Treyarch to gamers: STFU u h8ers

[Rendakor]

The sweet irony of it all is that a genuinely good game with virtually zero budget and publicity can be as financially successful as, if not more so than, a AAA title.

Does he give examples? Of course the word "can" is always an out. I know Braid did well, as have Torchlight and Monday Night Combat (are those indy games, though? They certainly had publicity..) And APB was a AA title that crashed and burned... the latest GH games have fizzled... so I guess if you take both extremes, he might be right. But I can't see a quiet no publicity indy game doing Black Ops numbers, which is what the insinuation is there.

edit - spelling

The correct answer was Minecraft.

[UnSub]

Psychochild has detailed a few titles that preceded Minecraft that sank without trace (Infiniminer iirc), which is the fate of most indie titles. Picking the outlier of success like that is like looking at WoW as the aim for a MMO developer: there is a slim chance you'll get to that level, but don't bet on it.

One problem I have with the idea that indie titles as some sort of innovation-driving sub-industry is that I tend to see indies going back to simpler game styles (e.g. the platformer) were one small twist makes them stand out. Limbo was great at evoking mood, but it has straight roots back to Pitfall mechanics-wise. There's some new ideas coming through, but a hell of a lot of repackaged nostalgia as well. Braid was practically drowning in it despite all the artwank.

Plus indies are cheap / free. We expect less from them as a result. Cost $5 and lasted 1 hour? That can be good enough. A AAA-title that costs $50 that lasted 10 hours? Rip-off!

To me, the whole, "the video games industry if full of crap titles now, not like in the good old days!" is myopic whining of the nth order. There are more games available than ever before. The 'golden age of gaming' (pick your own era / genre) was also full of awful games, but fewer of them and they've been forgotten. Yeah, increasing game budgets have made some developers more cautious, but some still push out and try something a bit different. It's also hard to take gamers on the whole seriously when they simultaneously claim to want new, innovative titles, yet clamour for the release of Duke Nukem Forever and hoist the COD franchise to the top of the charts.

[tgr]

Jesus I'm such a wall of texter.

Making money should be a side effect of game development, not the reason for doing it in the first place.

Basically, the writer of that article is a fucking idiot with a rather romanticised view of the games industry and the way that it works, and apparently a bit of an entitlement whore attitude. While I do think it's great that indie games have been revived with platforms like Steam and XBLA, I don't see anything wrong with people wanting to make money from their work. He seems to have that "you need to starve for your art" attitude as a subtext, or if not that extreme, that it's still a good and acceptable thing to starve for your art.

While "should be a side effect of game development" might be a bit strongly worded, I agree with the sentiment. If you go into game development because you absolutely love it, chances are (at least in my mind) that the end result will be higher quality than if you just go into game development because "hey moneyhats".

I have no problems (and I would hope the article writer would agree, but he might just be richard stallman-level crazy vOv) with f.ex infinity ward or activision making moneyhats off of the call of duty series, as long as they treat the gamers with respect. I'm going to go so far as to say that they were still treating PC gamers with respect with MW1 (even if its SP part was getting a bit short), but MW2 being released without console, lean and dedicated server support "because it's not balanced for lean/we're making the online experience better" is a major step backwards from its predecessor and it felt like a slap in the face for me as a PC gamer. The fact that I felt the SP was almost criminally short and disjointed didn't help.

also...

The sweet irony of it all is that a genuinely good game with virtually zero budget and publicity can be as financially successful as, if not more so than, a AAA title.

Does he give examples? Of course the word "can" is always an out. I know Braid did well, as have Torchlight and Monday Night Combat (are those indy games, though? They certainly had publicity..) And APB was a AA title that crashed and burned... the latest GH games have fizzled... so I guess if you take both extremes, he might be right. But I can't see a quiet no publicity indy game doing Black Ops numbers, which is what the insinuation is there.

I also doubt you'll see indie games doing as well as black ops, but I think you're focusing a bit much on its stellar sales figure. The good thing about indie devs is that they're usually so small that they don't really HAVE to sell 5 million units on the first day to regard the game as a success.

I'll just point you to http://greyaliengames.com/blog/some-fantastic-indie-sales-stats/ and cliffski's sales figures. I first heard of him 2 years ago I think, because he went out publically against pirates (I believe it was right as the whole DRM debate began heating up). As a company of 150 people, his sales figures look abysmal, but when you look at it as an essentially 1-man band (I believe he outsources some graphics and sound creation), then he's at least not exactly starving. The others on that link aren't as successful, but I haven't heard of any of them, some because they haven't advertised and some definitely because I give no fucks about their type of game (...soccer?).

