Was the move to HD graphics+ worth it? - The Bear and Badger

mistercrayon

Personally I think no.

Games take longer to make to just make competent games and there's less variety.

I would say that games haven't got much more interesting from about 2005 considering the time taken to make one game now at the top tier.

Can we imagine a game like Deus Ex going from 0 full game in 3 years (and developed by a relatively small team) anymore? (the HD DX took 2007-2011)

To my mind, the Rockstar North output is the most telling. In the PS2 era they made something like 3 GTAs and Manhunt (2002-2004) and in the PS3 era made 2 GTAs (2008-2015).

E3 has gone from being a "buy this christmas" to "buy next christmas...and play once you can download patches in January"

Anyway clearly unresearched nonsense that's been bubbling around in my head and the crantings of a nostalgia man.

Tempy

The increased wait time and the crushing of AA titles has allowed other things to flourish though, so whilst it's a shame for AAA games, I think it has inadvertently caused a creative boom.

Blue Swirl

What Tempy said. Also, the 'release shit that's broken and patch it later' ethos currently in the gaming industry has nothing to do with the move to HD graphics, but the ease with which they can put out patches over high speed internet. (And the fact that we keep pre-ordering games. Why bother to finish something properly when you've already been paid for it?)

It'll all be worth it when the HD Zelda hits Wii U.

mistercrayon

Tempy wrote:

The increased wait time and the crushing of AA titles has allowed other things to flourish though, so whilst it's a shame for AAA games, I think it has inadvertently caused a creative boom.

Some things have got good, like the growth in 2d games and super small games, but I think that space was opened by the net and broadband rather than a squeezed top. Certainly the oxygen being used up at the top has caused more innovative and wonky thinks to evolve by necessity.

But some AA/B tier games have just vanished or become impossible to be viable product. Your Second Sight's (a kindred spirit with the recent Remember Me).

Syph79

Not sure it's had much impact on development time at all. I've a mate who's an art director, formerly of Lion head, and every model he made had a hi poly and low poly version. They were always made in detail then scaled down, not the other way round.

I'd actually say that the need for games to be connected experiences has had more of a detrimental effect on development time.

Tempy

mistercrayon wrote:

Tempy wrote:

The increased wait time and the crushing of AA titles has allowed other things to flourish though, so whilst it's a shame for AAA games, I think it has inadvertently caused a creative boom.

Some things have got good, like the growth in 2d games and super small games, but I think that space was opened by the net and broadband rather than a squeezed top. Certainly the oxygen being used up at the top has caused more innovative and wonky thinks to evolve by necessity. But some AA/B tier games have just vanished or become impossible to be viable product. Your Second Sight's (a kindred spirit with the recent Remember Me).

I wouldn't personally hazard to call it direct, but I think it's a combo of factors that HD GFX have had a hand in, not least through the proliferation, availability and streamlining of tools such as unity and so forth.

Blue Swirl

Syph79 wrote:

I've a mate who's an art director, formerly of Lion head, and every model he made had a hi poly and low poly version. They were always made in detail then scaled down, not the other way round.

A very good point. You'll never find a developer saying "I wish the current generation of hardware had less power." It's always "we had to cut back our vision because the hardware couldn't handle it".

RedDave2

Blue Swirl wrote:

Syph79 wrote:

I've a mate who's an art director, formerly of Lion head, and every model he made had a hi poly and low poly version. They were always made in detail then scaled down, not the other way round.

A very good point. You'll never find a developer saying "I wish the current generation of hardware had less power." It's always "we had to cut back our vision because the hardware couldn't handle it".

Surely only when discussing the xbone version?

I'm kidding!

I_R

There's definitely a problem with there being AAA and indie and not much in between. It isn't just the shift to HD that's done that though - arcade ports stopped being a big deal when the Dreamcast died, optical media gets bigger every few years and always gets filled and we don't all rush to buy stuff on launch day because it's HD.

mistercrayon

Like I said in the OP this might be a nostalgia man argument. But my feelings are, what is acceptable as a 40 (50) pounds game as they all are seem to rely on a certain expectation of graphics. I guess we've always wanted better graphics but it feels like the biggest step change in graphics happened with the 360 but also the time taken to make a game.

