next »

[mcErik]

This is an interesting thread. Personally, something that bothers me in certain newer games is how they feel a necessity to wow people with nice graphics but don't always consider what impact that might have to the gameplay. In most games, the gameplay should really be the core of any gaming experience. One recent example of this that I noticed was Might No. 9. I recently looked at their newest gameplay footage and thought it looked awful. I feel like the visuals are taking away from what makes mega man awesome, which is the game flow.  Sure the game is pretty, but it doesn't look fun anymore.


 
When I look at this video, I have a much harder time figuring out what is actually going on gameplay wise. My mind can appreciate the nice graphics, but the nice graphics alone aren't what makes a game like mega man fun. But watching this random lets play of mega man x, it's pretty clear what makes that game fun.
 


Take away all the excessive lighting and image effects and you can focus on what really makes this game fun, the gameplay, the challenge to stay alive and kick ass. Why should I care about how pretty the lighting that shines off my characters armor is? Why do I need to see rays of light piercing through the excessively detailed backgrounds. The truth is, me and a the generations who grew up being able to appreciate games based on their gameplay alone don't. But modern gamers who are still developing their appreciation for high quality gameplay must be visually intrigued to even have a change at seeing how wonderful a game with great gameplay is.

I feel like this is a trend in modern games in general. You have to make them visually stunning to have any hope of competing with the rest of the modern games. But the act of focusing on something visually impressive takes away from the joy provided in games originally designed to emphasize gameplay over art.

I don't think their is much to be done about this, big budget games will continue to try to appeal to these larger visually inclined audiences which leaves us indie developers to make games that emphasize good gameplay.

[PicklesIIDX]

I don't think their is much to be done about this, big budget games will continue to try to appeal to these larger visually inclined audiences which leaves us indie developers to make games that emphasize good gameplay.

 Oops, that got long. tl;dr: Poor management from pleasing higher ups probably has a larger impact than the cost of visuals in large teams with specialists.

 Although there are costs for increasing the visual fidelity of a game, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's taking a piece of the pie from the rest of the game's development. I haven't worked with massive teams before, so if you have worked on big AAA games, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. Normally the structure is to have programmers assigned to working on a specific aspect of the game, such as visuals or gameplay. That being said, I have seen priorities shift. In the teams I've worked in, I've seen two things happening:

 1. When talking with publishers or higher ups in a company, it's visuals that sell to them. In order to pay the bills for one more month, you need to show something impressive. So, priorities shift from iterating on design to iterating on visuals. During this time you'll see the team not playtesting the game (because there is no new content) and designers not being able to iterate on their ideas because the programming team is forced to make the next impressive demo to show for 5 minutes in a meeting.

 2. Feature creep. When you work on a game for months, you can get bored with the concept. It's not holding the interest of the team. And the iteration loop to think of something cool to add to the game is far less time than it takes to implement it. So, I've personally been assigned to keep implementing new ideas and features, as opposed to refining what's in the game, or questioning the core gameplay. I see bad designers trying to add instead of subtract to fix a game's design issues.

 So...I guess I agree that visuals can have an impact on the game, but not necessarily because those visuals are harder to implement. With the tools we have today, it's actually impressive how fast you can get a working effect into a game. What I think is more of the issue is bad management. With indies, it's a double edged sword. Normally these small teams means that implementing visuals directly takes away from making other aspects, because there aren't specialists. Because of this, scope is limited. It's a tried and true indie tactic to implement one mechanic and build a whole game around that (Super Crate Box for example). One you only have a single mechanic as a restriction, you'll iterate on that thing and polish it to shine. I'm making a guess here, but I'm presuming that with older games, since the tools were more limited, it would force scope down, and we might see the same sort of iteration on a single idea. Anyone actually work on older games where you had to code in assembly to chime in on this?

[vinheim3]

An additional point is that a lot of modern, especially big budget games, are "diluted" by mechanics that are way too common in all those games. Back then, a lot of games took some risks for the sake of creativity and providing something new, but a lot of games nowadays have taken on inspiration and successes from other games giving something that is quality and polished, but too samey and lacking in creativity just to be safe. Off course there are a lot of exceptions but this has been my experience with a lot of modern big budget games that I even find fun. I've also noticed that indie games more often brings about that creativity that really hooks you into the game

[frazerbw]

I can't handle how biased these images are. So, to contrast, I'll post some biased images:





But, that's just to prove a point. Really, both games have fantastic art direction. They are consistent in their visual style, and will probably continuing looking good for many years.

