Next-Gen Graphics Might Not Sell Games

jayintune writes "2old2play has a great editorial up regarding the next generation of gaming, and suggests that maybe 'next-gen' graphics and sound will not be what sells games this time around. Instead the next-gen champions will be the ones that provide better content and innovation in their games." From the article: "The average gamer is in their mid-thirties. Many of these adult gamers understand the value of a dollar and have a firm grasp on technological trends. The trend is simple: new technology arrives and costs a ton of money, then prices lower as newer technology hits the market. Developers are not screaming for larger removable disk capacity, yet Sony is forcing a consumer (and developer) to purchase a high capacity Blu-ray device 'for the future.' By the time Blu-ray and HD-DVD's are needed for gaming we will be in the 8th generation of console systems. Why force it on us now?"

Spore

[reldruH]

The game I've seen the most hype for lately is Spore and it goes in the opposite direction as far as graphics are concerned. It looked good, but graphics weren't really important at all. During demonstrations nobody was talking about how good the graphics were, they were talking about this new, innovative way of making games. While it's hard to sell a game that doesn't look pretty it looks like it's going to be pretty easy to sell a decent looking, completely innovative game.

Re:This article says nothing new

[NoodleSlayer]

As an Xbox 360 owner I couldn't give a flying fuck about the HD DVD drive. I don't want one and I have no use what so ever of one. But I'm glad Microsoft had the foresight of not making me pay an extra $200 to have one.

Re:Spore

[Gulthek]

While it's hard to sell a game that doesn't look pretty it looks like it's going to be pretty easy to sell a decent looking, completely innovative game.

That's what Nintendo is betting on with the Wii. Gamecube quality (or slightly better) graphics, extremely innovative gameplay.

There is more to a game than video

[WidescreenFreak]

Let's see ... story, plot, sound, gameplay, multiplay features (assuming that the game is not multiplayer-focused), physics ...

These companies need to realize that a large portion of the gaming population came from a time when 16-color EGA and then 256-color VGA were the norm. Graphics are no longer the big "ooh aah" that they used to be because we've had realistic graphics for years! Oh, but look! We can make it more realistic!

Some games that are mindless fun have sold well (e.g.: Doom) but there still comes a time when people need more than graphics. Sam and Max and those old LucasArts games sold because they were FUN. Magic Carpet was the perfect combination of everything - graphics, sound, gameplay, fun factor! (I *so* wish someone would buy the rights to it and release a more modern version.) Look at how popular Infocom games were (and still bring fond memories to many) with no graphics at all.

Then there are games like Red Faction on the other side. Truly destructable terrain, something that had not been seen since Magic Carpet, but the game sucked! Besides destructable terrain, it was another FPS.

Frankly, with respect to this whole attitude that "it might not be about the graphics", my only response is "It's about f**king time you realized that!" Graphics are one part of the successful game formula. It's too bad that the gamers recognized that balance a lot time ago and that developers apparently are only now catching up.

Limiting Factor

[Anonymous Coward]

When people think about upgrading to Next-Generation platforms they don't (necessarily) think of better graphics; they do think about the elimination of the factors that are limiting their gaming experience. Traditionally this limit has been closely related to graphics, but I'm not so sure that is the case anymore.

Certainly, with better graphics you can tell a more impressive story (or draw the player deeper into the game) but I think the emphasis has moved away from graphics and is now more firmly centered around gameplay elements. If you doubt this ask yourself one question, which game looked better (in a technical way) Everquest 2 or World of Warcraft? Now which one sold better?

You may say that "Better playing games have always sold well" but if you actually talk to many gamers you'll find that many of them have favourite games that sold poorly because they were ugly or lacked the technological features that created buzz.

Re:Spore

[kisrael]

On the other hand, unless it's all smoke and mirrors, Spore has got to be using a huge chunk of horsepower to keep track of the galaxy the player is messing about in... any individual piece of graphics may be "ok", but the whole issue of scale means this is NOT something that would run on, say, an N64...

Re:Thoughts on BluRay and HD-DVD

[The_Real_Quaid]

People forget that with the bump in optical technology here we're also getting a substantial bump in data transfers.

In the case of PS3, this is false. The BluRay drive in PS3 has a slower transfer rate than the DVD drive in X360. Most likely it will be slower than Wii as well, since Nintendo's president spent a few minutes talking about slow load times during the E3 conference.

Minority viewpoint

[SlayerDave]

I'm always a bit surprised that my viewpoint on this topic is in such a minority around Slashdot, but apparently it is. I'm an avid gamer, and I certainly appreciate innovative gameplay, well-crafted stories, solid level design, etc., but graphics and sound are very important considerations for me. Now I won't necessarily buy a new game solely on the basis of graphics, but graphics do factor very highly in my decision-making process. I'm going to buy a PS3 because I believe it will be able to deliver more impressive graphics, physics, and sound than the other systems (and Sony has historically had the game franchises I'm most interested in), and I probably won't buy a Wii unless I hear that the gameplay is truly outstanding.

