase that the video game industry will have to work through as well, and I'm looking forward to those first games that break into this idea and for reasons other than the past's purely pragmatic ones.
well you earn and like and a new subscriber mate. You nail the way i think about the gaming industry and there pursuit of graphic. I think is absurd for this companies to try to pursuit graphics over game play with all there games, heck if you think about it with all the power this consoles are getting i feel that games haven't improve in the game play department since 2008 with the exception of some indie games and breath of the wild.
Loving the video. You said "What if the persona team amde a more si9mplergame?" Well, that was Catherine, which was their first attempt to a PS3 and Xbox 360 game, which it was clearly a demo test for their style after dedicating to PS2 and portable games (i wont count the Xbox Megami tensei).
But yes, it was mainly a japanese problem that of FF XIII, FF XVI and P5: so used to old methods and closed lowres consoles that working on glorified HD PCs made them have a lot of problems.
I agree with the whole make devs developSmaller games first and then grow with that experience. although I do expect a certain amount of visual polish with certain games it wouldn’t mind me that much if they looked slightly worse than they do now.
When is your new channel gonna start with playtroughs of KH?
Old video, I know, but Atlus actually did do that with Persona 5. Catherine released in 2011 was specifically made with the intention of helping to develop P5's engine, and it was a hit. So much so it got its own enhanced re-release years later and is treated as a major spin-off/companion in the MegaTen series.
what is the song that starts playing at 14:53
Like the persona Five music in the background. Good discussion too! I mean good graphics do catch my eye and are appreciated, but if the story or game play are good I get so lost in the game that the graphics no longer matter. I didn’t hate FFXV but the story fell flat so I sold it back before beating it, however I was rushing to finish Life is Strange and don’t plan on selling it back.
I would agree with everything you said in this video. However, it's interesting to note that as I was watching this video at work, I overheard a co-worker say "the graphics in COD WWII make me not want to play any other game ever again". This person is someone I would call a casual consumer. This is of course an anecdotal piece of evidence, but still
Honestly, video game technology should have slowed down on the "evolution" and "advancements".
They needed to paced themselves.
Great video
I'm currently replaying some SNES and GBA games (and trying out some I hadn't before) and having a blast.
Seriously, graphics are cool and I do expect good fps and resolution from modern day games, but of all my concerns "Photorealism" is way, waaaaaay down there on the list. Besides, at some point we're just gonna hit an uncanny valley brickwall anyway. We should make games that look good, not games that look "real" or "cutting edge".
PS: You gotta admit that the new KH DOES look great for the franchise's standards.
It's the usual conversation of who are the games really made for? To a point they're made for the investors, the shareholders. Jacob you've been playing Battlefront and I'd imagine you've seen how much crap DICE has been taking because they take marching orders from EA (I just find this hilarious since I can tell DICE is scared pissless hoping it doesn't end up like Visceral). The stuffy old men in suits who buy shares in companies who sell toys to kids are only aware of what's popular, what made a lot of money, and what the focus groups think. Everyone of those things tell the shareholders that graphics matter most.
You think E3 and things of its like are for the players? Hell no, the whole event is for the stockholders to get a glimpse of what a bunch of bootlickers think of not-finished products. If developers stopped going to publishers, we wouldn't be having this conversation. While I haven't played it yet Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice was both funded and developed by NInja Theory, a game developing company. No corporate sponsorship, no tampering, just a story about an insane viking woman. It looks good graphically and it sells for $30. And of course let's not forget those beautiful Poles who made the Witcher completely in-house.
It kinda doesn't much matter what any of us think about our games. We're well informed and many of us have the unpopular opinion that games can be art (which has become a bastardized idea lately and that's how we got RYSE, and The order 1886). As long as the developers get bought out by publishers (Goddammit Respawn I liked Titanfall but you had to let EA have you huh?) the market will be a big game of follow the leader. We've had entire games crash and burn because publishers would crack the whip on their dev team saying "X has come out and it sold well! Stop EVERYTHING you're doing and shift our game to be like X there! I want some of that 3rd person cover shooter money! You think I care that we make survival horror games?" -Capcom. Yes that's basically how Resident Evil Umbrella Corps happened.
