PC gaming/gaming in general stagnated by graphics?

Diplexbullet19 · 25 May 2014 at 15:45

Graphics are not that big of a deal, look at the success of games like minecraft. The problem is a lack of ideas and ingenuity. Look at ESO, how great would that game of been if it was actually an elder scrolls game online and not just guild war 2 rskinned. Too many games promise much but do not succeed.

mightymouse · 25 May 2014 at 15:55

personally i think that it depends on how much hype you put your mind through.... its like the age old book or movie, if you read the book first you may not like the movie. If you didnt expect so much then it wouldnt disappoint you. I thought AC and batman series were good. Gameplay was a bit monotonous after a while but not too bad.

james.miller · 25 May 2014 at 16:07

Mal X said:
you're a shooter..... the gameplay has to be right first.........graphics is of secondary importance..... the best shooter was FEAR, but it's graphics is horrid by todays standards, but it never seemed to matter back then !!!!

if you notice the graphics too much then the shooting is probably too easy and boring, you need to be gaming scared stiff/terrified as if you're about to die around the next corner, there are a few games like this, but they're all from years ago, strangely enough not recently.

...and it really was 'around the next corner' as well. Corner, after corridoor, after corner, after set-piece, after corridoor, after corner....

Fear was was a combination of some pretty good AI at the time and some pretty awful level design. A bit like the original Halo, it was just boring.

~>Dg<~ said:
call bs on it it was well published they didn't make a penny on it.

https://tombraider.tumblr.com%2Fpost%2F78758228963

By the end of this month we will surpass 6 million units for our Tomb Raider reboot, and, having achieved profitability back in 2013 Tomb Raider has exceeded profit expectations and continues to make significant contributions to our overall financial performance.

AWPC · 25 May 2014 at 16:39

Games have been stuck in DX9 land for at least 8 years & it will not be much different in the next 1-2 years as mainstream is still DX9 level consoles.

The few DX11 games they have made do not look anything special either IMO using DX11 for a few extra surfaces & or extra shader lighting FX is not true DX11.

True DX11 is using DX11 level shader FX & true DX11 surface textures all through the game but that would cost a lot of money as it would require a lot more effort from the artists & an almighty PC only game engine.

Probably within 5 years we will get a true DX11 showcase............

norm · 25 May 2014 at 16:43

kcon1 said:
Don't worry, our saviors are here

Yep Witcher3 is about the only glimmer of light on the horizon atm. Thoroughly looking forward to it, more so they had the sense to delay it to really add the finishing touches.

As for graphics vs. gameplay I know gameplay wins hands down, hell I used to play QW with mipmaps 1 : ) but I still want to be awestruck by amazing graphics, if only so the game feels a little bit fresher.

benjii · 25 May 2014 at 17:00

norm said:
Yep Witcher3 is about the only glimmer of light on the horizon atm. Thoroughly looking forward to it, more so they had the sense to delay it to really add the finishing touches.

Indeed. The developers seem cool too.

"We are treating all gamers equally," Iwinski answered me.

"We'll not deliver exclusive content to any of the platforms, nor will we artificially delay release of the game on any of the platforms because somebody's paying us money for that. It's definitely against our values. We are not doing that."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ev-vows-no-exclusive-content-for-any-platform

TonyTurbo78 · 25 May 2014 at 17:10

I think the next few years we'll see massive leaps in visual fidelity. With 4k screens becoming readily available and the next gen consoles really being a total farce regarding what they can handle, I expect the PC market to grow and take the lead for devs. Kinda hoping anyway.

Robot Dog · 25 May 2014 at 17:59

While technology has come a long way. But the question is will people really be able to tell the difference. New lighting systems are being developed for game engines, new shaders.... these sorts of things i wonder if people can tell the difference.

Rroff · 25 May 2014 at 18:06

To a degree I think its partly the dev tools - however much you see the engine devs, etc. raving about their latest tools in the promotional videos, etc. the fact is a lot of engines and the tools are just plain clunky to work with, the DX API itself has somewhat stagnated, Open GL you need to be a special kind of person to really get the best out of it, etc.

A lot of studios have moved on from the days when you've got a dozen people mostly in the same room with the lead engine programmer sitting a few desks over from the artists and they can back and forth and fine tune features of the game to what they need a lot more is working with an off the shelf engine and implementing features that aren't really innovating.

npjnpj · 25 May 2014 at 18:55

Graphics are only a 'nice to have'.

After more than 15 years I still enjoy a few rounds of Doom or Descent more than any modern shooter, these being very unsatisfying over a longer period of time. The amount of new levels and random level generators for the Doom family out there is enough to last a lifetime. I play most new titles a few hours and either finish them (seldomly because I get bored), but if I do I hardly ever go back, or stack them away because they're just plain boring on the gameplay level after a very short while. Seen it all before with slightly worse graphics, better level design, and higher longevity.