For all those people on Slashdot who argue that graphics don't matter to gamers anymore, I'd like to offer myself as a counterexample. Graphics do matter to me, in a big way. And I know that there are others out there like me, because otherwise ATI and NVIDIA wouldn't be able to sell high-end graphics boards. Maybe we aren't the majority, but we do exist.

Re:Lemme get this outta the way...

[fistfullast33l]

So that's your personal preference. Me, I can't play Asteroids or Dig Dug anymore even though I grew up with them. I prefer games that are not just meant to entertain but also immerse you in the world and let you feel as though you're really there. Graphics and audio go a long way towards accomplishing that feeling. Polished and good looking are key, but I think that it all comes down to personal preference in the end.

I also have this theory that games are as good as what is available to you at the moment. That is, if I give a 10 year old a choice between the newest hottest Halo and Asteroids, he's going to choose Halo. But if I put him on the bus to school and Asteroids is his only choice, he's going to choose it over nothing and probably enjoy himself. You don't catch many people sitting at home playing cell phone games while their Xbox or PS2 gathers dust.

Re:Blue ray NOT FOR GAMES

[Dan Ost]

By releasing the PS3 at this initially high price, then the machine will
always be perceived as having a higher value even once the price has
been reduced to a level closer to that as the 360.

Sony will have no trouble selling all their first PS3s to the early
adopters who've already spent $4k for an HDTV. Then the price will
come down and they'll sell to the next tier of consumers. By the time
the PS3 is in the $300 range, Sony will have reduced production costs
and will be making money on it, and MS will still be selling the 360
for $200+ and, probably, at a loss.

Nintendo will have been making money hand over fist since the beginning,
and we'll all laugh at how the 360 failed to get world-wide traction
exactly like the XBox did.

The 360 might look like a good deal now, but it'll be treated like a
budget machine compared to the PS3 3 years from now.

That said, I'm still probably going to get the nintendo.

FUR

[iridium_ionizer]

How can the game be even an evolution simulation while leaving out the possibility of fur. From what we've seen so far they seemed to have left out any possibility of creating MAMMALS of any kind. No live birth (only eggs), no hair, no mammary glands.

If I can't evolve my creature to look like any REAL creature as well as imaginary, then what's the point of giving me constrained freedom. If I can't evolve a mouse into an ape into a human, then why play an evolving game.

Seriously, the scale bump mapping looks great, but if the PS2 can do great fur for Shadow of the Collosus and the XBox 360 can do fur for Kameo, then the average 2007 gamer PC should be able to do fur no problem. I just hope that Will Wright rectifies this design error before the game ships - and doesn't make it a Mammals expansion. Just so you know I am looking forward to this game, I just thought I would cut through the irrational exuberance surrounding it.

Re:PS3 games that install?

[marvelite]

On a good PS2 game you can have a large playable area with seemingly no loading time, the relevant datas being streamed off the DVD. Having a hard drive is a better version of this. Remember playing games like Resident Evil series (never available for the original Xbox), when you come to a door, there will a pause while the next room is loaded. On a well written game for console with a hard drive as standard, the next room will be cached to the hard drived as the player comes near it, so when he opens the door, it's already there. The PS3 don't have to install the whole game to hard drive, just that while you nearly finish with a level, next level will already be off loaded to the hard drive. Ergo, no loading time. I remember reading an old article about the Xbox. One bragging right the original Xbox have over PS2 is persistent world. Say, on a PS2, you enter a new room and suddenly decide to turn back, the console will have to load it back, taking few annoying seconds, Whereis on the (original) Xbox, the datas is still on the hard drive, taking maybe a few miliseconds to download. Now the situation is reverse.

Re:Lemme get this outta the way...

[Das Modell]

There's that annoying buzz word again: innovation. I'm copy-pasteing this from an earlier post of mine (with some additions), because apparently nobody saw it:

People always complain about "lack of innovation" yet can't exactly explain what kind of games we should be getting from developers. Adventure games, graphical and non-graphical, pretty much died out. Traditional roleplaying games are few and far between. Simulators are a distant memory. Non-realtime strategy games are rare. Sidescrollers are a novelty. I can only assume that those genres faded away or became marginal because people weren't interested anymore, yet now everyone is crying and moaning about repetitive and unoriginal FPS and GTA-esque games, and demanding innovation from developers. I think people are just getting exactly what they ordered, so I don't understand where all the complaining is coming from. "Innovation," as I understand it, refers to quirky and strange games that are clearly out of the ordinary, like Katamari Damacy. But is a game fun just because it's innovative? No. Innovation for innovation's sake doesn't guarantee a good game. Maybe people feel guilty and shallow about enjoying good production values, so they demand "innovation" in order to feel better about themselves, just like some people refuse to enjoy popcorn movies because they aren't edgy, artsy and avant-garde.