This brings me onto a different aspect, advertising. It's probably the major stumbling block for most indie games developers, as they're likely to be unable to spend much on advertising, which means they're relying on word-of-mouth to actually sell their games. Cliffski did something right in going out against the pirates, as it got him lots of press, and I bought a few of his games because I actually saw what he had to offer. Steam is going to be a godsend for advertising such games, I've purchased tons of indie games off of steam because 1) I think "hey, that looks cool", 2) I know it'll go towards ONE guy (or a few guys), and 3) graphics (which I believe is most of the reason to have 100+ people on a single game project these days) is simply not as important to me as actual gameplay. Hell, I'm spending a lot of time in such games like Wurm, SoaSE, War in the Pacific and Eschalon Book I these days, and they're not exactly the pinnacle of graphics wonders...

To me, the whole, "the video games industry if full of crap titles now, not like in the good old days!" is myopic whining of the nth order. There are more games available than ever before. The 'golden age of gaming' (pick your own era / genre) was also full of awful games, but fewer of them and they've been forgotten. Yeah, increasing game budgets have made some developers more cautious, but some still push out and try something a bit different. It's also hard to take gamers on the whole seriously when they simultaneously claim to want new, innovative titles, yet clamour for the release of Duke Nukem Forever and hoist the COD franchise to the top of the charts.

To me it has gone downhill. Partially that's because the games these days are just not as good as their 5+ year old counterparts, and partially that's because I refuse to purchase anything which has an online activation requirement (beyond steam). The last bit has probably made me miss out on a few good modern games, so my view is probably going to be slightly darker than those who give no fucks about such minor quibbles.

I did go and replay both CoD2 and MW1 back when MW2 came out just because people were saying how MW2 wasn't so bad and that those who were whining about how MW2 was a step back were wrong. I ended up playing through the whole of CoD2 that weekend just because I found it so much fun. MW2 was uninstalled and deleted when I took a break for food, and I have had no urge to reinstall it. Additionally, the yearly LAN party I usually go to have expressly banned MW2 from their games lineup because of the "no dedicated servers" bit.

Hell, I've pointed out a few times what I think is probably the best example of what I feel is what's wrong with the result of bigwigs hunting the next big AAA billion dollar paycheck, in the form of the comparison of ArmA2 vs OpFlash2. One is clearly designed by console gamers for console gamers (even the PC version which was missing tons of features that made its debut in its 2001 version in the series), the other is clearly designed by pc gamers for pc gamers, and actively expands on the featureset of its original.

[Merusk]

It's only your opinion that games these days aren't as good as their 5+ year old counterparts.  This isn't a new discussion, I remember having it in 2000, 2002, 2005 and other years prior.  It's just new to you.

The fact is, you've gotten older and your tastes have changed.  You're not going to find video games as engaging as you did in your teens and early 20s.  Accept this and move on, enjoying the titles you can find.  Stop spending such a large portion of your entertainment budget on games and do like the 30-somethings tend to have done.. buy games later when they're on sale as a complete package for a reduced price.  Work through the backlog and let the younger crowd sift through the shit to find the gems.   You'll be amazed how much fun that 'shitty' game can be when you haven't dropped $60 on it, plus another $30 for the three expansions but have only dropped $19 on a Steam Sale.

[Paelos]

That's actually pretty solid advice for anyone gaming in their late 20s and older.

Blowing $10 on a POS on steam doesn't phase me. Blowing $50 on release for Civ 5 made me want to lose my fucking mind.

[tgr]

The fact is, you've gotten older and your tastes have changed.  You're not going to find video games as engaging as you did in your teens and early 20s.

I would've agreed with you if it wasn't for the fact that when I tested MW2 and found it to be a steaming pile of shit, I fired up CoD2 (CoD1 wouldn't start, so I couldn't test that). I was going to play a few levels, but I ended up tearing through the entire thing. ArmA2 is just as awesome as opflash (and yes, I have tested both again, just this week, just to verify), so I haven't really changed my tastes that much.

I think a more accurate description would be to say that mainstream games have changed (i.e. predominantly developed on consoles) and I haven't changed with them.