Exactly. I thought it was funny how bias the other persons pictures are. Both games are by ANY standards beautiful. They are different styles, but both are awesome in their own ways.

There is the over emphasis on realistic graphics nowadays, and it seems that indie gamers have constructed some form of anti-culture against it. I love the look of a lot of these new games made by people on this site, but there seems to be some sort of "there is one way, and only one way" attitude. And to be honest, I find it a little discouraging.

[peteandwally]

Katamari Damacy is a 'newer' game that didn't push it's graphics but focused on the game mechanics. Still, you get a sense of an increasingly larger world despite the simple graphics they use. So I guess as long as you can provide a sense of immersion into your game, it might be more appealing for some players. I think a lot of older games (ff6 for sure) really give you a sense of the world better than their newer counterparts. FF13 was beautiful, but I felt like I was in a tube the whole time, whereas the world of ruin in ff6 had a great sandbox feel, and let you connect points on the world with the gorgeous (in a pixel-y way) map and airship rides.

[TheChaoticGood]

Guys you got it all wrong. The reason you like older games better then new games is the same reason you like the first Star Wars movies better then the new Star Wars movies.

In the old movies, they had less tech to work with so they had to put a larger emphasis on developing the world and making sure everything felt polished.

In the newer games, people are soo focused on the tech and the graphics and you lose something along the way.

A great example of this are the fallout games (or any CRPG.) In the original games your options were vastly greater than in the new games. The older graphics still convey the world in a rich way, but you have soo much more going on from a story telling perspective.





No modern games have anything close to this many options. In modern games you only really get Renegade or Paragon...

[s0]

A great example of this are the fallout games (or any CRPG.) In the original games your options were vastly greater than in the new games. The older graphics still convey the world in a rich way, but you have soo much more going on from a story telling perspective.

[img=http://writing.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Fallout-new-vegas-dialogue1.png]http://Fallout NV[/img]

[img=http://s.pro-gmedia.com/videogamer/media/images/pub/large/dialogue.jpg]http://Fallout 2[/img]

No modern games have anything close to this many options. In modern games you only really get Renegade or Paragon...
[img=http://static.gamespot.com/uploads/original/gamespot/images/2005/features/greatestgames/planescape/691855-pst_003.jpg]http://Planescape Torment[/img]

i think thats more because dialog has to be voiced in modern AAA games and voice acting is expensive

also, uh, your fallout 2 screenshot has 0 dialog options and the NV one has 6

[TheChaoticGood]

A great example of this are the fallout games (or any CRPG.) In the original games your options were vastly greater than in the new games. The older graphics still convey the world in a rich way, but you have soo much more going on from a story telling perspective.

[img=http://writing.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Fallout-new-vegas-dialogue1.png]http://Fallout NV[/img]

[img=http://s.pro-gmedia.com/videogamer/media/images/pub/large/dialogue.jpg]http://Fallout 2[/img]

No modern games have anything close to this many options. In modern games you only really get Renegade or Paragon...
[img=http://static.gamespot.com/uploads/original/gamespot/images/2005/features/greatestgames/planescape/691855-pst_003.jpg]http://Planescape Torment[/img]

i think thats more because dialog has to be voiced in modern AAA games and voice acting is expensive

also, uh, your fallout 2 screenshot has 0 dialog options and the NV one has 6

Well that's what I'm talking about. They keep adding more and more to make it look and sound cooler, but at the cost of something deeper.

On the second point, that's obvious. I was comparing the art with the two images and the third image was to show dialogue options.

[TheChaoticGood]

I know it's torment, another CRPG.

[Schoq]

if you think visual spectacle wasn't a big focus in the production of the original star wars movies and a huge selling point then haha

[s0]

ya the original trilogy was probably more technically advanced for its time than the prequels (episode 2 and 3 at least). what is true is that the originals have aged way better tho.