Jacob, you are literally my favorite. I love your videos so much because you often perfectly articulate opinions that I already have. I don't want that to sound like "I only subscribe to people who share my views". Quite the opposite in fact. I just think it's nice that whatever you have to say, it's well thought out, and exactly what I mean to say when I'm talking to my friends. You don't often put videos out, but when I see one on my feed, I Instantly ignore WHATEVER I was doing and see what you have to say.
This video is no exception. I wholeheartedly agree with you, and I wish game companies would stop pulling their hair out about hi visual quality, and concern themselves more with originally and the actual gameplay. A visually stunning game that is mechanically very limiting is often not nearly as fun as a game about two pixels that makes you feel like a God.
One example that I just thought of that illustrates my point fairly well is a discovery that me and my friend made recently. We have been enjoying Destiny 2 as I'm sure many other people have been. However, we recently realized that Borderlands 2 has almost everything Destiny has, only they did it better! And they just kept pumping out DLC for it! We have actually had more fun poking around in borderlands, then we have experienced in Destiny in a while.
As you said, Minecraft (along with other Indy titles) seems to be a fairly clear indication that visuals matter a whole lot less than core gameplay and high concept.
A new analytical Frustrated Jacob video? I thought Christmas was in December.
I think having hi fidelity graphics CAN sell a game, but often it's not enough on its own. What's more crucial and important is the games identity and art style. Persona 5 has wowed people because of its menus -- MENUS! Imagine if half the big budget games that came out these days put the same amount of time and resource into their UI design. That would be pretty spectacular
the next leap in gaming is going to come from 4k televisions being standard. at the moment there is no difference between a 1080p game on the ps3 vs the ps5
Monolith Soft is a good example of how you properly develop a JRPG. Focus on gameplay over graphics. The budget is much smaller so a sales figure of 1 million is profitable.
I really have to agree with everything. I've been kind of wanting games to simplify a bit. Kingdom Hearts felt like it was getting to big for it's own good it didn't feel to me like this GIANT thing until KH3s advertising pushed it that far. Not only was the style already timeless the Osaka team like you said never made a big game like that. Sequels have lots of potential to take previous advancements and R&D to build onto itself but, as you said, these long cycles don't allow for that. And it's all so crazy that this has become a graphics war between devs that wasn't *really* asked for. But hey that new game *looks* great.
Thanks a lot for the video. I really learned something :)
Kanalkucker I did to
What's the game at 16:57?
3:52 I hear LA Noire music, I knew this was coming...
It's always about the gameplay and the fantasy of the game for me. If the graphics support the game's world, story, and fantasy it's all good. That said I think some games use their high quality graphics very well to evoke a sense of wonder and awe. The metroid prime series is a good example of this: all the prime games are (in part) about exploring strange alien worlds and the visuals support this fantasy (at least when these games first came out this was true :P).
Thats how I feel I mean I look at FF Versus 13 and Im like I would play that yeah it would look like a high res PS3 game but I wouldn't care it sucks that they just eased all the work they put in just because the luminous engine and next gen was around the corner just finish what you had im pretty sure thats what The Last Guardian did they just finished it on PS4
I'm a bit conflicted. I'm like a lot of adult gamers in the "gameplay > graphics" camp, but I think that there's some kind of standard that should be expected of AAA developers. Games are an audio/visual experience and great graphics really heighten the experience. Metro 2033 is a really engaging game, but what set it above so many other games was the graphics (minus the stiff character animations). The difference between low and high graphics settings was important to me. The better graphics helped me get more immersed in the atmosphere. I think that for each game, you gotta think what needs focus. If it's cartoony or retro, let the art style speak for itself, but if it's gritty and realistic, great graphics can really improve the experience. Sure, the budgets and time frames are blowing up, but so is the tech.
Where is the poll?
EDIT: nvm just finished the video
I also believe visceral got shut down because the genre of the upcoming Star Wars game wasn’t what EA wants to be making anymore. They mentioned that it would be open world and bring people back for more hours of gameplay and have recurrant revenue opportunities. They didn’t want uncharted anymore, they wanted destiny.
One game I'm glad looks amazing, but I'm also a bit afraid of. A little indie game called Titanic: Honor and Glory. It looks photo realistic, and it's going to be VR compatible? It's literally putting you into history and its breathtaking what they have been able to achieve, even stepping the extra mile to make 100% sure that whatever is depicted in there game is accurate to what happened when the ship sank, or even just the period. Their part of the game where the ship sinks will take place in real time, and this is all from indie developers who want people to interact with history.
