| Jon-Erich said: While better graphics aren't bad, they can be. Graphics are a marketing tool and these days, the marketing people dictate AAA game development from beginning to end. So if we have a level in a game that is expected to have a lot of moving objects and action, is expected to be locked in at a particular framerate, and is expected to push polygons to a new level, that may not always work. So what gets sacrificed? Are they going to sacrifice graphics in order to maintain the framerate and intense gameplay? Chances are, they'll nerf the gameplay in order to make more room for the graphics. Sometimes, they'll let the framerate suffer as well. Screenshots and videos sell games. Gameplay has to be experienced. The irony in all this is while graphics can be used as a good marketing tool, they don't keep the player engaged. After a few days or few weeks, they graphics lose that initial wow factor and it is the gameplay that has to keep the player engaged. That has become the backwards thinking of today's industry. Of course with the industry being more America-driven than years ago, it should come as no surprise that companies are more concerned about quarterly sales rather than long term goals. This is why we might se the same Nintendo on store shelves for almost a decade while a lot of other companies may not have their game in stock after 2 years. Sp I think that better graphics aren't bad but they are being abused and the games suffer because of it. |
2 things.
Framerate gets shafted so much because the vast majority of gamers does not give a shit about it. Optimizing for framerate is an objective loss for any developer compared to optimizing for best graphics.
The assumption that worse graphics will result in better gameplay is a fallacy. Gameplay is dictated in the original game design and heavily influenced by the producer. Look who makes the prettiest and most boring games, the biggest publishers. They are the only ones to even have the financial power to even create the best graphics. Their focus is not on great gameplay because they either don't care or they just simply don't have the game design talent. That however has nothing to do with their graphics budget.
Indies usually focus on gameplay because they just fon't have the finances and they are basically forced to do something special and extraordinarily to even get a foot in the market. A smaller team also means a lot more freedom. Freedom that does not exist in big companies.
That said, graphics or marketing have nothing to do with gameplay. They're completely different entities and gameplay basically has no impact on budget. That's why it's usually pure luck if a AAA game is fun or not. And people love to forget that there are actually some really fun AAA games out there.
If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.