As for the "30-somethings" advice, that's precisely what I am doing. Partially because I'm not pre-ordering/buying new games on release day because i don't know what has DRM and what doesn't, and partially because I've come to expect AAA games sucking. Hell, I even got burned on Civ5 turning into a bit of a stinker.

Thankfully I still have indie games developers who still make games I actually like, and steam to help promote those games for them.

[Azazel]

Psychochild has detailed a few titles that preceded Minecraft that sank without trace (Infiniminer iirc), which is the fate of most indie titles. Picking the outlier of success like that is like looking at WoW as the aim for a MMO developer: there is a slim chance you'll get to that level, but don't bet on it.

One problem I have with the idea that indie titles as some sort of innovation-driving sub-industry is that I tend to see indies going back to simpler game styles (e.g. the platformer) were one small twist makes them stand out. Limbo was great at evoking mood, but it has straight roots back to Pitfall mechanics-wise. There's some new ideas coming through, but a hell of a lot of repackaged nostalgia as well. Braid was practically drowning in it despite all the artwank.

Plus indies are cheap / free. We expect less from them as a result. Cost $5 and lasted 1 hour? That can be good enough. A AAA-title that costs $50 that lasted 10 hours? Rip-off!

To me, the whole, "the video games industry if full of crap titles now, not like in the good old days!" is myopic whining of the nth order. There are more games available than ever before. The 'golden age of gaming' (pick your own era / genre) was also full of awful games, but fewer of them and they've been forgotten. Yeah, increasing game budgets have made some developers more cautious, but some still push out and try something a bit different. It's also hard to take gamers on the whole seriously when they simultaneously claim to want new, innovative titles, yet clamour for the release of Duke Nukem Forever and hoist the COD franchise to the top of the charts.

I agree with everything you've said here, particularly with regard for a lot of Indie games being throwbacks to the old days with nicer HD graphics and a bit of artwank on top. And hey. Good for Minecraft. And Torchlight, and anything else that manages to do well, but as UnSub says, picking the one title that won the lottery doesn't mean its even vaguely likely to happen to anyone else.

Further to that, Innovation doesn't always mean good. I checked out Play-Asia this morning to see what the weekly special is this week and it's a game called Mindjack. Never heard of it, but under $20, so I checked out some online reviews. 3rd person shooter, uses a bunc of mechanics similar to Gears of War. Some good new ideas in multiplayer, oh, and in SP mode you can take over the minds of enemies and even possess them directly. It's main problem is that apparently it's a shit game. As I often say at work about various things that affect us - it's a good idea, poorly implemented. Kane and Lynch 2's multiplayer stuff (traitor modes, etc) looks similarly intriguing, unfortunately, they're attached to Kand and Lynch.

Those are titles with new/intriguing/innovative ideas that failed because they're part of shitty games. When Gears 4 or Call of Duty 12 or Uncharted 4 or World of Warcraft steal those ideas for the next iteration of their franchises, well, it'll just be another bullet-point on the box, and people who already dislike those titles for their annual McFranchise natures will still piss on them.


Going to go a little bit SirBruce here to make it easier to reply yo the wall of text.

While "should be a side effect of game development" might be a bit strongly worded, I agree with the sentiment. If you go into game development because you absolutely love it, chances are (at least in my mind) that the end result will be higher quality than if you just go into game development because "hey moneyhats".

I'd agree with you there, but considering the way that the industry treats its employees and even the way that whole studios get thrown in the garbage can, I'd assume that many to most designers-and-down employees go into the industry is because they love it or because it's a dream job. I'm simply saying that there's nothing wrong with wanting to be well aid.rewarded for the work they put in - nothing wrong with creating a populist work for the masses and buying a house or car because it sold well, rather than creating "art for art's sake" and then living on the streets and eating dog food.

With the IW thing, we've been over it a million times here already. Yes they started with OC as their main platform, and yes by MW2 the PC as an afterthought. My response was pretty much disaapointment, followed by "ah well, fuck it", building a bridge and moving on with my life. I agree they were dicks the way they went about it, but I just didn't buy their game and bought (and played) Bad Company 2 instead. Which is a better game anyway.

Your links don't work from here (at work) but I have no issue with indie devs doing well. Why on earth would I? I own a ton of indie games via Steam that I've never heard of. But again my issue is with the smeghead who wrote that article. Why does it matter if Indie games "can" (but very fucking unlikely) sell as well as a AAA title. (that doesn't do so well). Why can't it just be enough to do well and make them a nice profit so they can go on doing what they do and growing and so on? And really, what exactly is a AAA title these days? Is Enslaved a AAA title? Dark Void? Lost Planet 2?

