Is The New Generation Of Games Relying More On Graphics ?

[jkartik]

i have been observing this for over a year and a half that graphics are todays
sole priority instead of gameplay / AI. i guess the craze for graphics suddenly
arised since the far cry engine was created.

a good example of that is c2k5. we all know that BLC99 is the best cricket game till now inspite of not having eye-candy graphics.
another e.g - i recently bought POP : Two Thrones and completed within 2 days LOL !
whereas it took literally weeks for me to complete Sands of Time and
much longer time for Warrior Within.

just thought of creating this thread so that i could get your views too.

 

[langerrox]

i think because of the systems that you can have nowadays you have to have good graphics or your game won't sell, people will go but blah and blah have better graphics why buy it? people want eye candy: p

 

[jkartik]

i think because of the systems that you can have nowadays you have to have good graphics or your game won't sell, people will go but blah and blah have better graphics why buy it? people want eye candy: p

true but thats effecting the gameplay. developers spend ages making eye-candy and rush the game as they have announced the release date :

another problem is that high-end graphic cards are too costly in the subcontinent and hence not a lot of population here can afford it.

 

[Cowburn199]

A perfect example is Battlefield 2. On a good computer the game plays really smooth and looks really realistic. The gameplay is still superb with 64 player servers with jets tanks helicoptors etc.
So it's a good example because it shows you can have both!

 

[y2j826]

more then graphics i think story line has to be good to sell the game, a good example is of game MAFIA, it got good graphics and then good story mode. and even peoples dont like to spend money on upgrading PC's and for games too at the same time, so even genuine graphics is good cuz for high graphics we need high end computers. So in both forms we have to pay money.

 

[Muhammad Saad]

I think graphics and gameplay are equally important ,if u have good graphical game but sucks in game play than it wont sell ,similarly if u have a good ai and game play but bad graphics than again it hardly sell ,so now days both are equal ,but unfortunately the developers only looks for better graphics.
On a question of high price high end card in subcontinent ,the developers of card always make low end solution on a latest technology so it wont matter in subcontinent if u buy low price with latest techology card ,the good example of this is Nividia 7300gs ,it is the latest low end solution card from developers and it only cost 5000 in Pakistan and 4650 in India

 

[IloveGilly]

a good example of that is c2k5. we all know that BLC99 is the best cricket game till now inspite of not having eye-candy graphics.

That's exactly what i think when we compare Graphics + Gameplay/AI.

Cricket '05 - Pretty good graphics, great animations but terrible gameplay.
BLIC '99 - Not very eye catching but really good gameplay.

 

[puddleduck]

Well back in the day gameplay was key because that was all a game had. Graphics just helped to provide a visual interface.

These days however with so many companies develping games, there are still just as many, if not more, quality games produced however there are also a ton of rubbish games produced either because they lack the gameplay aspect or are dreadful graphically.

Personally a game with good game play but poor graphics will be something I still enjoy, but a game with good graphics but poor gameplay will not.

Another point about graphics these days is that they themselves can be part of the gameplay. For example if the graphics are very good in regards to shadows and lighting and the game plays quite well, then that in itself will help to aid the gameplay.

End of the day gameplay is always more important, as was hinted on above. Games are often designed on the Pc to be able to play at different levels of graphical intensity. If the game plays amazingly someone will go for the game and play it on the lower settings if it means it plays well. However they will not buy a game that plays badly just because it looks amazing when on high settings. Afterall it is just a game, if you want something to look like real life, step outside

 

[siddharth2002]

i have been observing this for over a year and a half that graphics are todays
sole priority instead of gameplay / AI. i guess the craze for graphics suddenly
arised since the far cry engine was created.

a good example of that is c2k5. we all know that BLC99 is the best cricket game till now inspite of not having eye-candy graphics.
another e.g - i recently bought POP : Two Thrones and completed within 2 days LOL !
whereas it took literally weeks for me to complete Sands of Time and
much longer time for Warrior Within.

just thought of creating this thread so that i could get your views too.