[rj]

ya the original trilogy was probably more technically advanced for its time than the prequels (episode 2 and 3 at least). what is true is that the originals have aged way better tho.

they've aged hella better for sure as movies, but if you watch the prequels again they look just as good as any ridiculous CGI blockbuster released today. the effects have aged crazy well

that is a lil off topic tho

personally i think that older games by and large tend to look like absolute ludicrous shit, especially N64 titles and NES ones. the ones that look good are exceptions, not the rule.

newer games are more universally polished, but even still, the vast majority of them look bland as hell. they don't look offensive to your eyes anymore but they don't excite either. that's because honestly the amount of good-to-bad has always been the same throughout gaming history (if not improved).

for example: the last of us looks fucking amazing, and if you don't think so you need new eyes

for example: so does sonic CD

meanwhile: terraria is an ugly mess. so is assassin's creed 3, so is inFamous, so is watch_dogs (well..it's more boring than ugly, but still). so is metroid, while super metroid and zero mission and fusion and the prime series are absolutely not (though prime hunters is, though other m is)

f-zero x is disgusting, f-zero gx is heavenly. the original f-zero looks really cool but maximum velocity has some weird bullshit going on with it. conversely, knytt underground manages to look far worse than its predecessors. the new super monkey ball games look far worse than the first two.

there's no real pattern through time, though, even though games have improved their ability to Look Good In General.

games have always looked gross and have always looked cool. there are cool games everywhere in every era. in general, you can argue that perhaps games have only improved over time as the bar for entry has been lowered and more people are able to do whatever they want. we have better, funner, prettier games as a whole in 2014. but there have always been good games. they just haven't been developed by as diverse a variety of people or with as diverse a variety of vibes and styles.

anyway: as far as pure mechanics go, though, it's no contest that video games are steadily improving and innovating more now than they used to. good older games are still hella great, but newer ones, having the inherent advantage of hindsight, can always potentially be better than what came before. we can always improve.

tldr perhaps contradicting myself a small amount but games are better now than in 1989 or 1995 or 2001 and they'll be better in 2020 than they are now but there will always be immensely shitty games

[OttselKnight]

Im a big believer in the Limitation Breeds Creativity philosophy. You had less to work with in the old days, so you were either more creative with it or you just produced a bad game that faded into oblivion. There were very few games in between those categories until the end of the SNES/Genesis era and the start of the PS1/N64 era, and even then they werent common.

Experiment
I found myself wondering recently if I only thought the older Mario games were better because I played them when younger. I played some of the newer ones with the older ones  over a single weekend and found this wasnt the case: Many older ones (such as The Lost Levels, the American Mario 2, and Super Mario Land) I felt had inferior design to some of the newer ones (Mario 3D land/World, New Super Mario Bros 2) in many regards. I also have a much lower opinion of an old favorite, Mario 64 (from a gameplay perspective, not as a technical achievement, and not taking into account that 3D design was the wild west at the time). But I still think SMB, SMB3, and Super Mario World and Yoshis Story ae the reigning kings of the series after comparing most of the series side by side. 6 Golden Coins gets an honorable mention for some pretty awesome levels.

One reason why games don't feel as good today (on average)
There were a lot of HORRIBLE games on the NES, Genesis, and the like but you would be hard pressed to remember many. The good games stood out that much more and were that much more memorable, and bad games were ignored. As time went on, bad games could get a lot of press before it was known they were bad. Hype was raised around nothing more than screen shots, promises of publishers, and maybe a previous game (Devil May Cry and its first sequel is a good example). Compounding this is the fact that publishers want the game to look good first, and play good second. They will produce FF13 over FF3/6 any day. The engine costs alone take away so much focus from the game development, which causes gameplay to suffer.

The final nail in the coffin as to why gaming as a whole was "better" on average back in the day is the new philosophy that top publishers have about expanding their user base. There can be a LONG discussion on this topic alone, but it can be summed up rather sloppily as publishers want more CoD in their games.

