Would you be content if graphics stopped improving?

I remember when I played F.E.A.R and Half Life 2 I thought to myself. "Wow. I'd be perfectly happy if developers stopped improving graphics in games, from this point on, and rather concentrated on cinematic storytelling and unique gameplay."

Would you agree? In this respect, PC upgrades wouldn't be so necessary and gaming could become more universal. I've found that when a game is really good, and the graphics are even just decent, you can lose yourself in it.

Have we reached a point in visuals, where a consistent level of quality wont detract from the immersion of gaming?

I could agree with this. I was more than happy with HL2. Luckily it has the visuals and the great gameplay. Most games these days lack great content and gameplay while they focus on super duper graphics that are not optimized properly and need a super computer to run.

I think a constant improvement in both graphics and AI will always draw gamers back to their PCs.

From my personal experience, when I picked up Oblivion, after playing Guild Wars for two years, I got completely immersed in the graphics. It is just so beautiful! I don't like lack of originality (appearance) in characters, though.

However, speaking from second-hand experience, I know my brother is always excited about the next game, such as Crysis; partly because of graphics, but mostly about the improved AI.

So, to sum things up I think both graphics and overall experience, such as AI and the plot, need constant improvement to keep gamers interested. Graphics needs to be improved to catch the eye, and plot immersion to reel them in.

I mean, if games are all the same graphically, people will become (for lack of a better word) desensitized and will accept the graphic level as norm. Next gen games need improved graphics so gamers do not feel fulfilled with the games they have. It called effective consumerism.

Naahhh, I think once a new game, perhaps for ps3 when developers use the systems full potential, that shows you something slightly better, you'll realize you want more :lol:

HL2 had so much to offer, but playing it you still realize certain things. Can you imagine a game where absolutely EVERYTHING in the game could be manipulated? I mean like in an FPS for example, if you shot any part of a building with a powerful weapon, the wall would collapse differently?

In all games, if you shoot buildings with rocket launchers even, you never destroy them right? Imagine being able to destroy everything? Just an example, not that I'm a freak, haha, I'm just saying that games can become more real than they are now.

Im greedy:whistling

I'm actually perfectly content with the graphics in games today. I mean, sure if something groundbreaking came out that was just insane graphics, id love to see it and consider getting it. But I'm happy with the graphics in todays game. I think developers should concern themselves with making a solid game than just making a flashy game with good graphics and not much of anything else. We seem to be getting a lot of those these days.

Games enable you to escape your daily life and offer you an alternative experience. That experience is greatly improved by the visuals and sound. Graphics are as part of the game as gameplay is.

People who are responsible for the graphics of a game, are different from the ones who are responsible for the gameplay. So it wouldnt make much difference anyway. Especially since hardware is evolving so fast. It would be stupid to stop evolving the graphics, since we can. And graphics are as part of the gaming experience as gameplay.

Take a look at cars. Cars evolved(and still evolve) far far slower than pc hardware. Yet, a modern car(mitsubishi evo) can be faster around a tracker than a racing/super car from the 80s. That is insane and shows how much we have improved since then. And we havent improved speed by sacrificing handling, comfort or safety, we improved those too at the same time.

I suggest you should come back and read your post in 10 years time. Then you will see how wrong you were.

I think the main problem with current games is the interface. That's why wii is so successful. Even though wii's interface isnt that efficient(compared to a joypad/mouse), it's a step towards the right direction i think. We need to invent the damn plug from Matrix so that we can plug in and enjoy kickass games :P.

Gameplay, graphics, sound and generally pretty much all aspects of gaming have been improved in the last few decades. Yet the interface remains the same. And that's not because it is good but because it wasnt as important. But fortunately, wii will open the eyes of the industry and things will move forward.

But i still think wii is a bad console, because it is overpriced and because it tries to persuade people that "It is ok if your graphics suck. That means that you spent more effort improving the gameplay", which is BULLSHIT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIB

But i still think wii is a bad console, because it is overpriced and because it tries to persuade people that "It is ok if your graphics suck. That means that you spent more effort improving the gameplay", which is BULLSHIT.

---

I've said similar things before.

The difference between a Wii and Gamecube is basically a new controller.

The controller could've just been added to the GC.:dry:

The Wii games are fun as fuck but really only in a party setting.

I think the Wii is a worse buy than the PS3 and 360.

I'd like to see some more diversity in how advanced graphics are in games.

On one hand I like it when something new comes along and surprises me by looking really pretty, but on the other hand I like retro stuff too. And I really dig the graphics in Alien Shooter Vengeance. And I really don't mind not having to upgrade all the time.

The Wii, and its runaway success story, is a sign for the good that people want more from games than just good graphics, it's easily the most innovative console to come out for a long time and hopefully the game makers will start really innovating the things they can do with the controllers.