My issue, while the environment looks great is how the people might clash. I've seem some photo realistic humans, but it's going to take a lot for them to render historical figures as they looked, and 2,200 other individual characters that look as realistic as the environment they inhabit is. Since it is run by an independent team and not a triple A title, I'm not too worried, their hearts are 100% in the right place in letting you experience a historic tragedy while also respecting those who died. I'm just nervous that it wont turn out as great as I'm envisioning, that maybe they have so much to live up too that the game might dissapoint because they are going the photo realistic, historically accurate, 1st person, VR, holy shit route.
Nevertheless, I think game companies like EA and Square need the kind of devotion to a style of storytelling that the Honor and Glory team have.
I think we as audiences always expect what to come offers more than what've been done. I don't think anyone who've played Witcher 3 would say that he/she would play Witcher 4 with worse graphics but more story content. This is especially true for an existing franchise, like FF or Uncharted. The difference of success here is what game dev focuses more in their games, rather than trying to achieve the best in every aspect of their games, which you're strongly arguing here and I completely agree. Uncharted series is defined by breathtaking scenery, character interaction, and set pieces, and Uncharted 4 arguably has delivered all of those and that's no coincidence.For a new IP, how to define the product is very tricky because what's on the table. I agree with you that aiming for the best graphics is completely unnecessary for every game but making a better looking game is never a sin on its own. The problem is the resource management in making games. When you set out to do the best of everything, it's almost certainly never going to happen. So, something needs to give, perhaps the graphics, the story, or the level design. What to give or not has to do with what game you're trying to build. In the case of FF15, it just doesn't have an clear vision of what the game is.I think you're trying to argue better graphic does not make games better, but you're actually arguing that not every game should focus on graphics, which I agree. I, for one, actually think better graphics do make game better in general, but it heavily depends on what the game tries to deliver.
8:04 What about Mario Galaxy? :o
As you mentioned in the video, i'm more impressed by good art design than graphical fidelity. But most important of all is fun and engaging gameplay. If "sitting in a couch all day doing nothing simulator 2018" had the best graphics ever I would still not play it.
A friend told me that he plays the "Tales" games because "They're good, competent games and THEY COME OUT!" I'm not a big fan of them but what you say is right about a game that is simply "ok" to look at but finished and one that looks astounding but is shallow. I would be worried through if we went in the opposite direction and everything now looks like a crappy phone game with paywalls and all that. We really do need balance. I would say this year that Cuphead is that balance. You can use graphic technology to make new kinds of games instead of just photo-real all the time. (I play videogames to escape from reality) I always thought that the increase in technology would result in better AI and better draw distance etc, but nope they're still obsessed with graphics.
Let's get things straight. First of all, sadly there's a huge number of people who care for graphics mostly.
Then, let's talk for real. Everything obviously depends on certain things... If we're talking about a game where the effective playing is very little and it's more like a movie with buttons you press every now and then, then yes, graphics are probably really important because you need to get them invested at least with that so it seems more like an interactive movie. Visual Novels can be a good example. If the art style (normally that of cartoons or anime [although those words mean the same thing and don't you dare say it's not true because you can literally translate one into the other because anime is short for animation which is what cartoons are]) is bad, the story will surely need to have a huge impact on the player. I mean, this applies more to visual novels that are sort of dating simulators, but still, you do get the point. If the art is meh and the story is just alright... Though shit there.
If we're speaking about most other games, though, no, graphics are important but not the core.
I didn't like FFXV and can't even play it. I boot it up, play around 30 minutes to a hour and then need to stop. The game looks phenomenal and is one of the best, graphic wise, but the gameplay or story can't keep me hooked. Now let's talk Dark Souls 3. Finished it multiple times and would play it over and over gladly. It looks good, yes, but even if it hadn't, the game itself is great and worth the time spent on it.
Indies and retro gaming are another good example. Lately I've been playing almost just The Binding of Isaac and it's clearly not the best looking game by any means. Still, the way it plays is incredibly fun. Klonoa from PS1 surely looked great when it came out and it's still very cute to look at, but is surpassed by today's standards. Yet, I could go back to it any time and spend my whole afternoons playing it from start to end again, over and over. HD remixes are the same, because you're playing older games.