EDIT Publishers, in my experience, feel this way about games in general: /EDIT Dead Space and RE have a decent Horror survival niche going? Make it straight up action adventure instead! Platformers dont have a wide audience, make Banjo Kazooie a car building game(and directly insult anyone who DOES like platforming in the games opening minutes). Overstrike looks good Insomniac, just remove the cartoony characters, all colors except for white, yellow and brown, add a cover system, and rename it FUZE. The list goes on. To have a good game, your designers have to have passion behind it, have to be designing a game they want to play. Publishers point to either CoD, WoW, or Candy Crush and say "Make that". This leads to many games starting off with something unique, getting hype, and then turning out to be rather bland and more of the same.

The reason the indie scene is doing so hot right now is because they are filling a niche that AAA refuses to fill, not one they cant fill. Gameplay over hype, and over media, and over visuals, and over expanding the demographic is not something most publishers will listen to, and nearly anyone who has had to make a pitch to a publisher will know that. (exceptions to this rule exist, and they bring a smile to my face every time! )

[s0]

Platformers dont have a wide audience, make Banjo Kazooie a car building game(and directly insult anyone who DOES like platforming in the games opening minutes).

uhhhh banjo kazooie nuts & bolts is a very weird game and a platformer would probably have had a larger potential audience. it's also very good if you manage to get over the fact that it's not like the old games.

[DJFloppyFish]

I think I liked games more as a kid cause I was less critical. Although, looking back, I really miss the levity of 90's media.

[OttselKnight]

Platformers dont have a wide audience, make Banjo Kazooie a car building game(and directly insult anyone who DOES like platforming in the games opening minutes).

uhhhh banjo kazooie nuts & bolts is a very weird game and a platformer would probably have had a larger potential audience. it's also very good if you manage to get over the fact that it's not like the old games.

I agree wholeheartedly. Thats my point. Its the AAA publishers who think "platformers are dead" and they are wrong. In that segment I was paraphrasing what AAA publishers think of the industry, not what I think it is.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Faust06]

personally i think that older games by and large tend to look like absolute ludicrous shit, especially N64 titles and NES ones. the ones that look good are exceptions, not the rule.

newer games are more universally polished, but even still, the vast majority of them look bland as hell. they don't look offensive to your eyes anymore but they don't excite either. that's because honestly the amount of good-to-bad has always been the same throughout gaming history (if not improved).

I find the ratio of games bland-or-ugly to pleasant is pretty consistent over time. But then I'm pretty forgiving.

Older games have less fluff and handholding. The flow of action isn't repeatedly broken for large blocks of time.

[Sik]

I was looking at this some days ago, this was pretty much the norm back then:




You have to admit, maybe there wasn't really that much innovation back in the day (just like today), but there sure looked to be a lot more of variety than these days. Remember, that game in the video would be what is considered AAA these days.

[rj]

Older games have less fluff and handholding. The flow of action isn't repeatedly broken for large blocks of time.

[s0]

i said this in another thread just recently, but i think the game industry has always been fad-driven. the phenomenon of everyone ripping off 1 popular game is nothing new (do i really have to remind you of all the 2nd rate platformers in the 90s that tried to be sonic?). this is because the game industry was never some hive of creative minds trying to create "great art." it's an entertainment industry. tho i think in some ways games were, or at least seemed, more diverse back then for several reasons:

1. not as much convergence between platforms. pc and console gaming were 2 totally separate spheres in the 80s and 90s. console-to-pc ports were a rarity and pc-to-console ports were usually of games that were already old news on PC. there were also way more big name exclusives in the console sphere. growing up in the 90s i remember seeing consoles i didnt own as this mystical promised land. these days a lot of games get releases across the board (this is a good thing btw).

2. genres didn't seem as "standardized" and formulaic back then, with some exceptions (platformers and shmups for instance) (this is also p much ottselknight's point). these days "AAA" genres have accrued a long list of expected features which includes things like control scheme, which mechanics it's "acceptable" to include, style of level design, art direction etc. in other words, genres are more streamlined. additionally, "new" ideas are often not allowed to stand on their own but are only accepted if they're somehow embedded into one of the big standard genres. see bioshock infinite for a recent example of this.

that said, i think diversity is coming back in a big way now. there's already a huge broadening in the types of games that become successful. i would never have expected games like e.g. minecraft, dark souls, FTL, xcom EU, crusader kings 2 or gone home to become big hits in, say, 2007.