And there are games out there that are hugely popular that don't rely on uber-graphics. Civilization, Sims, Football Manager, etc.

I like good graphics as well and I look forward to the DX10 games when they come out. I'm sure Crysis is going to look great on a high-end PC (not any of the consoles of course they're either not powerful enough or it'll look like shit on them) but I'm more excited by the interesting gaming prospects like Spore and Wii.

Even with the best graphics a crap game is well...crap. Personally, if a game is good (like say STALKER with its hawt AI) I stop noticing that my character's individual hair strands aren't rendered or that AA isn't set to 16x or that water isn't really realistic.

Quote:

---

Would you be content if graphics stopped improving?

---

Quote:

---

People who are responsible for the graphics of a game, are different from the ones who are responsible for the gameplay. So it wouldnt make much difference anyway.

---

True, but I doubt that the teams working on gameplay, storyboard & musical scores, haves as much time and $$ allocated than visual devellopement team.

The Wii could be the next DS. In term of sucess. They use the very same approach. Interactivity instead of horses power. Simple and fun games rather than mega-productions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheese

The Wii, and its runaway success story, is a sign for the good that people want more from games than just good graphics, it's easily the most innovative console to come out for a long time and hopefully the game makers will start really innovating the things they can do with the controllers.

And there are games out there that are hugely popular that don't rely on uber-graphics. Civilization, Sims, Football Manager, etc.

I like good graphics as well and I look forward to the DX10 games when they come out. I'm sure Crysis is going to look great on a high-end PC (not any of the consoles of course they're either not powerful enough or it'll look like shit on them) but I'm more excited by the interesting gaming prospects like Spore and Wii.

Even with the best graphics a crap game is well...crap. Personally, if a game is good (like say STALKER with its hawt AI) I stop noticing that my character's individual hair strands aren't rendered or that AA isn't set to 16x or that water isn't really realistic.

---

I think the Wii is a great con. Make a new controller but sell an entire system.

$250 BAM!

As far as innovation, I saw the same with the Xavix yeeeeaaarssss ago.
Did you buy one yet? Everyone I know that has one has used it in party settings but it has weared thin otherwise. We played it a lot when a group of us went to the mountains.

Back at home though, I'm mostly on the 360 and PC.:dabs: It seems because it sold so much that maybe third party develop will jump on. That's a great sign.

Ultimately though I will relegate the Wii to niche games and nothing more. If I wanna drive, give me a racing wheel.....shoot, give me a light gun....bowl or hit baseballs, thennnnn give me a Wiimote.

Stalker was a fizzle for me. It isn't a bad game, no no, but it is just well, disappointing. I thought it was going to be that "killer" game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cheese

The Wii, and its runaway success story, is a sign for the good that people want more from games than just good graphics, it's easily the most innovative console to come out for a long time and hopefully the game makers will start really innovating the things they can do with the controllers.

And there are games out there that are hugely popular that don't rely on uber-graphics. Civilization, Sims, Football Manager, etc.

I like good graphics as well and I look forward to the DX10 games when they come out. I'm sure Crysis is going to look great on a high-end PC (not any of the consoles of course they're either not powerful enough or it'll look like shit on them) but I'm more excited by the interesting gaming prospects like Spore and Wii.

Even with the best graphics a crap game is well...crap. Personally, if a game is good (like say STALKER with its hawt AI) I stop noticing that my character's individual hair strands aren't rendered or that AA isn't set to 16x or that water isn't really realistic.

---

I think the Wii is a great con. Make a new controller but sell an entire system.

$250 BAM!

As far as innovation, I saw the same with the Xavix yeeeeaaarssss ago.
Did you buy one yet? Everyone I know that has one has used it in party settings but it has weared thin otherwise. We played it a lot when a group of us went to the mountains.

Back at home though, I'm mostly on the 360 and PC.:dabs: It seems because it sold so much that maybe third party develop will jump on. That's a great sign.

Ultimately though I will relegate the Wii to niche games and nothing more. If I wanna drive, give me a racing wheel.....shoot, give me a light gun....bowl or hit baseballs, thennnnn give me a Wiimote.

Stalker was a fizzle for me. It isn't a bad game, no no, but it is just well, disappointing. I thought it was going to be that "killer" game.

---

Ya S.t.a.l.k.e.r, Very dissapointing.

u can NEVER want them to stop improving the grafx in games. i was happy with atari. lol, i was. then nintendo came out and it was pimp. etc. etc. now, dx10 makes games look incredible. we can only imagine what's to cum. @ least i can.

If the world of scientific development came to a grinding halt I imagine I would be quite upset.

I still want to see something like what we were promised with Radiant AI in Oblivion. I played this game called World of Warcraft because people said the AI was like really realistic but it turns out the NPCs in that are severely retarded and the game designers have never even heard of a spell-checker.