The reason? We're talking about GAMES. They have to be fun or at least tell a very good story to keep you invested. They can look as good as they want, but that shouldn't be the focus. Let's compare Crash Bandicoot on PS1 and the new remake for PS4. Both are great fun and I'd play either more than happily. Just because the one on PS4 was remade to look great, I wouldn't be crying if I had to play the originals again, which are far from today's standards graphic-wise, because they are FUN.
In one of your older videos you spoke about an interview regarding FFXIV where the new director for ARR said the previous team had an unhealthy obsession with graphics and thus ignored issues with the game just to spend more time making the game look good. I think that applies to most companies nowadays. While Kingdom Hearts looking the way it does now is surely a treat for my eyes, I would have bought the newer ones anyway, had they looked the exact same way as KH1 did. Same goes for stuff like FIFA. I still remember when I tried to play the demo of Fifa 15 on my laptop and it suddenly wouldn't work because my graphic card couldn't handle it. I mean, are we serious? A game about people kicking a ball that you should play only because you wanna have some fun rekting the CPU or playing with or against some friends couldn't be run anymore because my graphic card was outdated, thus because the graphic had been improved? Why should graphics be one of the main factors in games? I could play a FIFA game even if it looked like it did on PS1 if the controls and overall game works better.
As a last note, but not less important than the rest, if companies take a bit longer to make the game look nice, they can do that, it's always nice to see stuff that makes you go "woah, this looks gorgeous!". However, if that means that they need to cut off time on other aspects of the game building (like I honestly think happened with FFXV due to them having to also create a whole new engine that'd rival the other ones on the market), then no way.
Let's take the "new" Zelda as an example. It looks great, possibly the best looking Zelda ever and with its art style it can rival many other games that came out in 2017 (and that will come out this year, too). However, did the better graphics mean the game was unpolished? Fuck no, Nintendo did all they could to make the game both look good and play greatly. Horizon Zero Dawn is another great example, Nier Automata just as well. These games look amazing, but play amazing as well. However, when the graphics are getting in the way of the rest, then that's when you step over the line. We played games that nowadays would look like shit and we still enjoyed them (maybe we enjoyed them even more because companies focused more on making them fun than good looking). Why wouldn't that still apply now? I'm a fan of games like "Touhou Project" and that's far from looking like a film or defining a new peak for graphics. It doesn't even need to look great, as long as I have fun playing it!
In my opinion, we've lost sight of what truly matters and companies are just going in the wrong direction. At the same time, I feel like that if a game looks majestic, it'll pull more "casuals" to buy it and thus increase their revenue. After all, it seems like the mass is addicted to stuff that looks good. Although, lately with the indie industry booming and phone gaming also starting to turn into a big deal, there's a slightly different approach by gamers themselves. Kinda going back to the "if it's fun, it can look good, too; but if it looks great but isn't fun, it's shit" philosophy.
Let's just pray that this trend stops soon and they also slow down on the "we have to make new consoles and even release new, boosted versions of them to keep the graphics growing better and better", because that's not what gaming truly is.
Love the new video style.
As far as graphics goes for me, I just want them to look clean and not glitchy, I also want to know what I'm looking at. PS1 graphics to me are still pretty to look at sometimes.
Honestly, it seems like today art style is more importat than visual fidelity. Take for example Cuphead and Bendy and the Ink Machine. Both are indie games that sold way more than they probably would've if not for their art style.
Bendy is a game with very little gameplay and a focus on the lore and the characters. Cool, but not exactly a standout game. Cuphead is the reverse. Little story and a lot of gameplay. Except a very similiar game called Furi (which is also a diffecult boss rush) is way less known.
The thing that makes both of them catch gamers eye, is their unique art style. And those are two of the more extreme examples I could think of.
Its not the most important thing there is, but it can still be impressive. Games like Horizon Zero Dawn and Uncharted do still find ways to impress with their technical strengths due to knowing the where and when to flex those parts of their development. For another example, while Kingdom Hearts 3 might not blow anyone away from a raw tech perspective, the kingdom shader still impresses people due to how well things like the Toy Story world are looking in relation to their original counterparts. I also don't think its entirely fair to push this as an industry problem, as some blame lies with the consumers. People always want better graphics, more content, and improved gameplay, all at no additional cost to them. How are smaller games supposed to get attention when your $30 game with 10 hours of content is next to Witcher 3 Complete Edition, which goes for around $50, and has literally 20 times the content? (that is an issue franchises like Sonic have been dealing with for years) At this point how much backlash would, say, Assassin's Creed get if it went back to Ezio trilogy level graphics from the general consumer? Its not simply a switch most major companies can flip just like that.