For a while now I've been generally blown away by the gameplay level of indie games. These are mostly so interesting, fun, and innovative that it reminds me of the times when C64 or Spectrum games were being churned out by bedroom programmers. The greatest games at the moment are there. Best get them now before EA and Ubisoft buy these developers up, dissolve their companies and set them to work programming pricy DLCs for rubbish games.

Or perhaps they'll be allowed to create trailers that contain absolutely zero gameplay footage which will be used to sell loads of pre-order copies and beta access passes. Honestly, what's with that? People actually pay for beta testing games? Whole teams used to be by paid for doing just that, and now companies get an earner out of it? The world's gone mad! Sorry, rant's over, got a bit carried away there.

The good and innovative game ideas are still there and they're still coming, but not from any AAAs.

StriderX · 25 May 2014 at 19:40

PC gaming is not stagnated, its developers continuing to use crappy 32bit code in games that REALLY need double-point precision to not crash at the climax of a long run game.

Then we have developers (Bethsoft) for whatever reason attaching every piece of code to a single refresh rate...I am sure they still haven't explained why.

The Always On fiasco from Ubisoft that lost them a huge chunk of the players they were "trying" to protect from evil, evil pirates, Yargh!

EA doing the same thing, then...again...and again wondering why they get lamented so.

DLC up the bum for the smallest conceivable things.

As a result i have basically shunned most games due to this, as i find that it does infact ruin the rest of the game.

Devrij · 25 May 2014 at 19:41

I think the best games I have played over the last year have been small titles, with only a few AAA titles made the grade. Brothers, Walking Dead, etc, and some are beautiful games (eg Brothers) others more stylised and non traditional (eg walking dead). Gameplay always trumps graphics.

Rroff · 25 May 2014 at 20:04

StriderX said:
Then we have developers (Bethsoft) for whatever reason attaching every piece of code to a single refresh rate...I am sure they still haven't explained why.

To be fair to Bethesda thats almost an accidental coincidence in that a similiar issue exists completely seperately in several different engines their games are made on heh. Its still not acceptable in this day and age though IMO.

HangTime · 25 May 2014 at 22:01

I do agree to some extent, as you point out 10 years ago we had FC/D3/HL2 which represented a big jump forward from the sort of visuals we were seeing prior to that (Q3/Unreal engines). Since then the only similar shift I can recall was Crysis in 2007. I've seen nice looking games since then, but nothing that really wowed me.

Stagnation seems somewhat inevitable to me, given that over time the limitations will slowly but surely shift away from hardware requirements and into the design realm i.e. you can have the best engine in the world, the most efficient code, the fastest cpu etc. but if you don't have good artists, good art direction and so forth then you can't fully take advantage of all that.

You mentioned QW earlier and ironically Quake is a really good example of a game that benefitted from good design and art style meaning that relative to its age it actually looks kinda OK. I'd say something like Max Payne probably falls into that category too.

norm · 25 May 2014 at 22:14

HangTime said:
You mentioned QW earlier and ironically Quake is a really good example of a game that benefitted from good design and art style meaning that relative to its age it actually looks kinda OK. I'd say something like Max Payne probably falls into that category too.

You probably don't remember me HT but I still revel in the fact I beat you on DM2 before you went all LPB.

The spectrum of skill, reactions, strategy in QW I don't think has yet been surpassed by any other FPS. Bunny hopping though a glitch was an art in itself.

Superficial · 25 May 2014 at 22:43

The only game I'm really looking forward to is the next Deus Ex title. I have replayed DX:HR three times now.

Pighardia · 25 May 2014 at 22:51

Superficial said:
I have replayed DX:HR three times now.

Me too, and I installed the directors cut again the other day ready for another!

For me, graphics have got to a stage where they are good enough, so I am not really looking for the next 'leap'. Gameplay needs to evolve in lots of games, but I rarely care about graphics nowadays.

Rroff · 25 May 2014 at 22:52

HangTime said:
You mentioned QW earlier and ironically Quake is a really good example of a game that benefitted from good design and art style meaning that relative to its age it actually looks kinda OK. I'd say something like Max Payne probably falls into that category too.

If you play the original Max Payne on a smartphone or tablet it could still pass for a fairly recent game heh.

Superficial · 25 May 2014 at 23:30

Pighardia said:
Me too, and I installed the directors cut again the other day ready for another!

For me, graphics have got to a stage where they are good enough, so I am not really looking for the next 'leap'. Gameplay needs to evolve in lots of games, but I rarely care about graphics nowadays.

indeed, in fact I think the issue of graphics became far less relevant for me once we got to the mid 2000's - as soon as we got to the point where the whole polygon issue was less pronounced and basic physics was introduced. For me now texture packs are welcome but not essential.

I'd love it if they remade the Original Deus Ex with the HR engine. they would not even need to re do the music or voices. If you think about it it would hardly take any time for them.

Calm · 25 May 2014 at 23:37

Diminishing returns! graphics are pretty good atm.

I've found I don't really notice the progressive, incremental improvements until I play an older game, and find myself thinking 'this looks rubbish'.

One of the burdens of being a part of the 'MasterRace', i guess.