I'm not even being rhetorical there. - I'm not sure what defines a AAA title, especially these days. Was Arkham Asylum a AAA title or just another licenced game when it was in development? I mean, it was devloped by Rocksteady - their pedigree was Urban Chaos. The first Assassin's Creed? Ubi Montreal had a much better pedigree, but who knew that the game/new franchise would take off the way it did?

Resident Evil 5? Marvel vs Capcom 3? Lost Planet 2? Dead Rising 2? Dark Void? All Capcom. Which ones are AAA and whoch are not - and why?

To me it has gone downhill. Partially that's because the games these days are just not as good as their 5+ year old counterparts, and partially that's because I refuse to purchase anything which has an online activation requirement (beyond steam). The last bit has probably made me miss out on a few good modern games, so my view is probably going to be slightly darker than those who give no fucks about such minor quibbles.

I did go and replay both CoD2 and MW1 back when MW2 came out just because people were saying how MW2 wasn't so bad and that those who were whining about how MW2 was a step back were wrong. I ended up playing through the whole of CoD2 that weekend just because I found it so much fun. MW2 was uninstalled and deleted when I took a break for food, and I have had no urge to reinstall it. Additionally, the yearly LAN party I usually go to have expressly banned MW2 from their games lineup because of the "no dedicated servers" bit.

Hell, I've pointed out a few times what I think is probably the best example of what I feel is what's wrong with the result of bigwigs hunting the next big AAA billion dollar paycheck, in the form of the comparison of ArmA2 vs OpFlash2. One is clearly designed by console gamers for console gamers (even the PC version which was missing tons of features that made its debut in its 2001 version in the series), the other is clearly designed by pc gamers for pc gamers, and actively expands on the featureset of its original.

See, again I'll disagree with a lot of what you have to say here - you dislike consoles, so you're drawing from a much smaller pool of games than if you were happy to play any major format. Like yourself, I won't play a PC game with bullshit-level DRM, but hey, I'd prefer to play Assassin's Creed 2 on a console anyway. In the old days, I played my games on a C64 and then on an Amiga, only getting a console when the SNES had been around for a long time (I was anti-console back when I was 16-18 or so. I was also anti-PC. I had a fucking AMIGA!) But I digress - playing games on a C64 or an Amiga in the day has probably more in common with playing a 360 or PS3 than it does with playing a NES. While I still prefer my shooters on a PC, my first FPS was either Doom or Medal of Honor on the PS1, since I didn't have a PC back then.

I'd also say that I think games are better than they have ever been. Sure, we all have rose-coloured glasses, but you can never go back to the day again. Compare World of Warcraft to EverQuest, or even WoW itself on release. Even though I've gotten bored and stopped playing WoW, the difference is night and day. Street Fighter today is as Street Fighter was then, only with better graphics and more of those featureset things. The original GTA was fun and all, but I can play Zombie Driver today, as well as Just Cause 2 or Saints Row 2 that grew from the GTA Series making the jump to 3D. Some things go backwards. MW2 as you point out, sure. But I'll take Bad Company 2 over the original BF1942, as much as I love the original to bits. I'll also take Bad Company 2 over the original MoH or CoD games, for that matter. There are always going to be missteps and stuff that's basically just shitty, but overall, I think pretty much every genre is better today than it was 5 or 10 or whatever years ago, and usually if there's a latest-iteration misstep (Civ5, etc) the last one isn't so far away that you can't ignore the newest shiny and still buy and enjoy the last one.

And yeah. Are ArmA/2/Op Flashpoint 2 really AAA? Why? Does being a sequel automagically make something AAA? Oh, one last thing. Send me your MW2. I still haven't played it and it's not dropped to cheap enough for me to want to buy yet, esspecially given the short campaign and not much interest in SP mode. But if you don't want yours, I'll take it for a playthrough.
 

[Merusk]

Send me your MW2. I still haven't played it and it's not dropped to cheap enough for me to want to buy yet, esspecially given the short campaign and not much interest in SP mode. But if you don't want yours, I'll take it for a playthrough.
 

Don't buy it, get it from your local library.  S'what I did and it's a $20 game at best if you don't want to Multiplayer it.

[Jeff Kelly]

OK sort of a tangent here but the whole PC vs. consoles debate and the copying aspect always made me wonder one thing.