I think the idea is to stop pushing the graphics technology so hard. The thing with Uncharted and Horizon: Zero Dawn is that there can only be a couple of those on the market at a time before it just becomes standard. I think his point is that consumers aren't going to fault a game for not having graphics like Uncharted 4.
Smaller game companies with their $30 games produce games operate on a much smaller budget than CDPR with The Witcher 3, and if they only have 1/20th of the content it stands to reason that they'd only need around 1/10th the attention. Assassin's Creed doesn't need to go back to Ezio graphics, but if it stayed at Black Flag graphics, I think people would have been fine with it.
I think its fine that Sony is pushing graphics technology as far as they can. If they wanna impress us more then do it. But my biggest issue is that the majority of Sony's games are all realistic. I want a mix of both like bring back Spyro or Jak and Daxter to even things out. Crash came back so why not bring back old classics or even make new franchises that are not focused on realistic visuals.
MORE SLY MORE SLY MORE SLY
DetectiveEthanaterSpiritOfBobbyFulbrightGamer Me too, i miss games like that. I think this change started with the success of GTA 3. Ever since then, a lot of gaming companies have been trying to make their makes more realistic and gritty, which fine every now and again, but its far too over saturated now, and just i just personally fine more cartoony games to be more fun to play. Still, i would like a more balanced realises between the 2 kind of games instead of just straying completely to one side of the coin.
well it's all depends on perspective what might be crap for you may be someone's best game so it's all about that perspective yo
your videos are really good
Hat in Time was awesome, glad you are aware of it Jacob
This channel is underrated. It reminds me of super bunny hop in some ways too.
Your videos are amaising, i dont understand why you have such a low ammount of views
Video starts with persona 5 music....I already knew this would be good ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). I wouldn't really care if a game looked like un2 as long it ran well with 60fps. Also I'm amazed how good Horizon zero dawn looks and how fun it is coming from a company that only made shooters
If the gameplay is fun and has good mechanics, so to say if the game is FUN to play, then I don't mind the graphics. Also, more important to me than fidelity alone is the art style as a whole.
8:22 "Apply the same logic to Uncharted. Does this feel revolutionary? Is this game-changing?"
Yes, and yes, without question. That's probably one of the worst examples you could have picked, because Mario will forever be cartoony, and it would be off-putting if he looked like an actual Italian plumber, while Uncharted is meant to show realistic characters in visually realistic situations. The Last of Us, by the same developers, was incredibly well-received for this very reason. It's meant to tell an emotional stories with characters we're meant to connect to, and it achieved that with its beautiful graphics (and excellent voice acting and story too, of course).
For gameplay, graphics don't matter. Any game where you spend the majority of the time looking at a character's back or commanding a group of units does not need to be breathtaking. But if the visuals ARE breathtaking, like Horizon Zero Dawn or Red Dead Redemption, then you'd better believe that's a selling point, and that goes doubly when narrative and character interaction are major aspects of the game.
my biggest issue with everybody scrambling to make the "best looking" game is all the games come out looking the same. yeah, theres an obvious style difference between jrpgs and rpgs, but games in the same category.. are hard to pick apart. i really couldnt tell you who half the companies/studios were behind any given "hyper realistic same awesome amazeballs graphics" game. theyre all just pumping out these similar looking games and throwing them into a growing ocean of also similar looking games; NOTHING STANDS OUT, and it SUX
You right you right
You won my subsription and thumbs up this round sir
Remember when Dante had his hair changed. That didn't go well.
Very well presented, this is an interesting idea, and a strong argument.
Man am i looking forward to all of the PS5 exclusives!
All 2 of them during its live cycle...
I remember when Skyrim first came out and everyone I knew was losing their shit over the graphics. Now it's like mmm yeah it's a little too blocky and choppy. But people still like the game, and can still appreciate the effort that went into it. I still like looking at the mountains. I also like looking at Breath of the Wild's mountains even though it's not as realistic. But both look beautiful, so who cares?
I built a $2000 dollar computer 6 months ago, and I've played maybe 3 relatively "new" AAA titles on it. I have, however played dozens of new and old indie titles on it. I've got all this powerful hardware, but the games with the "graphics" to make my computer sweat don't interest me much. The ones that do, don't try to sell themselves on their graphics.
