Better Graphics?

[40oz]

I've been heavily dissuaded by modern games for the past couple years. No game tends to turn me on anymore. I still stick pretty closely with doom, running megawads from time to time to have some fun. I think I found out what it is. I pulled a quote, again from The Masters of Doom, something that John Carmack said that made pretty lucid why I don't really like modern games anymore.

"Despite the oppurtunities to innovate on Doom III, Carmack felt, as he said 'near the peak of existing bodies of knowledge in graphics." Once he made the leap into arbitrary 3-D with Quake, there wasn't much further to go beyond optimizations."

I think that's it. I feel like I've seen it all. Real 3D and realistic lighting and high-resolution textures have been done. Nothing will ever blow us away like Doom did. The video gaming industry is severely beating the dead horse. Every time someone tells me how great the new Call of Duty is, and how sick Gears of War is, I'm never phased by those generalizations at all. It's just another stupid game. Their all the same, and somehow they manage to squeeze $60 out of teenagers every year.

I just don't care anymore. Video games are fun, don't get me wrong. It's just that there's hardly anything that can be done that hasn't already been perfected. I praise Nintendo's intentions on utilizing the Nintendo Wii, because that simply has not been done before. I am however, frustrated with it's poor execution.

Honestly, all this hype about new engines and super duper sweet HD graphics needs to be dropped soon. In fact, I think in order to blow away people like Doom did, we need a gaming company that makes a kick-ass game, and draws no attention to visual detail at all. If a game came out this year that actually looked like how Quake 1, or Doom looks now, but displayed very incredible lightening fast gameplay, I would definitely go out of my way to buy it.

[Creaphis]

JohnnyRancid said:

It's just that there's hardly anything that can be done that hasn't already been perfected.

The same is true in literature, music and art, yet those mediums haven't died out either. Some new artistic movement always comes along, which entertains us until we forget about the art done in other styles, at which point those old styles can reappear and seem brand new once again. Be patient.

[Butts]

i want a game to come out that is a semi-rpg but mostly fps game. kind of like an fps oblivion but is a hub and can be really non linear and isnt super deep like oblivion is. it would also be cool if the game was programmed to randomly create missions in addition to the main "quest" mission to do along the side, and according to the paths you take in the game there are different outcomes and such.

[Graf Zahl]

Creaphis said:

The same is true in literature, music and art, yet those mediums haven't died out either. Some new artistic movement always comes along, which entertains us until we forget about the art done in other styles, at which point those old styles can reappear and seem brand new once again. Be patient.

I doubt it. The reason why is plain and simple economics. Modern games cost a shitload of money to develop so the publishers tend to do the one thing that promises publicity: Concentrate on the visuals so that the games magazines get some great looking screenshots.

Game content and longetivity are secondary. In fact it's desirable for the publishers that there's no replay value so that the poor customers have to buy the next title and spend more money. Sorry, not going to happen with me! I'm happy with Doom and the endless supply of custom content. It's more fun and costs less.

In addition, the games publishers are currently on the best way to nuke their business for good with invasive DRM, copy protection schemes and limiting the amount of installations that may be done from one DVD. This will even dissuade the customers who might buy but sell again later - or those who rent first to check out the game and only buy what they like.

This not only is a slap in the face of the honest customers but also opens the door wide to create even crappier games. If no one can test up front or resell if they don't like it the companies might feel even less motivation to create quality. All they need is some buzz in the press that raises the name to make quick sales. Who cares if after a week everybody knows that it's a turkey if they can't do anything about it anymore?

[Gez]

JohnnyRancid said:

"Despite the oppurtunities to innovate on Doom III, Carmack felt, as he said 'near the peak of existing bodies of knowledge in graphics." Once he made the leap into arbitrary 3-D with Quake, there wasn't much further to go beyond optimizations."

Oh, there's so much more that could be done...

Textures, for example. I'm still waiting on those fractal textures I was promised long ago, that are never pixelated no matter how much you zoom on them. Physics is also a domain that's becoming more and more important. Sure, it's not exactly graphics, but the two notions are becoming somewhat blurred as far as the 3D models are concerned.

[leileilol]

JohnnyRancid said:

Their all the same, and somehow they manage to squeeze $60 out of teenagers mothers every year.

fixed

[Creaphis]

In the third century BC, a Greek inventor created the Hydraulis. This, the world's first keyboard instrument, was a very ingenious device. Like a modern pipe organ, it produced tones with the movement of air through tuned pipes, but it didn't need any bellows or manually-operated pump to work - air was pushed by the flow of water, thus the name "Hydraulis." These instruments were revered - they are remembered in Latin poetry for the magnificent sound they produced with just a light touch of the keys. But, the Roman empire did not last. These instruments and their music were lost, and then forgotten. No musical instrument of greater - or even equal - technological complexity was constructed for the next thousand years.

Yes, the PC gaming industry is currently destroying itself. There will be a renaissance. Patience. ;)

[Graf Zahl]

Gez said:

Physics is also a domain that's becoming more and more important. Sure, it's not exactly graphics, but the two notions are becoming somewhat blurred as far as the 3D models are concerned.

Sorry to say this but 'more realistic' doesn't mean a better game! Case in point: Doom! Its physics are crap, even for a 2.5D game and yet it's one of the things that makes it fun to play.

[Lich]

Graf Zahl said:

Sorry to say this but 'more realistic' doesn't mean a better game! Case in point: Doom! Its physics are crap, even for a 2.5D game and yet it's one of the things that makes it fun to play.

This type of thing is what makes Serious Sam so much fun to play, too. A cannon ball launcher that a person can hold and fire? Into a one-thousand foot tall ancient evil?

I like that.

[40oz]

Who the fuck cares about pixelation and physics? How often are you studying the textures in games with a microscope? How often are you practicing Isaac Newton's laws of nature in games?

It boils down to the point where games are not doing what they were initially intended to do. It appears that people are more less playing games than they are "studying" them for flaws that don't make them 100% real life simulations.

Who cares? I just wanna slay a few monsters and frag some people. If a game does that and does it right, despite whether it looks like a motion picture cut-out from a movie, or a flip-book made by a third grader, I'm satisfied. I doubt this will change soon, but I hope it does. Kids tend to me mesmerized by the steaming shitpile the video game industry has become and less interested in what makes a game a game.

Doom, my friends, is a game.

[Gez]

Graf Zahl said:

Sorry to say this but 'more realistic' doesn't mean a better game! Case in point: Doom! Its physics are crap, even for a 2.5D game and yet it's one of the things that makes it fun to play.

My point wasn't about realism but complexity. The quote cited in the OP says that, at the time that book was written, we were "near the peak of existing bodies of knowledge in graphics". But that's still far from true!

Then, whether you use it for something realist or not (Fallout 3's physics system is pretty much totally surrealist, what with rather random dismemberments and limb explosions) is another matter.

[40oz]

But that's exactly it, why do games need to be so complex? I love doom BECAUSE it's simple. At the time Doom was being made, there was no competition. Sure, it was definitely a way to make some mad money, but John Romero and John Carmack's initial intention was to make a game that they liked, not what people were going to buy. It just so happened that the dream game they had been coming up with got an outstanding approval rating.

But upon reading the Master's of Doom, it helped me to reflect that I've never really stayed true to any game made after year 1998. I love Wolf3d, Spear of Destiny, Doom, Doom 2, Heretic, Quake, Unreal, Turok, but I've never gone beyond that. It seems that at the time of Quake and Unreal, the peak of video game realism has been met. You don't need to have a vivid imagination to understand what exactly you are looking at. I don't plan to spend my time studying the games flaws nearly as much as I would playing it.

[Gez]

JohnnyRancid said:

But that's exactly it, why do games need to be so complex? I love doom BECAUSE it's simple.

Engine complexity and gameplay complexity are two unconnected notions. One of the most complex (as far as gameplay was concerned) game was Robinson's Requiem.

On the other hand, the gameplay in Portal is quite simple, even if the puzzles may be hard. You can't do something like Portal in Doom (yeah, I know about Cutman's mod, and it only showcases what you can't do with Doom, like transforming gravity into horizontal momentum with a perpendicular pair of portals).

So, you can use a very rich and powerful engine to make a game with a very simple gameplay, and inversely you can use a very simple engine to make a game with a very rich and intricate gameplay. The two notions aren't tied.

[Graf Zahl]

No, they aren't. But the norm today seems to be to create incredibly complex engines and then use those to make inferior games that may or may not be simple.

I still believe that the market's demand for 'realism' is what kills all innovation and fun. The majority of a game's budget is spent on graphics that are used to make shitty levels look nice or on voice acting to support a retarded story that holds no interest and only helps to limit the player's options.

Quake 4 still stands as the low point in FPS gaming I experienced. It sure looked great and a lot of effort went into the story but I can't remember ever playing a game that was this ultra-linear leaving the player with no choice whatsoever regarding the game's progression.

[AndrewB]

JohnnyRancid said:

It boils down to the point where games are not doing what they were initially intended to do. It appears that people are more less playing games than they are "studying" them for flaws that don't make them 100% real life simulations.

It seems to me that the opposite is true. Gamers are saying "OMG this is so awesome, OMG this is soo realistic!!" at every new tiny incremental improvement in video games, even though the real advancement is so small it's basically insignificant. No progress whatsoever is being made toward games where the player can naturally control the events of the world. It's going the other direction where the player has less and less control over what happens and they're basically forced to push buttons in the correct sequence until the next predetermined cutscene comes along until the game is finished.

I've already abandoned any hope of the video game industry creating anything incredible ever again.

[40oz]

The next best thing I would like to see, is a second coming of John Carmack and John Romero. People who make games because that's what they like to do. John Carmack had the unique gift of being interested in his unique engineering and coding. John Romero had the heavy ambition and brilliant ideas.

People need to make games that are meant to be played, not compared.

I think I know how to make it happen.

[AndrewB]

JohnnyRancid said:

The next best thing I would like to see, is a second coming of John Carmack and John Romero.

In today's game market this just can't happen. John and John basically invented the fire of video games. Nobody ever invents fire 2.

[GreyGhost]

Don't expect the major publishers and developers to do an about-face and turn out innovative, intriguing, playable games any time soon. There's too much money involved - as Graf mentioned - so they're following the film industry's lead (why create something new when you can get people to buy the same product over and over again) by churning out endless sequels/derivatives/expansions for popular titles with each rehash having more eyecandy, less replay value and (more frequently) zero resale value. As you can probably guess I'm thoroughly disenchanted with the state of the video game industry - don't get me started on DRM.

Maybe it's time to abandon the mainstream developers/publishers and investigate the indie games scene?

[Shaviro]

Well. I don't think the problem so much is the great graphics as it's a lack of willingness to take risks. Game developers these days are paranoid and afraid of everything. They are afraid of bad sales. They are afraid of pissing off the gamers by making the game challenging. They are afraid of going against the trend by not making a cinematic rail-shooter.

I too think the games are poor and the outlook grim, but at some point a studio (old or new) will have the courage to once again make a game.

[Gez]

AndrewB said:

In today's game market this just can't happen. John and John basically invented the fire of video games. Nobody ever invents fire 2.

I'd argue that Fire 2 has been invented, actually. :p

[Graf Zahl]

Shaviro said:

I too think the games are poor and the outlook grim, but at some point a studio (old or new) will have the courage to once again make a game.

I think if this ever happens it will be by a small company developing independently - just like id started. As soon as the suits with money get involved any chance to create something great will be crushed.

[Alter]

Graf Zahl said:

I think if this ever happens it will be by a small company developing independently - just like id started. As soon as the suits with money get involved any chance to create something great will be crushed.

Agree, 2D games are already going through renaissance via arcades, doujin games on pc and consoles. Stupid thing is, no big developer wants to take risks, which makes game suck balls in the end (Legendary anyone? That game had potential but got wasted due lack of risks), it APPLIES TO ALL big developer franchises like NFS, NFL, FIFA and much more of that stereotype crap. That's why i prefer indie or japanese doujin market and Doom. No wasted crap and shit, full beauty and simplicity

[geekmarine]

You know, all this talk about the game industry reminds me of the current console battles. Like, how the Wii is often criticized for not having a constant stream of big games. My thoughts on the matter have always been that, if I'm dropping $60 for a game, and I need another one in a couple of weeks or something, I'm not getting my money's worth there.

[AndrewB]

A game console should have more good games than a gamer can ever hope to play. Like the PS2. This isn't the case for the Wii. It's not the case for any of the current game consoles. Not even for the PC.

[Maes]

JohnnyRancid said:

Honestly, all this hype about new engines and super duper sweet HD graphics needs to be dropped soon. In fact, I think in order to blow away people like Doom did, we need a gaming company that makes a kick-ass game, and draws no attention to visual detail at all.

This little gem here did the trick for me. However, it does draw attention to visual detail, even if in a subtle style. Some people said it looks like a big Flash animation.

[Richo Rosai]

Mario was fire. Doom was like, the wheel. Pong was stabbing shit with sticks.

[brinks]

Shaviro said:

Well. I don't think the problem so much is the great graphics as it's a lack of willingness to take risks. Game developers these days are paranoid and afraid of everything. They are afraid of bad sales. They are afraid of pissing off the gamers by making the game challenging. They are afraid of going against the trend by not making a cinematic rail-shooter.

My thoughts exactly. Excellent graphics and new advanced engines are not a bad thing at all. In fact, they are a very good thing. They allow for many things that may not have been possible in previous games. The problem is the lack of creativity and innovation from the developers. Most games just rehash the same old cliched settings we've seen countless times before. Post-apocalyptic cities, jungles, space, etc... Somebody needs use these advanced game engines to their full extent by creating a wonderful new setting we've never seen before. The same thing applies to gameplay as well. With all the power game engines have today, what's preventing the developers from doing something outside the norm?

My faith in the game industry is far from dead. There are still some great titles being released these days, just nothing that has made my jaw drop from sheer awesomeness. I'll still remain hopeful that something will come along and blow us all away again.

[Graf Zahl]

brinks said:

With all the power game engines have today, what's preventing the developers from doing something outside the norm?

The answer to that is simple: Good graphics cost a lot of money. Money that is no longer present when it comes to making the actual game.
Don't forget that the companies need material to show off. And the only thing to show off are screenshots with good looking graphics. So it's there that the majority of the budget gets invested.

My faith in the game industry is far from dead.

If that includes smaller development companies I'd agree.

But the big ones are on their best way to eliminate all competition with their overblown budgets and in a few years we will have a situation where they don't even need to pretend to be creative. If they are the only ones left they just need to do sequel after sequel and people hungry for new material won't have any alternatives left than to buy that crap.

[Maes]

Graf Zahl said:

But the big ones are on their best way to eliminate all competition with their overblown budgets and in a few years we will have a situation where they don't even need to pretend to be creative.

That has been happening from some time now. I concede that due to that particular game genre, not much innovation is possible, but if there is one kind of videogames where they have gotten away with repackaging the same product time and again...then this must be it.

[AirRaid]

JohnnyRancid said:

Honestly, all this hype about new engines and super duper sweet HD graphics needs to be dropped soon. In fact, I think in order to blow away people like Doom did, we need a gaming company that makes a kick-ass game, and draws no attention to visual detail at all.

Not trying to be a fanboy here (But maybe I am one anyway), But I'm pretty sure they pulled exactly this off with Portal. Yes it used Source, but Source hasn't been touted for a long time as a super graphical engine. They mostly used Source because it is an incredibly easy engine to work with.

And they did make an incredible game, and they did blow a lot of people away. A hell of a lot. They went back to basics, and then excelled in a couple of areas, and made an absolute masterpiece. And now I do sound like a fanboy. But it stands - Portal was a masterpiece, it's limelight was just unfortunately shortlived because the nature of the game made it short, with little in the way of expandability or replay value.