Shouldn't the price of the platform actually be factored in if you talk about games that are "too expensive?". Especially since the time frame before it becomes obsolte is much less than on consoles

Most gamers make the argument that they already have a PC so it's only logical to use it as a gaming platform, yet a $300 best buy rig - which would be totally enough for 90% of everything people do with a PC - won't be a viable gaming platform. To enjoy current games like Crysis you'd have to invest in the 4 digit range (at least $1000 to $1200).

For the additional cost I could buy aeach of the current game consoles with money to spare on games and I'd have a more consistent experience with less bugs

[tgr]

The thing about consoles is that while they cost $300 each, chances are you'll either buy just one of them. If you buy both, you're still down $600, and that investment is liable to last for 5-10 years if you buy at the outset. I'm not sure how long they're going to last from today's date, but there are indications that the current platforms will reach 8 to 10 years of age before they're replaced, which gives them a few years of life still.

[tgr]

[Azazel]

Yeah, That's pretty much what SirBrucing is. I thought my post was gong to be more like that when I started writing it than it turned out to be. The thing with many of the platform-tastic old-school new HD indie platformers is that they really do lend themselves to a console control scheme better and more naturally than WASD or arrows and spacebar. Either an arcade stick or a gamepad. And yeah, wired 360 pads now being pretty much native to the PC I think is an awesome change of the past few years.

Controls are a finicky thing - and there's both personal preference and nativity at play with them. I tend to play games much more on the format that they're made for now. Borderlands was a PC purchase initially, but since it wouldn't run on my wife's PC of the time, I got it on console, and frankly for all the bullshit that Pitchford spouted about PC being their lead platform, it really is a console game. The PC version does indeed have a severe case of consolitis and now bullshit DRM added on top, so it's questionable as to whether I'd ever bother to install, lt alone fire up my PC version again. I said it to you awhile back in one of these threads - play games on their "native" platforms and you'll be fine. But hell, I copped some shit here because I found the controls to f3 jizz-fest Demons Souls to be "loose". Aside from not finding the game especially interesting, the controls were "loose" because I'm more used to the 360 thumbsticks which give a bit more resistance than the looser PS3 ones. Not something I really noticed on racing games like Motorstorm or even Uncharted, but stood out to me when recently playing the shitfest that is Haze. Well, until I turfed it a few missions in.

GTA 4? RDR? Console games. Same with Assassin's Creed series. (Ass Creed 2 has a decently-priced GOTY now with all the extra DLC included on the disc including the "black" and "white" DLC.) Gears of War is pretty blatantly a console port. So for me it's a game to play on Console, even though generally speaking I prefer my 3PS on a PC. I'm fairly sure that Battlefield 3 will be pretty PC-friendly, and between that, the various MMOS I'm taking a break from, and the back catalogue of stuff I'm yet to play/own on Steam and are yet to play, it's no big deal to me that 90% of titles I'm interested in are realistically going to be best played on console for either control/consolitis or DRM issues.

My point about AAA titles is that it's mostly a bullshit term thrown around by people with an agenda one way or the other. Much of my issue isn't with you directly in any way, but the fuckwit that wrote that article. If you think about it, very few titles are actually "AAA". Most games are just games with a decent or not budget and a bit of marketing behind them. Some of those go on to gangbusters sales (Arkham Asylum) and then the sequel will probably be considered AAA, but if Batman:AA just turned out to be average, it'd be considered a typical licenced game or licenced POS like most Transformers games are. ArmA and OpFlash aren't what you could really call AAA. Neither is Enslaved. Good or bad, those are just games.

Anyway, time for me to head out now.

Yeah, pick up AC2 GOTY and if you have a PS3, both Uncharted games. Both consoles have a lot worth playing on them.

- edit - the list I typed wasnt a "check these out!" list but a list of "which of these do we consider AAA?" The "secret" was that while some were higher profile than others, they were pretty much all from Capcom - point being that big publisher doesn't automatically = "AAA".