Well its a transition phase, devs and gamers both are getting used to the eye-candy thats on offer. Wait for the Unreal Tournament 2007 to come out. Its coming out this year soon and its gonna have graphics that will call Doom 3 and Far Cry a joke and the AI calculations will even stretch FX-60 beyond its limits.

 

[blackleopard92]

Well, there should be always be a balance, games like DOOm, HF2 on there release would run comfortably on those PC.
while games like FAR CRY, OBLIVION are way too hard on even top end systems.

 

[Ritwik]

There are still some great games that are gameplay based and not dependent on graphics. Sometimes these are "click and text-based games" (coded usually in Visual Basic) and do not have animations or graphics at all, save for the user interface.

Try out Adam Ryland's excellent, free wrestling simulator Extreme Warfare Revenge (http://www.extreme-warfare.com - the sight is in german but you should find what you want under "downloads" pretty easily.)

Ryland has graduated to making professional games (read: paid games) and you can try out http://www.greydogsoftware.com to try and buy these games. Try out Wrestling Spirit and Total Extreme Wrestling 2005 - you won't be dissappointed.

These games have immersive gameplay, and are highly editible, so it is very easy to find great scenarios/data packs for them. Such text-based games often provide a lot more hours of fun than the graphically intensive games that we see on store shelves these days.

I think that the basic reason game companies are forced to load up graphics into today's games are to attract a casual gaming audience - the not so hardcore gamers and kids who are captivated by shiny graphics and are not too discerning about gameplay. However this has had a side effect not only in terms of the kind of hardware required to run contemporary games at acceptable levels (and the expenditure involved for the same) but also that games are becoming increasingly harder to "get into" - which will be counterproductive for companies since the target audience of casual gamers is finding it increasingly hard to really enjoy these games.

 

[blackleopard92]

Well Ritwik, hardcore gamers also like graphics.After all They are the ones who buy latest graphics card off the shelf.

Also, one reason I have thought of is the fact that graphics cards are more powerful than CPU itself.hence complexity of game can't be upped.therefore graphics are made better.
ANd the prime example is of course FPS, they get graphicallly complex all the time.

In fact, graphics Card are so powerful that what intel/AMD dishes out that DirectX10 will treat them as seperate CPU and route all processing form them to CPU rather than other way round.
Intersting eh?

 

[fanirama]

The question asks about new generation of games. The word new itself implies something is well... new about this game.
The one that'll strike you the most is of course the visuals. The new games do indeed show marked graphical upgrades which plays a vital role in how real/believable a game looks. Compare the Pong game from Atari 25 years ago to Top Spin 2. Graphics go a long way in convincing people that a game is truly new and improved ( even if its not ). Especially on unreleased games. The first impressions are via screenshots which only reveal graphical aspects of the game. First impressions are very important in gaming world.
So, nothing wrong in game developers improving on graphics especially on games that're well toned on other aspects with good AI, sound etc. eg. Top Spin, GTA, Halo etc.

I believe however, that graphics, though important is only one factor of a game's newness. Other important aspects I look at too - gameplay, sound, replayability and most importantly - enjoyment factor. These all come mostly after you've looked at a game.

 

[Brett_Lee]

Yeah i have been observing to

I have 2 comptuers at home right and this one has a ATI RADEON 256mb X600 Pro. My other computer has got at ATI RADEON 9550 128mb. There is a huge difference in the graphics but not so much gameplay. I tend to see on games like Cricket 2005 and BLIC on the 128 mb the graphics are still awesome except the games slow down adn recover with fast pace. This 256 mb one its pretty smooth. I cant wait to try a 512 mb video card though

 

[BigCrickNan]

I think the Game companies know Gameplay is more important, but go more for Graphics because they will sell more. That's why a lot of my friends prefer FIFA to Pro evo, they say the graphics are great in Fifa despite crap gameplay, but they buy it anyway.