I don't care about good graphics

Discussions and debates about video games

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Dean
Duke
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 3:14 am

I don't care about good graphics

Post by Dean »

I was writing about what I would design as my ideal video game and a question I want to ask you good Denners is: If one was to design a game nowadays who's graphics were equal to games 10 years ago like Halo 2, Far Cry, or GTA San Andreas would that save you a lot of development time and would that be worthwhile? So using the two pictures below as a sample. Would it be a worthwhile time saving measure to make your games look like the former rather than the latter or is computer design software advanced enough that sacrificing appearances to that degree would save you little work?
10 years ago...
Image
Today...
Image
Because if so I must say I find no increase in enjoyment in the appearance of modern titles than in the appearance of decade old games. If tremendous funds and effort could be saved through that medium then that is the direction I would go in.
Last edited by Dean on Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus wrote:Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. I am filled with an unfathomable hatred.
User avatar
codeGlaze
Duke
Posts: 1083
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 9:38 pm

Post by codeGlaze »

Probably not.
You'd, more than likely, need to be going for even more simple graphics than something like that to really see a big time difference.

A strict comparison between similar levels of texture/art depth isn't necessarily a good place to start looking to trim time.
An artist is more than likely able to pump out decent looking, but simple, art faster than uber-realism. (Difference between TF2 art and ... the art above)

Speaking from general knowledge, I'm pretty sure quality like that is dependent on the engine and resources (machines: memory, processors ...etc) you're working with.

Modern engines and resources can pump out better textures (primary macro-level difference between those two screen shots) pretty easily and are basically throttled by end-user resources.

Up-to-date modern engines would be able to handle the textures of either of those games. You're not really spending excessive amounts of time implementing textures, just time waiting for the textures to be made.

Engines and extra libraries extrapolate a lot, but most of your time would probably be spent customizing the engine for your needs and adding the extra code/libraries your need/want for your game. Then making sure everything plays nice.

Then testing, fixing, wash, rinse, repeat.
Last edited by codeGlaze on Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:28 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Dogbert
Duke
Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:17 am
Contact:

Post by Dogbert »

The issue with graphics is that the more detail a game has, the more it needs.

The best example I have in mind is FF7 vs. FF8. 7 had such a simplistic (in-game) character design, that it didn't need anything else. 8, on the other hand, looked like a PS2 game that came before its time... instead of making me swoon, all it did was making me notice the graphic power it needed and -didn't have-.

Going high-end on a simplistic design (i.e Guacamelee) yields better results than aiming for low-end of the "AAA paradigm" (as in, trying Saints Row 2 after having played 3 and 4).
Image
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

Well, Shadow of the Colossus is 9 years ago:
Image
Vagrant Story was 14 years ago:
Image

Legend of Mana was 15 years ago:
Image

Good art direction uses what it's given to deliver a great gameplay experience. Having nice color pallets is a large part of it. Metal Gear Solid on PS1 still looks good 'cause all of the textures are painted in a way that fits the lighting of the scene n' mood.
MisterDee
Knight-Baron
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 8:40 pm

Re: I don't care about good graphics

Post by MisterDee »

deanruel87 wrote:I was writing about what I would design as my ideal video game and a question I want to ask you good Denners is: If one was to design a game nowadays who's graphics were equal to games 10 years ago like Halo 2, Far Cry, or GTA San Andreas would that save you a lot of development time and would that be worthwhile?
You can make some serious art production savings by picking a good-looking, but relatively simplistic art style. It's not a straight low-tech=cheaper relationship though.

If you're going for a "realistic" look, you can save some time and work by going for less detailed models and textures, but the savings won't be from the art side (generally, artists work top-down: they make an amazing model in concept art, then pare it down to fit in the specs the program let them use.)

What you will save on is level design and programming. Using less detailed assets allows you to skimp on optimizing your levels and game code.

Whether the savings are significant enough to offset the increased sales generated by OMGWTFBBQ graphics is the question.
User avatar
Lokathor
Duke
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:10 am
Location: ID
Contact:

Post by Lokathor »

OgreBattle wrote:Metal Gear Solid on PS1 still looks good 'cause all of the textures are painted in a way that fits the lighting of the scene n' mood.
ahahahahahahahahahahah

it does not.

I love glorious Kojima-san, the one true god of cyberpunk plot twists, but MGS1 specifically is like two graphical tiers below all the rest of the MGS games.

But to answer the topic: Basically, you only get so many cooks in the kitchen

Once you've got a number of programmers, designers, etc, you'll cap out on the amount of team that you can manage and have interact properly. Team complexity usually scales up quadratically compared to member count, so you hit your capacity rather quick.

So when your game budget is huge, you literally can't just spend more money on more designers. Each individual designer has to be good, because this is pokemon and you only get six slots before your team is full. Same goes for programming to an extent (though the limits are less severe there because society has focused on more team-management systems for programming over the past 40 years).

So if you've got millions of dollars after your designers and programmers, what's left is throwing a lot of money at art and sound so that your players think that it's as high quality of a game as you want them to think. Now, you can totally overdo it. Most recently, Bioshock Infinite sold millions of copies but didn't make enough to keep their studio from going down. AAA has become a little notorious for spending too much on budget and marketing and then the game "fails" because it only sells 2 or 3 million copies instead of the 5 million they would have needed to make a profit.
[*]The Ends Of The Matrix: Github and Rendered
[*]After Sundown: Github and Rendered
User avatar
Lokathor
Duke
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:10 am
Location: ID
Contact:

Post by Lokathor »

OgreBattle wrote:Metal Gear Solid on PS1 still looks good 'cause all of the textures are painted in a way that fits the lighting of the scene n' mood.
ahahahahahahahahahahah

it does not.

I love glorious Kojima-san, the one true god of cyberpunk plot twists, but MGS1 specifically is like two graphical tiers below all the rest of the MGS games.

But to answer the topic: Basically, you only get so many cooks in the kitchen

Once you've got a number of programmers, designers, etc, you'll cap out on the amount of team that you can manage and have interact properly. Team complexity usually scales up quadratically compared to member count, so you hit your capacity rather quick.

So when your game budget is huge, you literally can't just spend more money on more designers. Each individual designer has to be good, because this is pokemon and you only get six slots before your team is full. Same goes for programming to an extent (though the limits are less severe there because society has focused on more team-management systems for programming over the past 40 years).

So if you've got millions of dollars after your designers and programmers, what's left is throwing a lot of money at art and sound so that your players think that it's as high quality of a game as you want them to think. Now, you can totally overdo it. Most recently, Bioshock Infinite sold millions of copies but didn't make enough to keep their studio from going down. AAA has become a little notorious for spending too much on budget and marketing and then the game "fails" because it only sells 2 or 3 million copies instead of the 5 million they would have needed to make a profit.
[*]The Ends Of The Matrix: Github and Rendered
[*]After Sundown: Github and Rendered
Post Reply