[tgr]

The problem I have with playing games on the platform they were made on is that if the consoleitis is too strong (ME2 was mostly fine, as I said the only thing that annoyed me was the duck before jump thing), or if it's an FPS. I absolutely refuse to go for an FPS on the consoles, but I can live with a 3PS if the autoaim isn't as asstastic as it is in the force unleashed. For some reason, Rockstar just does it much better. However, their PC version of GTA4 was a disaster. For some reason it just didn't translate well performance-wise, and with the Live bullshit added on top ... yeah, no. I happily played the previous versions of GTA on the PC, it was really only when you started flying things like the helicopter that I began getting problems and wished I had a pad. vOv

My point about ArmA2 vs OpFlash2 wasn't really so much that they were chasing the AAA title (although I kind of think OpFlash2 was chasing that harder than ArmA2 vOv), but that they were from the outset basically going to be the same game, but the execution turned them into vastly different beasts, one of which was majorily annoying to me because it basically pissed on everything I expected off of that series, and one which was wonderful. Same goes for today's racing games, they just seem 2D compared to the racers I'm used to.

Another thing that's not helping me love the current set of games is of course all this wonderful DRM.

I've tried tone down my whine of DRM, because I'm probably the most vocal about it on this board, but if we discount controls fucking me over on FPSes, DRM is keeping me from a lot more games, no matter how well-designed for the PC they might be. Having said that, I've been looking forward to such games as Shogun 2: Total War, Bulletstorm and Crysis 2. The first I don't want to pre-purchase incase it comes with DRM, and the second I saw yesterday had gotten its steam page updated with its LiveID requirement, and the third had its beta (I think it was) leaked with securom keys (just like its two predecessors). Shogun 2 I can't preorder (and thus lose out on any preorder DLC (god I hate that shit)) because I don't know if it'll come with DRM (steam usually doesn't say until it's been for sale a while), whereas Bulletstorm actually says now that it will have a Windows Live ID requirement. That essentially means 2 games I won't buy on any platform, and one game I won't buy until it's been out for a week or so, to give valve time to update. As you asked in that other thread, "and people wonder why PC FPS sales are down".

[UnSub]

Just to throw in: OpF2 was done by a different development studio. Bohemia fell out with the publisher, but had sold them the OpF property.

So ArmA became Bohemia's follow-up to OpF, iirc.

[tgr]

I thought that was more or less common knowledge, but yes, OpF2 was made by a different studio. OpF2 was still a followup of OpF1, so it's still a good example of how a common starting point can end up vastly different given the developers' background/target audience.

[Kageru]

You don't have that problem with Consoles.  Folks upgrade them because they're only an appliance and there's clear delineation in regards to upgrades and new versions. 

Of course you have the problem with consoles. They've got insanely long hardware cycles (how old is the graphics card in the Xbox now? A 7300 from memory, you probably couldn't even find something that old anymore) and games get written down to the lowest hardware level if they're multi-platform, which they increasingly need to be to make back the money.

... Though hopefully not down to Wii compatibility levels, that would be cruel.

[Merusk]

People don't bitch when a 360 game looks like a 360 game.  People bitch a LOT when their 2011 computer running a 2011 game has 2005 level PC graphics. 

[UnSub]

But graphics don't matter! 

[tgr]

Graphics doesn't matter. I (and at least most of my friends) give no fucks about graphics past the initial few minutes. We're a lot more interested in a steady framerate and good gameplay, because once games have graphics that go beyond a certain point, it doesn't really give us much beyond that initial "oh hey cool" reaction.

Or are you going to say that most PC gamers would complain bitterly about FEAR-level graphics (which was released in 2005)?

[UnSub]

Just a throw-away line about graphics. Not even sure what 2005 graphics would look like.

Graphics do matter as a hygiene factor. Past a certain point they add less for most people, but there's a minimum standard expected and if it is below that it detracts from the game.

I did spot Time Crisis 2 in an arcade the other day and wonder how the hell I ever thought the graphics on that looked good, but that's progress.

[tgr]

2007 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIiw1TPnrq
2006 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5HtHZMQXeU
2005 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCcVy8-nHOU
2004 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uojlqtTIV0
2004 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn9W02eIqZ8
2003 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PdjeTEC0lU
2002 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peY7s2fN18Y
2000 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKp0DP1O4bs
2000 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctjwmrM3JsA
1999 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaVhcnBiob0
1998 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTUOn2EUFhk
1997 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP5Sf964it8
1996 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhzXKMqZBBc

I'm going to just stop there, but when does it go from "oh god this is unplayable get it away get it away" to "ok, I can easily see what's going on and it's not too shabby" to "what's different? Oh wait, I see, there are bumpmaps now!" or similar? When does it become unplayable, and when do you have to look real hard to even notice the difference?

Personally I can live with games with 1996 level graphics if the controls and game mechanics are good enough, but I prefer 2000+. vOv

I did spot Time Crisis 2 in an arcade the other day and wonder how the hell I ever thought the graphics on that looked good, but that's progress.