I didn't even know there was an Animal Crossing game for smartphones. And it's FTP. I'm gonna test it right now.
Just found out they made a Fire Emblem one too, gonna be the first time I try to play that series.
Holy shit, I knew Nintendo was investing in mobile, but I didn't know it was this much.
I have a DS, 3DS, Wii U, Switch and a SNES Classic. I still buy in 2019 DS, 3DS, Wii U games, so I don't care a lot about graphics. I enjoy also a lot playing retro games, sometimes even more than modern games. One of my favorite racing games that I still play to this day is OutRun, and we can't say that its graphics are cutting-edge anymore. And I love playing Sonic Adventure, or Unleashed on the Wii, which have standard graphics. They're nice, but not like other 2019 games. Still, I play those older titles, even if they look worse, over the more recent ones. I do not buy a game only because of the graphics (as long as it looks good, to me it's fine, it doesn't need to have the latest and greatest graphics). To me it means more the gameplay, the story, the music, the characters and the setting of the game
Wow, nice video. I don't care much as long as the graphics support the gameplay. for example I can't imagine MGS5 in MGS1 graphics, bc I don't think it would work as good as the original. But MGS5 with MGS3 graphics would be cool I guess. So I think there is a borderline.
This came to my mind after watching PS5's presentation. Most of what was shown looked very normal and comparable to PS4.
Between console generations there was always a huge leap in graphics, but I'm no longer seeing it this time.
Better resolution and faster processing times is what it's going to make the difference from here and onwards I guess.
Again, this is one reason why I still haven't finished FF15 but play FF14 to death. FF14's visuals are really nice but they're not the main thing about the game. Yoshi P's team mainly focuses on story, content, gameplay, all the good stuff. But even FF14 Stormblood's visuals aren't as cutting edge as the original FF14's, a game where a focus on visual fidelity (and also the devs playing it safe by trying to keep the game as similar to FF11 as possible but not realizing that that gameplay style is outdated) really killed it. This is one reason why I would like Yoshi P to make one of the next Final Fantasy games because he seems to understand what makes them work, even though the guy's pretty humble and would rather focus on working on a game he has ideas for.
I've been making this argument for years. I totally agree that if games just focused on gameplay and story rather than overly focusing on graphics we'd have more great games like we did in the golden age of gaming.
I do agree with your argument. If your graphics can only look as good as maybe let’s say the new god of war looked like god of war 3 or even as good as uncharted 4, it would still be ok. You shouldn’t harp on graphics too much since it would make making games abit more difficult. Poly count is hindering games. Ff15 is a perfect example.
Uncharted 1 Drake looks like he's made of wax. Uncharted 4 Drake looks like a real person.
The graphical field of games is seeing diminishing returns, but it's still seeing improvement. If you think graphics aren't rapidly improved, look how at The Witcher 3 compared to The Witcher 2. Look at Metal Gear Solid V compared to MGS4.
I don't know if you still read comments on these videos, but I figured I'd chime in a few years late. There are definitely some games that I feel greatly benefited from a focus on graphics. Deus Ex: Mankind Divided comes to mind. It's GORGEOUS, and that increase in fidelity came with the ability to express an art style more effectively. Looking at the scenes in Human Revolution that have direct points of comparison in Mankind Divided - Hengsha / Golem City, Adam's Apartment / Adam's Apartment - the visual storytelling and tone was way more effectively set in MD because they had more tools to play with, from environment density to lighting complexity. It made the game way better, and the amount of time and work that went into it paid off. (Unfortunately, Square Enix also promptly killed Deus Ex - oops.)
One of the cooler moments this year was playing Nier Automata and Yakuza 0 and realizing that they just looked like PS3 games and that I didn't care at all. My friends saw me playing them and mentioned how they look last gen. We all just shrugged our shoulders.
i like the persona5 music
Graphics have been good enough for me for over 10 years now. I️ see some appeal in gorgeous games, but I️ am not too interested in it myself. My main gaming systems have been from nintendo and I️ have always been impressed by their graphic styling. I️ am usually less impressed by the gritty and realistic graphics of bigger/more hardcore games.