Would a Majora from Ocarina be turned around in a single year now? (the majora update for 3ds was started in 2011 for example!)

Nintendo super struggled with the upgrade from SD to HD (they seem to have the hang of it now though, but even then their games are hardly asset heavy, in the strictest sense - SM3DW being DVD sized or less).

Rev

@lazygunn

Hlep pealse

Bollockoff

Games beyond pong have always been a sizable headache in terms of manpower allocation. I was watching a video the other day of Ex Looking Glass guys looking back on developing Thief 1 and their complaints about crunches, deadlines and engine pains are the same today. The studio almost went under infact and at one point they had their plants repossessed.

Bollockoff

Like, shrubberies.

mistercrayon

I guess the end of game time is always going to be a nightmare.

Check this out from the SS2 wiki page

The title took 18 months to create with a budget of $1.7 million^[30] and was pitched to several publishers, until Electronic Arts—who owned the rights to the Shock franchise—responded by suggesting the game become a sequel to System Shock. The development team agreed; Electronic Arts became the publisher and story changes were made to incorporate the franchise.^[27] The project was allotted one year to be completed, and to compensate for the short time frame, the staff began working with Looking Glass Studio's unfinished Dark Engine, the same engine used to create Thief: The Dark Project.^[30]

Bollockoff

The only difference they agreed on is publishers typically exert much greater control on the products now. One currently works for Harmonix so I guess he's in the position to say.

LazyGunn

revelthedog wrote:

@lazygunn Hlep pealse

High quality middleware has completely changed the landscape since olden days, problems become more abstracted and this hd+ graphics can then be the target of development time

Advancement is always good, especially as indie development of polished games becomes more viable - for every AAA game that you thought was a bunch of shite but the graphics were the shit, many amazing titles will bloom from the results of the work in these areas

Scotswahey

The shift to DLC and online play has also meant that after a game is finished it's not really finished so in the case of GTA5 you've got R* continuing work on the game for far longer. In the PS2 era they would have moved onto the next project already. You're also forgetting that GTA4 had 2 pretty full featured games set in the same world.

There are a hell of a lot of interesting and very pretty games on PSN. I don't think Flower, Journey or Fez would look the same without the extra grunt.

[Deleted User]

I personally like the upgrade in graphical quality, it presses my button and it annoys me that the industry and communities look down on graphical increases as smoke and mirrors.

There have been some beautiful games on bone/PS4 but even games like Rayman managed to take advantage of full HD on 360 gen tech. Rayman Origins/Legends and Wind Waker HD fullfil a want that I I've had for years. A want to play a cartoon.

The problem with the past gen is that it was Long. So while it can appear little changed the reality is games made huge leaps forward.

Graphics are a part of games like cinematography is a part of films. You dont need them to make a great product but they can be a great product in themselves.

IanHamlett

It was worth it and totally necessary.

Games costing a lot to make has lead to 90% of all FPSs looking and feeling exactly the same but we now have more good quality choice than ever (fuck you text-adventure and shmup fans).

RedDave2

Liveinadive wrote:

I personally like the upgrade in graphical quality, it presses my button and it annoys me that the industry and communities look down on graphical increases as smoke and mirrors. There have been some beautiful games on bone/PS4 but even games like Rayman managed to take advantage of full HD on 360 gen tech. Rayman Origins/Legends and Wind Waker HD fullfil a want that I I've had for years. A want to play a cartoon. The problem with the past gen is that it was Long. So while it can appear little changed the reality is games made huge leaps forward. Graphics are a part of games like cinematography is a part of films. You dont need them to make a great product but they can be a great product in themselves.

I'd go along with all of that. GTA V proved to be the usual Rockstar experience for me (outside of RDR). After a few missions the game began to lose appeal rapidly. But my god is it an pretty game with an incredible world going on. In a similar manner, SF4 and the many expansions looked and moved fantastic and finally stepped past the sprites of the earlier years. A quick play on the order 1886 also shows that graphics can help make something thats maybe a bit mediocre be that bit more fun as your jaw drops with each new level.

One thing that has me intrigued about games like the Order and Rise as well - If you go back and look at early 360 / ps3 games, visually they seem a little basic to where we ended up. Curious if this gen can achieve the same (or if it will get the time to).