You mean this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXtL5kS5odo

I'm certainly not going to call it pretty, but it does get the job done. vOv

[Merusk]

People bitch ceaselessly about WOW's graphics and have since release.  They were done that way so they could be handled on a wide array of computers built at that time.   You don't see those complaints about 360 or PS3 games looking tired or old, because that's what's expected.   It's an implicit understanding that the hardware is the hardware.   I've seen reviews praise how awesome PS3 or 360 games look and they've not improved on the hardware side. 

If graphics didn't matter, then gamers wouldn't rag so much about on Wii versions vs PS3/ 360 versions of games. 

If you honestly think that a AAA title, or even a AA title can get away with Far Cry's level of Polys or Oblivion's animations in 2011, well, we don't have much to discuss.

[tgr]

*sigh*. I was asking 1) when graphics became so bad that it actually made you turn the game off (which is subjective), and 2) when you had to start looking very hard to even notice the differences.

I was specifically not asking what the "average gamers" keep demanding, because I think we've established pretty extensively that what I think makes for a great game, and what "most gamers" these days seem to think makes for a great game, are vastly different. I look to game mechanics, realism, great story, high FPS and responsive and logical controls, whereas "most gamers" seem to look to achievements, multiplayer and groundbreaking graphics for what makes a great game, and if one of two games that are in direct competition has worse graphics, fewer achievements or lacks multiplayer, that means that it's obviously the inferior game.

As for consoles getting off much lighter than the PC, I dare you to sit down and leisurely play ME2 on the PS3, the 360 and the PC one day apart, and actually be able to point out all (or even a majority) of the differences, without doing a side-by-side comparison. Actually, fuck it, let's cheat and do a side-by-side comparison and see how awful the console graphics are compared to the PC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNb7QA0dDIg

To point out how silly this focus of graphics is, first imagine ME2 with Deus Ex' graphics engine and level. Yes, tons of people would whine about it, but since the vast majority of the game is pretty solid (sans the whole duck before you can jump over crates, and to a minor degree the ammo issue which isn't really that big of a deal), it would still work well for me once I got over the 11 year gap in graphics fidelity. I expect that would take me a minute or two. vOv

Now, imagine Daikatana with ME2's graphics engine and 150+ people making hi-fidelity models and textures for it and thinking up achievements. Would it have made the game infinitely better, or would it still be a pile of shit?

[Azazel]

Images linked above are blocked for me at work, but with the free trial I got onto EQ for a couple of hours with my wife (who has now played WoW on and off for several years) to show her around the EQ game and world. I last played casuaally in 2005.

After about 2 hours of EQ, I started to get a pretty bad headache and had to turn it off. The newer/updated areas were alright, if unimpressive. They were still fine in terms of playability, but the unmodified original content just hurt to look at. Literally after awhile. Crystal Caverns eventually did m head in. Even knowing theat it was never a uber-graphics game, but was fine for what it was, I still found it hard to believe that I'd ever spent so many hours/days/weeks in that game simply because the blockiness of it all hurt. I know I was used to it, but it was still a shock to go back.

[Kageru]

So the end result is that expectations, including the minimum "I can't play this", change over time. Which is also why WoW have been updating their engine to the point it can actually strain fairly powerful PC graphics cards. Though they haven't been updating their approach to models so it is easy to miss. I guess it might be more difficult to have models scale dynamically.

I know Saints Row 2 on the PC definitely was on the borderline for me.

[Azazel]

That's a good way of putting it.

Having said that, even pre-Cataclysm old-world WoW (and TBC) is graphically miles beyond something like EQ, despite the low system reqs, and as we can see, quite a lot of people are still willing to play it despite the fact that it doesn't approach something ike Crysis (2007). Going for the stylised, "cartoony" approach also helps WoW a great deal, especially when compared with the "realistic" graphics of EQ2. (EQ1 pretty much predates "realstic" graphics, especially when you look at the original character models, let alone the Luclin(?) redone ones.

 

[Fordel]

That's a design goal WoW has had since day one, yea. While the guy with the 5k dollar machine will have all those fancy new lighting/shadow/water effects and will be able to see 10x's further then the guy with the 5 year old toaster PC, both people will still see the same world in the end.

An Orc will be an Orc to both.