Yes
About the poll: I think graphics in 2007 looked GREAT. Portal, Heavenly Sword, The Witcher, all of those games still look good! And if we wanna go even further back, Mario Sunshine and Metroid Prime look amazing and hold up great, even though you CANT see every single hair in Mario's beard
Agreed.
no you make a lot of sense i ony buy games that peak my interest like interesting gameplay or a really well done story
I love old games, because i don't care about the graphics. If I like a game, i like a game, it really only matters when the game looks so bad its hard to look at
It's funny that my GOTY game of 2017 goes to the PS3 game that was ported to PS4 at the same day. And happens to have a lot more appealing visual finesse in art style department then other games that are cutting edge graphical showcases. It just goes to show that many consumers today aren't that shallow anymore and they wouldn't buy a game because of the standards of cutting edge graphics. People at Square-Enix still believe their company is a graphical powerhouse of the modern video game industry (when there are more serious competitors on that field) and a lot of FF fans regard FF6 as the best game of the series. Maybe they finally realized that when they shifted to Unreal Engine 4 to remake FF7 because people will buy the remake regardless of graphics since it bears the name of FF7, one of the top selling PS1 games. I hope people at Square will learn their lesson with FF16 if it ever happens that is.
I absolutely care more about gameplay and story than graphics, assuming the graphics aren't going to pull me out of the story. I recently replayed the first KH, laughed at how non-cutscene Sora's mouth moved, but didn't care much more than that. I still played it. It makes fun jokes later on, but the story? The gameplay? MUCH more important.
Step 1 cut peoples hands off and put them In a box.
Step 2 slap a Star Wars logo on the box.
Step 3 profit.
Been saying this for years. Square makes it painfully obvious that their focus on graphics is holding them back, particularly when you consider that the DS/3DS showed off that devs could do some pretty interesting things when they didn't have to bog themselves down with graphics they way they would on a console. I'm currently playing through a game from 2012 and while it doesn't look as good as _Uncharted 4_ from 2016 (and designed for entirely different hardware) the graphics are still perfectly acceptable now, 8 years later, in 2020. You look at how Square managed to get three _Final Fantasy_ games on the PS1, two on the PS2, only a single on PS3 (ostensibly), and mostly only a single release on PS4 (does _FF7 Remake_ count?) and it's just clear that they're focusing on the wrong parts of the games. I suppose they look nice, and make for good trailers, but releasing either the same game more quickly or in a better state seems like it would be a worth while trade.
ArtumTsumia and 50% of FF7R looks like a ps2 game while the other 50% (main characters and some environments) look like a ps5 game lol 🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️
Persona 5 did have a test game come out that ran on the same engine that was a much smaller game and was a test for the engine for P5, its called Catherine.
Ngl FFXV is probably the most beautiful game I own so far, not just visually, the whole friendship and bond between the main cast really makes me care for the game even with the messy story. Over the years I've become a very sensitive person so those things are more important now as a young adult then the gameplay. And I really don't have the time to "get good" with hard games now, but everyone is different and we can't have the same views.
I do get your point in this video, and a few years ago I would 100% agree but now? I just enjoy my comfort zone of gaming.
So basically not really visually, but emotionally, a game needs to make me feel something so I can care, if it doesn't sorry I won't waste my time case in point? I couldn't care less about Uncharted as a whole.
I mean, My *Favorite* game series is 'Knights of the Old Republic' which by todays standard, many would say looks like garbage. But it has a story which was engaging and pulled me in.
Story should *ALWAYS* be 1st place in all of this, length is 2nd, and graphics maybe 3rd.
I'm all for seeing beautiful graphics, But yeah, Not at the cost of good story and especially length. I'm not buying a game for graphics, I'm buying it to enjoy it for a long time and have good replay ability.
Yes. I do care about graphics. Those Sony exclusives have great gameplay but id be lying if I said the cutting edge graphics also didnt play a huge part of the enjoyment... long story but i recently got BOTW for wii u and the aliasing and blurry low res graphics are soooo bad its almost unplayable. Unheard of for Nintendo. All the other mario/zelda games look fantastic on wii u. But BOTW is just too ambitious maybe. Just surprised nintendo even allowed that broken mess to be released. (In terms of technical graphics. I loved the art style and gameplay)
Story and Gameplay above all.
The rapid growth of the Indie market and the Switch's Launch success should be telling enough.
9:36 Was that a JoJo’s reference?!?
#part5never
Harry Potter Musical??
That's absurd!
Couldn’t believe it when I saw it!