Graphics will be improved until they are indistinguishable from reality. That much is obvious.

Whether that will make for better games, I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Graphics will be improved until they are indistinguishable from reality. That much is obvious.

---

Why stop there? The graphics in real life are quite crappy imo, and this feeling and smelling gimmick is over-rated (and quite gross at times).

Real-life doesn't have lens flares :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Real-life doesn't have lens flares :no:

---

squirt fairy liquid in your eyes, that's the trick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Real-life doesn't have lens flares :no:

---

Flares are making a comeback! :w00t: Sorry another Colt fashion faux paux..:ermm:

Photo realistic games would be good though... if a little disturbing, I mean will there come a time when you can't tell the difference between reality and a game? Maybe by the time we reach that stage PC's as we know it will be obselete and we will be gettting our kicks from some kinda Matrixesque type of realistic VR.... where you are 'plugged' into the game ...or whatever.. reminds me of the Jude Law film ExistenZ

I do believe though that in recent years game developers seem to be going for the, "lets make it look as good as possible" route and have neglected the game play aspects of their games.... Good AI or lack there of, in games being such an example. But convincing AI is extremely difficult to pull off... due to the fact that what I perceive as good AI, maybe percevied as too difficult or not difficult enough depending on the player.

I used to do a lot of beta testing in the early Half life years for a chap developing a bot (Rho-Bot) AI for a Half Life mod and it truley is no mean feat... adaptive or learning AI seems to be the way forward, where the AI would start to learn the maps (choke points etc) after a while and store that info and be able to use it again, This requires them to be trained first though.... Most devs just use a waypoint and node system, which is just pish but it saves time and is less CPU intensive. :noes: :yup:

Hopefully, in the future games will indeed look amazing... but just as long as the play as good as they look, then I won't have a problem! :ph34r:

Quote:

---

True, but I doubt that the teams working on gameplay, storyboard & musical scores, haves as much time and $$ allocated than visual devellopement team.

---

But the problem isnt so much about money but risk. Gameplay changes are quite risky. You dont know if they will work. While better graphics are a sure win.

People dont like change. There have been insane games with awsome gameplay, yet they never caught on. Every now and then you get games like The Sims, which even though they are different, they become a huge success.

IMO, it isnt so much about how much money companies invest on gameplay but rather how willing companies are to change gameplay. They simply dont want to change it. And this is very understandable if you consider the economical risk of having an AAA game failing to sell simply because its gameplay was too different.

And this is where wii might come in. Wii showed to the developers that being different can work. So developers might start taking bigger risks.

Content? Yes.

In fact, I'll go one further: I would be happy for graphics to stop improving if it meant that gameplay actually got better. I'd much rather play a game that looks like a steaming pile of vomit but which is utterly engaging than one that takes a monstrous machine to play but, frankly, sucks.

The two games I've spent the most time playing recently have been Battle for Wesnoth and Geneforge, neither of which are ever going to win any design awards. But damn, are they engaging.

Much more worth the ever-decreasing gaming time I have than OMGFragathon Version 17.5.

I gotta have it all.

It's like having great lyrics and music.

I like Geometry Wars on XBL. It's quite engaging all a dat.

However, there are engaging games to play with a decent amount of eye-candy so I'll stick with those.

To slack in gameplay or graphics is a disservice. Some games like Tetris can get away with that with no problems.

However, a FPS, platformer, etc. needs to have it's A game.

I would not be content if graphics stopped improving. There are many games that flourish in all categories right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaosfere

The two games I've spent the most time playing recently have been Battle for Wesnoth and Geneforge, neither of which are ever going to win any design awards. But damn, are they engaging.

---

Those games look interesting, I've got Geneforge on the download now. The last couple of weeks I played the Puzzle Quest demo to death, damn that game is good. Probably one of the best games out this year imo (well, it's not out for PC just yet...).

I want continued improvement in graphic quality but I (like some of the other posters) would rather have better gameplay and story then prettier leaves on the trees...

Well, with the exception of the Wii, what single-player gameplay innovations do the PS3 and X360 have over their predecessors? Are visuals the only major upgrade you'd find in next-gen games, or are there any gameplay elements that simply can't be achieved with PS2 and Xbox?

well for starters, theres a lot more power to be used in next gen systems. This should give developers what they need for more advanced AI. Now weather or not they use this extra power for anthing besides more graphics is beyond me (they probably will only use it for graphics IMO)

Yes, but i haven't yet played much on the next-gen. I've never played a 360 or a PS3, who are obviously the two whos graphics are best. Look at first-tier PS1 games comp-ared to the final releases. Do it for PS2, too. The PS3/360 will improve with their graphics even more in the next 3-4 years.

I'm still playing PS1/PS2 games, so even if graphics stopped 'improving', i probably wouldn't care until I bought one of the new systems in a few years.