DaoC had this problem, when they updated the engine a few times, the people who could only run the older engine were basically playing a different game visually. It wasn't a huge effect on actual gameplay, but it was noticeable and annoying at times, when people weren't seeing the same stuff.



In the end, I am perfectly fine with 'out dated' graphics, as long as the game is built with those limitations in mind.

[tgr]

Heh, actual headache?

As to saints row 2, I've never actually played that game. I tried the first out for an hour or so, but there was something they did very wrong with their controls (driving I think it was) which just made it a bit of a pita to actually play the game. Nothing like what Rockstar did with GTA. But I would actually consider (after having looked a bit at youtube videos of both 1 and 2) that I'd have absolutely no problems with playing either based on graphics. Hell, they even have semi-lipsync and what looks like motioncaptured movement. What I'm actually the most curious about, however, is what makes it borderline?

Personally, I keep thinking of going back to play Doom or Quake, games which used to literally awe me (I still have a hero worship thing going over John Carmack), but knowing what I know of both doom and quake's gameplay, that's one barrier I just don't step over these days. I've got Serious Sam 1 and 2 for that kind of gameplay. I actually also wish they'd update and put system shock 2 on steam. I miss Looking Glass, they made games that were so far ahead of their times.

But one thing I find a little bit funny is how one of the more expensive games to be produced the past few years (SWTOR. Yeah, yeah, I know it's not released yet.) looks to me graphically like a slightly better animated and higher res textured Planetside, with higher detailed trees:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Twyfcncurg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e-Fl4D2NOE

[Jeff Kelly]

Re: importance of the PC gaming market:

NVidia and Microsoft leave the PC gaming alliance.

BTW: Both NVidia and Microsoft have been founding members.

[Lantyssa]

He also told us that he is moving the organization away from just being a group that does research and issues reports on the industry to a group that will be more active in trying to assist game developers, publishers and hardware companies make better PC games.

There's Microsoft's reason for leaving.

[tgr]

This, combined with ubisoft's 1% of income from PC vs 44 off of 360? It's looking good.

(As long as this isn't the precursor to nvidia pulling out of the PC market entirely, that would leave me with ATI as my only alternative. That went well last time I tried. )

[Kageru]

What the hell is the PC gaming Alliance... and why would you expect microsoft who owns the dominant competition to be anything more than an obstruction? I'd suspect they're just there to make sure their OS monopoly is protected.

And this would be ubisoft with their marvelous DRM scheme and overall company loss? I see their half year PC game sales since 09 has gone 17%, 12%, 6%, 2% so either PC gaming collapsed in the last year or Ubisoft is really terrible and now entirely console focused.

[Paelos]

This, combined with ubisoft's 1% of income from PC vs 44 off of 360? It's looking good.

Where are you pulling those figures, might I ask?

[AutomaticZen]

2007 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIiw1TPnrq
2006 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5HtHZMQXeU
2005 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCcVy8-nHOU
2004 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uojlqtTIV0
2004 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn9W02eIqZ8
2003 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PdjeTEC0lU
2002 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peY7s2fN18Y
2000 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKp0DP1O4bs
2000 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctjwmrM3JsA
1999 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaVhcnBiob0
1998 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTUOn2EUFhk
1997 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP5Sf964it8
1996 graphics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhzXKMqZBBc

Oblivion is where the pain starts setting in for me.

Where are you pulling those figures, might I ask?

Their earnings release for Q3 2010-2011.  For the nine month period the number goes up to 2%.  Woo.

http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/gallery_files/site/270/1042/2387.pdf

[tgr]

Oblivion is where the pain starts setting in for me.

Really? So even farcry 1 isn't playable for you?

This, combined with ubisoft's 1% of income from PC vs 44 off of 360? It's looking good.

Where are you pulling those figures, might I ask?

I had the link in a post on the previous page, but AutomaticZen provided it in his post.

There's one thing he (and I) haven't really put the finger on, but which tells me quite a lot when looking at it a second time... the PC goes from 8% when looking at the last 8 months in 2009/2010, to 2% in 2010/2011, PS3 goes from 23% to 21%, 360 goes from 22 to 31%, and wii goes from 26% to 38%.

Also I have to make a slight correction. It's the wii that's doing 44% q3 2010/2011, up from 21% for q3 2009/2010, and the 360 went from 30% to 29% for q3 2010/2011 while the PS3 is also going down from 30% to 21%.

I'm thinking that the reason for the PC going down like a €5 whore is probably due to their DRM.