[Deleted User]

Thing is HD upgrades didn't fuck up Text-adventure or shmups.(not to be arguing with Ian, I totally agree with him)

Any genre and any game can benefit from being prettier.
IMO the best selling games of the 360/PS3 gen weren't necessarily the best looking, good looking probably but not the best.

edit: typed pre-redDave2 response

mistercrayon

GTAV is a great looking game, but, when it comes to how big a leap it was between it and it's predecessor (and the time cost) and compare it with the time and leap between 3 and VC then is having that level of fidelity really a net win?

It is different strokes for different folks for sure.

LazyGunn

Yes it is because games aren't made in a vacuum. There are a plethora of conferences and online libraries and even communities that share every advancement

mistercrayon

What it also comes down to is that Videogames is a hype and pump based industry for many. All hype however is (traditionally) based on the screenshot and video model. It is a natural consequence in this environment that there is a drive for graphics to improve because nobody would get hyped about the feel of super mario or that in DX you can accidently complete a mission in three ways. The next big thing has to look nicer than its forebears or it will be just money down the toilet.

[Deleted User]

For sure.
It also depends on the leaps in tech and programming, software (production) etc.
Working in 3D everyday I can see why GTA3 isn't as far from GTAV as it was from GTA2.

GTAVC actually wasn't that different to GTA3, they just absolutely nailed a style, combined with some typical upgrades.

Gunn is always great for this stuff, he posted a few times in the GTAV thread. Pointing out stuff I thought I only I saw, little things like grass moving in a certain way, dust, tyre wear etc etc.
You won't see this shit and that is the point, it just adds to a feeling.

edit: That was at Crayon two posts up.

Hallo Gunn

mistercrayon

LazyGunn wrote:

Yes it is because games aren't made in a vacuum. There are a plethora of conferences and online libraries and even communities that share every advancement

Hey, I'll happily eat my words if we can get a new system shock turned round in 18 months due to sharing etc. Maybe we're in a peak time of timelienss.

[Deleted User]

mistercrayon wrote:

What it also comes down to is that Videogames is a hype and pump based industry for many. All hype however is (traditionally) based on the screenshot and video model. It is a natural consequence in this environment that there is a drive for graphics to improve because nobody would get hyped about the feel of super mario or that in DX you can accidently complete a mission in three ways. The next big thing has to look nicer than its forebears or it will be just money down the toilet.

Oh for sure.
Graphical fidelity is a much easier cold sell than describing gameplay etc.
Tis a visual medium.

IanHamlett

Liveinadive wrote:

Thing is HD upgrades didn't fuck up Text-adventure or shmups.(not to be arguing with Ian, I totally agree with him) Any genre and any game can benefit from being prettier. IMO the best selling games of the 360/PS3 gen weren't necessarily the best looking, good looking probably but not the best. edit: typed pre-redDave2 response

I just meant we have a good thing going right now unless you're into those genres.

[Deleted User]

Yup, but I don't think that is a graphical thing (not that I think you do either), just those genres are a quiet/dead anyhow.

LazyGunn

Haha cheers liveinadive

There are so many aspects to graphical advancement it's unreal, be aware that nvidia also contribute in physx a traditionally GPU accelerated physics system - the amount of gameplay options opened just from sheer 'prettiness advancement' is staggering, but the fact that so many things come from the same hardware race, physics, GPU compute - always worth it, behind all these pretty, super budget 'crappy' games is a story and a legacy.

I'll never hate these kind of games, if you're looking at the latest big budget for new games when you already stated you prefer games from q bygone time, just trawl greenlight or kongregate or something, there's loads of competent spinoffs made extremely easy to make thanks to all these vilified big releases

mistercrayon

Liveinadive wrote:

mistercrayon wrote:

What it also comes down to is that Videogames is a hype and pump based industry for many. All hype however is (traditionally) based on the screenshot and video model. It is a natural consequence in this environment that there is a drive for graphics to improve because nobody would get hyped about the feel of super mario or that in DX you can accidently complete a mission in three ways. The next big thing has to look nicer than its forebears or it will be just money down the toilet.

Oh for sure. Graphical fidelity is a much easier cold sell than describing gameplay etc. Tis a visual medium.

Only in part. If it was purely visual it would be no better than movies AND games that look olden would be zero successful.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories