PC Game Graphics: Steep or Forgiving Requirements?
I didn't make this a poll as I don't really consider this a "taking sides" kind of thread, but rather geared more towards the philosophy of PC gaming itself and its graphics.
So, many complain about graphics for games (not just TTG games but PC games altogether) that have graphic requirements too high for their rigs to handle. Likewise, some complain that some low-end games need to get with the times and take advantage of the latest graphic capabilities. Who's right? Is anybody right?
Personally, I think games should stay somewhere near the latest capabilities. Not everything needs to be the very newest cutting edge graphics showcase model but I also don't agree with games produced that are about as impressive as a benchmark from 6+ years ago. Specifically, plastic-looking models for everything in a game makes for a really bad looking game. Specular, parallax, normal, diffuse, etc texture mapping really is the way every dev should be making their game graphics. Or just normal and spec mapping at the very least. Plastic models are ugly and obvious.
Of course there's the argument that some games don't need to be as realistic as possible and that's fine...SBCG4AP, for instance, looks just fine and absolutely perfect as it is for what it is. I can't think of anything that would improve it. Perhaps the same Flash-like shading that the toons have? But even some cartoon-ish games need a level of realism to them. Like Sam & Max and Tales of Monkey Island. Just because they're cartoons doesn't mean the models have to look like living plastic dolls. Measures can be taken to make model surfaces look less plastic.
But, besides the question of whether or not games should be realistic or not, this is PC gaming. PC gaming by nature is about building on and adding to your current PC setup. I may be generalizing, but I think it's safe to say that most PC gamers have had a level of customization done to their rigs at some point or another. And most of that group of people don't just add the odd new card every now and again but actually update most of their hardware. And still more actually custom build their rigs from scratch with their own personal selection of hardware specs. The PC is customization heaven as far as gaming is concerned. And as such I think game developers need to stick to certain standards.
Casual games? Yes, those can use whatever onboard Intel GFX chip standards are out there. I'm not talking about casual games. I also don't think that TTG games are "casual games". Sure they're episodic and whatnot and TTG has a great business model for non-mainstream titles, but I think they're moving beyond that now. TTG have garnered more and more attention with each game season they release and the quality of their games keeps going up. I'm pleased to see that the quality level of the graphics are increasing as well.
However, I'm not specifically talking about TTG here, they're just an example. Most of The Adventure Company games are pretty behind as well. Granted I haven't played any of the latest ones, but they usually consists of hand-painted, pre-rendered, or photo backgrounds with character models that just meet the lowest modern graphics quality standards. And still more games continually disappoint me. Of course it's a money issue, but that's no excuse to be lazy (I'm not saying TTG are lazy, like I said they continue to improve their graphics quality with every game and that excites me. I'm referring to those game devs that are lazy). There are fans who create new engines for old games with modern graphics capabilities (a painstaking process) and still more people who create the spec/normal/diffuse/et al texture maps needed to put the game into high resolution. And all for free. And the quality of the work is staggering. A perfect example: the new "polymer" renderer for eDuke32 (Windows-based Duke Nukem 3D engine). From what I understand, it's all a very standardized streamlined process. Running models through Zbrush and generating normal maps from them. As long as you know what you're doing you could get quality work out in a reasonable amount of time.
Of course, all this spawns a new discussion altogether: writing quality, puzzle quality, etc. But I truly believe that graphics are just as important as any other aspect of a game. But I'm not going to get into that in this thread.
So, many complain about graphics for games (not just TTG games but PC games altogether) that have graphic requirements too high for their rigs to handle. Likewise, some complain that some low-end games need to get with the times and take advantage of the latest graphic capabilities. Who's right? Is anybody right?
Personally, I think games should stay somewhere near the latest capabilities. Not everything needs to be the very newest cutting edge graphics showcase model but I also don't agree with games produced that are about as impressive as a benchmark from 6+ years ago. Specifically, plastic-looking models for everything in a game makes for a really bad looking game. Specular, parallax, normal, diffuse, etc texture mapping really is the way every dev should be making their game graphics. Or just normal and spec mapping at the very least. Plastic models are ugly and obvious.
Of course there's the argument that some games don't need to be as realistic as possible and that's fine...SBCG4AP, for instance, looks just fine and absolutely perfect as it is for what it is. I can't think of anything that would improve it. Perhaps the same Flash-like shading that the toons have? But even some cartoon-ish games need a level of realism to them. Like Sam & Max and Tales of Monkey Island. Just because they're cartoons doesn't mean the models have to look like living plastic dolls. Measures can be taken to make model surfaces look less plastic.
But, besides the question of whether or not games should be realistic or not, this is PC gaming. PC gaming by nature is about building on and adding to your current PC setup. I may be generalizing, but I think it's safe to say that most PC gamers have had a level of customization done to their rigs at some point or another. And most of that group of people don't just add the odd new card every now and again but actually update most of their hardware. And still more actually custom build their rigs from scratch with their own personal selection of hardware specs. The PC is customization heaven as far as gaming is concerned. And as such I think game developers need to stick to certain standards.
Casual games? Yes, those can use whatever onboard Intel GFX chip standards are out there. I'm not talking about casual games. I also don't think that TTG games are "casual games". Sure they're episodic and whatnot and TTG has a great business model for non-mainstream titles, but I think they're moving beyond that now. TTG have garnered more and more attention with each game season they release and the quality of their games keeps going up. I'm pleased to see that the quality level of the graphics are increasing as well.
However, I'm not specifically talking about TTG here, they're just an example. Most of The Adventure Company games are pretty behind as well. Granted I haven't played any of the latest ones, but they usually consists of hand-painted, pre-rendered, or photo backgrounds with character models that just meet the lowest modern graphics quality standards. And still more games continually disappoint me. Of course it's a money issue, but that's no excuse to be lazy (I'm not saying TTG are lazy, like I said they continue to improve their graphics quality with every game and that excites me. I'm referring to those game devs that are lazy). There are fans who create new engines for old games with modern graphics capabilities (a painstaking process) and still more people who create the spec/normal/diffuse/et al texture maps needed to put the game into high resolution. And all for free. And the quality of the work is staggering. A perfect example: the new "polymer" renderer for eDuke32 (Windows-based Duke Nukem 3D engine). From what I understand, it's all a very standardized streamlined process. Running models through Zbrush and generating normal maps from them. As long as you know what you're doing you could get quality work out in a reasonable amount of time.
Of course, all this spawns a new discussion altogether: writing quality, puzzle quality, etc. But I truly believe that graphics are just as important as any other aspect of a game. But I'm not going to get into that in this thread.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Good call.
Now, who likes toast??
This is what i'd ideally like to see, i've no idea of the technical jibber jabber that would make this do-able
Think about it. Every few years, maybe even more often, new games become unplayable on "old" systems and new systems can't play the games you already own.
In comparison, my TV in France was over 30 and worked perfectly fine. And books have stayed the same for like forever. We can still read books owned by our ancestors, and we don't need to get different glasses or anything like that.
Technology does change faster, but games even moreso. You can still buy CDs even though there are mp3s, you can still buy tapes even though there are CDs, and you can even still get LP records even though there are tapes. Sure, you can't get some of the older stuff, but I can still get stuff that existed before I was born, including new releases (or at least I could recently. Did they stop releasing tapes and LPs of new stuff?).
With games, it just changes so fast. And then you get people going "duh, you dummy, having a computer that's two years old, you should just shoot yourself" and stuff like that. Fortunately, not everyone is like that, but...
What I mean is that people tell me "you need to realise that games have to evolve and you just can't get by with a system that's old". And my question is... why?
Why is it unreasonable of me to wish games still looked like they did in, say, the 90s? Why should I find it normal to have to replace my system or get a new console every few years? It just seems to me like a way to sell a new console and make everyone switch, because otherwise they can't play new games anymore. Sure they can play the old ones, but you run out of games to play at some point.
It's not just technology. It's different. I could watch TV on my 30+ years old TV and get the exact same channels as people with the latest kind of TV. I could buy tapes and get the same songs as people who bought CDs or mp3 directly. I could buy a paper book with the same text as the ebook that's also sold. I could talk to you from a rotary dial phone to your latest whatever's-in-fashion-today.
Other technological stuff just doesn't change THAT fast, and not in an incompatible way. And sometimes, well you just don't earn enough to save for the next system, even if the second you buy one you start saving for the next.
And sometimes, you just don't want to "get rid" of something that still works 100%, either.
So I just hate that about video games. I don't care about the graphics. I've been replaying games from before I was born more than new games lately, and the graphics are fine. I just hate the idea that I should "suck it up" and just not play games. I mean, I get what you're saying, but if a new technology arrived that got books to download directly in your brain, but that it cost a lot, changed often, and old books became incompatible, wouldn't you guys wish you could go back to normal books that you can just read?
And wouldn't you want to buy the new [insert favourite living author] rather than be stuck reading the old ones?
I'm not blaming anyone or being all bitter and saying it's evil or something, I just think it's really, really sad. That artificial need has been created and I don't think there is any way it's going to ever change now. And I'm going to be left behind, and I don't think I'll make a fuss about it or anything, I'll just stop buying games and fade out of the (new game) market, but I can't say I'm in a hurry for that moment to happen.
At least there will be a lot of old games for me to play, just like there would be a lot of old books for me to read or old movies for me to watch, and that does make it less hard, but that doesn't mean it makes me happy.
So yeah, I guess that makes me this generation's old crank who says things were better in her time, but you have to be sad at the fact that I'm only 25 and things change fast enough in that industry for me to be in that stage already.
But can you still buy 8-tracks?
Tapes are pretty much dead in the water, but quite a bit of stuff gets released on LP still today, don't expect Gaga or anything to be on vinyl, but there's still a lot of LP releases coming out
But back to graphix!! When they perfect streaming games then there'll be no need for hardware upgrades as you'll just be playing with a high-definition video with all the processing done server side, as long as your system can play a HD video and has a capable internet connection you're covered! though it's still a bit aways yet
I've been lucky so far that I haven't come across a game yet that doesn't run at all but I'm certain it won't be long before I need to upgrade just to play one game.
I find it most frustrating that a lot of older games don't work on new machines until they pop up on Steam or whatever and force you to buy them again. Even then, games like Dark Forces don't run comfortably on Windows 7.
Oh and Avistew, you can't get new albums on cassette but you sometimes can on vinyl, particularly with alternative bands. There are also a lot of small independent labels who are trying to revive the cassette by releasing limited run tape-EPs that also come with a download code for the songs.
I do agree with the idea of supporting older hardware in addition to having fairly modern graphics. Nobody seems to have done that since Half-Life 2, though (which was recently updated and doesn't work in DX7 mode anymore
Also, where do you find cassette tapes of modern music nowadays? I can see LPs and Vinyls as those kind of have a cult following, but cassette tapes? I've never seen any in years and years.
Here's one example
http://www.roughtrade.com/site/shop_detail.lasso?search_type=sku&sku=323422
Oh no, definitely not. It's very much an 'underground' lo-fi thing, an attempt to bring a little nostalgia to modern music I guess.
If only Valve would fix the damned skybox bug in L4D2 where if shaders are low then it won't show.
Well then it's not a fair comparison. As I said, I'm not talking about "casual games". And I don't think that adventure games (especially TTG's games) are casual. They're fairly more mainstream now than people think. Especially in Germany. But geographical locations aside, there's no excuse not to put everything into it if it's popular.
A lot of folk bands over here still release on cassette because there audience is older and may just not wanna get a CD player or whatever, so in that respect there's still an industry for it. And there's the indie stuff that guitars posted, but the cynic in the back of my mind thinks that's more just a counter-culture thing than anything
Oh I know, I was just telling Avistew because she asked if you can still get tapes and LPs of new stuff. She didn't specify whether it had to be popular or not.
This is the entire reason for the graphical arms race. People are always looking for the newer shinier graphics, and the better graphics get, the worse older graphics get. Back in the mid-90s, Quake was the epitome of good graphics, the most amazing thing many people had ever seen. Now, it's a hideous low res mess of blurred pixels and low poly models. If an FPS came out today with Quake-level graphics, it would sell horribly.
In fact, I've seen many comments on many gaming sites of users saying that TTG's games look "ugly" and "outdated" and people ripping on them because the graphics weren't cutting edge and top of the line. Now, you may say "I don't care about graphics" but a huge portion of the market does. You may also say "Don't judge a book by its cover!", but like it or not, that's exactly what the majority of consumers do, and if the game looks bad, it makes it look like Telltale are either bad at making high end graphics, or that they just don't care, both perceptions will cause a consumer to feel like they won't be getting their money's worth, "They can't even be bothered spending the time to update their graphics, why should I pay for a game that looks like it came out 6 years ago?". Few, if any, consumers will have the mindset of "Oh, the graphics must be bad because they spent so much of the budget making the gameplay great".
Think about it, if you went to the store to buy a new product, and it looked like a cheap piece of junk compared to the other products on the market, would you feel comfortable that the quality of the product was as high as the others?
The same argument can be made for anything that has aesthetic properties, cars, clothes, furniture, etc. Does this stuff need to be updated to look better in order to serve its purpose more effectively? No, but don't you want it to look better?
And Jed pointed out another example, in which you'd use your computer in a way more similar to a TV, and the game would be somewhere else. That's also technology, and it's more accessible.
I don't think it's stopping technology or anything. I think technology can progress with a specific goal that's not just "get bigger". I love technology. I love lots of things about it. I have a mp3 player than doesn't require electricity, how cool is that? I know I keep rambling about it, but I just can't get over it. That's technology, too.
So I don't think it's just a matter of technology advancing or slowing down, it's more about the direction chosen. I personally don't think that graphic improvements are that much of a progress. I don't feel that the games are much improved. If you have a puzzle that involves the shadow, then by all means have a shadow (not that you need to be high-tech to have a shadow, lots of old games have them too), but otherwise, I don't think it adds anything at all, and it takes away something: the ability for most people to play.
So the way I see it, it's a decrease. It's less good. It's not getting better at all. And when it's done just to attract consumers without having to create a decent games - just like some movies do with special effects, and make a movie that is nothing special but oh, look, shinny special effects! - I definitely see it as something that goes against progress.
Take the Star Wars prequels. They have shiny special effects, but still, most Star Wars fans hate them. Things shouldn't need to have good graphics or special effects to be good, they should be great just because of the story, characters, etc.
It would be nearly impossible to make a game that can compete with modern games while still not looking/running awful on older systems, and a monumental waste of resources and time.
That is already happening, it comes out in a few weeks, it's called OnLive, and it's a ripoff. If you'd rather pay a huge subscription fee to play some games than saving the money up yourself and investing in a proper gaming system to play all games, then so be it.
Most people buy a PC more often than once every ice age. The graphics improving, in addition to making the games look better and become more marketable to a wider audience, also does many things for the artists involved in creating the game. For example, in Sam and Max Season 3, without real-time shadows, they couldn't have done the diamond ring joke, without higher poly models, they couldn't have allowed the choreographers to give Sam and Max better facial reactions to things, and most importantly, they can more accurately reflect Ryan Jones' concept art in game because the graphics don't look like aliased blobs with low res textures on them.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm a laid back person who will wait next to forever for the things I want.
Aye, but i'm on about a future iteration of it that won't stink. Dave Perry's Gaikai would be more like Steam in terms of payment instead of subscription I read. OnLive probably won't last, but others will learn from their mistake, cloud computing's gonna happen eventually
The problem is that most of the games with exceptional graphics have an inversely proportionate level of anything else. And if games with good graphics have mediocre stories or gameplay experiences, what are the majority of consumers going to think of games with less than optimal graphic standards? Heck, it's certainly that way with most Adventure Company games. The covers look nice, the graphics may even be fairly pretty sometimes, but the games themselves flat out suck. So of course nobody is going to take a game with sub-par graphics seriously on their own without the suggestion of a friend. Or if they know the developers or the genre well. Whereas if they came to the game with good graphics they might actually enjoy it. It's all perception.
I'd actually say that they are plateauing, Crysis is still the most demanding game, 3 years later.
More important is that the game run on their PC. No amount of awesomediculous graphics would mean anything if it costs you half your customers since their machines are too old.
To sum it up then, the best option would be to have a very wide set of graphics options so people with much older machines can run the game in some fashion while people with very new machines have something really pretty to look at. Maybe one day we'll be there.
Crysis was designed for systems that weren't available yet when it was released, so it's not surprising that it still takes a fairly high end system to run it. Many high end engines are designed to be a lot more capable than even the highest end consumer systems can handle on release, because in the case of the Unreal engine and the CryEngine, they are being made to sell licenses of the engine to other developers for several years, and if the tech is obsolete in a month, no one will use it.
^This. It would be lovely to somehow make the new graphics compatible with older machines, but I doubt that will happen.
I really like older 1990-1995 adventure game graphics. Not the really early 4 bit stuff. But the VGA remakes of the king's quest, and the Kyrandia: Book 1 and 2. They are beautiful, in my opinion. So detailed and colorful.
But I like the newer graphics too, I think they are extraordinary and stunning, but I do find playing them difficult because my computer doesn't have the best graphics card.
They'd have to specifically backtrack and make low res versions of every model they intend on using, low res textures of everything they intend on using, and do awkward workarounds for everything that involves new rendering techniques. It would be way more money to try to make things work on ancient rigs.
The thing is, there's nothing to prevent doing this now. Unless you meant TTG specifically, in which case I look forward to it!
But you have to remember that all of those games were the benchmarks of their day. With almost every release of a new King's Quest game they took advantage of (or even pioneered) the cutting edge of what was available at the time. That goes for all the other Sierra, LucasArts, and some other adventure devs as well.
No they don't. It's possible to render hi-res textures/models in lower quality. You don't need to specifically make lo-res versions. In fact this is possible in pretty much every game engine out there and is usually an option in the video settings menu. All source games can lower the number of polygons in a model through a console command. The only thing I don't understand is why you can't just turn of pixel shaders if you want to.
They are thinking of doing that and I have only one thing to say to it; NO. I want to be able to not have to rely on an unreliable server with horrible lag time. Games require split-second reaction times, which is impossible on streaming. In fact, there would most likely be at least a 1 second lag time.
Games also require a lot more than TV does server-wise. They would essentially have to have a ridiculously powerful (Keeping in mind that not only would it have to be able to play the game at HD resolution, but also stream it and accept input from a weaker computer miles away) computer server side and a decent one for the user per person, making it too expensive to keep up.
I expect that they will try it, realize it is near impossible to do, and either get gaming companies to, ironically, lower the graphics quality, causing a great outcry from the consumer, or make the games or subscriptions cost in excess of $400, which, too, would cause an outcry.
In the end, I think it will only work sub-par with older games, such as, for now, maybe N64/PS1 era games, and even then require a very strong computer on the user end as well.
Also, the TV comparison is not quite true in America at this point, as we have had the Digital TV transition. We now require either a newer TV or a digital-to-analog converter, which cost more than $100. Of course, it is not as bad as computers, as that is a once in 30 years upgrade, but also can't use new peripherals, such as Blu-Ray Players, without a newer TV with an HDMI slot.
Don't get me wrong; I really do not care for graphics. I just simply do not want to compromise gamplay, and a large lag time will cause gameplay to go way downhill. I also want to keep games cheaper, rather than more expensive.