Get Real

[serial]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately as I'm working on my project.
Sometimes I get involved with trying to make an effect as realistic
looking as possible only to realize its not really going to improve the
appearance of my game.

I play a lot of AAA game titles out there.  Sometimes I see an effect
that I would like to create in my own game engine.  I've come to realize
that sometimes the most impressive effects are the easiest to implement.

In Gears of War there is a level were it is raining.  One of the effects
that impressed me the most was that you could see the glimmer of water
running down everything in the level.  I thought it really made the game
environment feel deeper.

Then I got to thinking how could I recreate that effect.  It occured to me
that its an really easy effect that has already been done.  To me it seemed
like a water shader it be adapted to recreate the effect. 

Then after exanining the effect more I realized that the effect was very
unrealistic. At this point I came to the conclusion that at some point
close enough to the real thing is good enough for me.

The led me to the conclusion that sometimes we as game developers sometimes
have to think like magicians.  A magic trick may seem spectacular when you
don't know how it works.  But once you figure it out its really very simple.

Some games that have to much eye candy are just no fun to me.  I guess I'm
just a game that likes gameplay first pretty graphics second.


What do you all think about that? 

[petroz]

Yeh i think gameplay has really taken a backseat to graphics. IMO developers, not designers are to blame for this. The computer game industry is edging closer to being a large industry like movies and music. Along with all the benefits of large scale production and large budgets, comes the downside. Developers aren't willing to try new ideas because it's a financial risk. They want an idea that is tried and true. The end product is like a pop-music equivalent, it fits the formula that has been proven by other games.

I think the biggest recent example is GTA4. I had heard such amazing reviews for this game i went out and bought a console just to play it. I was initially quite impressed by the graphics, but that wore off quickly. I found this game did very little different to the other titles in the series. The only real improvement was the auto-aim and cover system. Granted this was a massive step forward, but the gameplay is nothing new. The 'sandbox' world is extremely limited, you're following a script which allows minor deviations but far from anything i would consider non-linear let alone sandbox.

I think the whole bureaucracy and marketing involved in so called AAA titles really prevents them breaking new ground. There are some which really are doing things differently like guitar hero, these types of games are still doing something new. I find the graphics in guitar hero pretty unimpressive and the price tag is higher than other titles because it comes with a guitar. In spite of all this it has had great success.

There are many other titles which are breaking new ground, even in the more traditional genres, made by smaller companies. The success of these games is generally not as good as the big games because they don't do all the advertising to make gamers aware of their existence. Searching the internet for a objective game review seems like a contradiction in terms. There are so many fanboys out there that would be horribly offended if the AAA title they love was criticized. This has the obvious impact of making that person turn to another website for game reviews. Since all these websites make their money from ads, they require traffic, so this is a far higher priority than actually reviewing games.

Well this has turned into quite a rant and taken a tangent. Basically my contention is everyone has has sold out.

-Petroz

[ZaPPZion]

Well, GTA is groundbreaking in another way than just graphics or gameplay i think. I mean, the graphics are good, but there are other games with the same or even better graphics. The cover and auto aim thing is not new either (in the GTA series it is, i know), the cover is found in gears of war, and the auto aim in streets of LA or other games. But what truly truly amazed me was the loading of the whole city. It never has to load anything when your not doing some kind of mission. You can walk into a building without loading and look outside again, without even the slightest frame drop. Then you take the train, and without any fps slowdown you're being taken to every spot in the city to be dropped somewhere.
Also the underground railroads are amazing, you can't even tell when it's loading something.

Anyway, yea gameplay is more important than graphics, just look at games like guitar hero or counter strike 1.6. They've got bad graphics compared to today's standards, but they are being played a lot!

-ZaPP

[AriusEso]

I don't understand this need to constantly innovate. I like Grand Theft Auto 3, therefore, I like Grand Theft Auto 3 + fancy graphics ( GTA 4 ). I also don't think one needs to choose between graphics and gameplay - they are two completely different areas of development. If the gameplay sucks, don't blame the graphics guys. As indies, we probably do need to choose wisely which areas we dedicate time too. But an "AAA"( I don't like this expression ) team does not have to make such a choice, generally, they have a graphics team and a logic/gameplay team etc. Bad games have been around since the dawn of time, the fact that they are bad has nothing to do with whether or not they have good visuals. GTA4 is actually a good example. Why would they change it? - It is massively successful as it is. So all they do is tweak the things that sucked in previous versions( shooting is the prime example ) and then update the visuals and scale of the environment. They're not out to innovate, they're out to make money and this series already makes masses of $$$.

Infact, I would go so far as to say 99% of GTA fans don't want innovation. Innovation means change and lets be honest about this, gamers buy into series such as this because they know what they're getting. There have been complaints about GTA4 because they updated the car physics. Hardly an innovation, but they're getting complaints because of it. Imagine if they changed the whole thing .

Anyway, just wanted to add my 2/c, I see this kind of thread pop up all the time and I think the graphics programmers need defending. It is not their fault when a game has nice graphics but poor gameplay. They did their job - "make it look nice" - and they did it well. Their job is not gameplay.

[serial]

I agree with the statements about innovation.  Quake is a prime example of this.
The first 3 games basically improved on game play from the previous games.  Quake
4 seems to be wildly differant.  The same goes for Unreal tournament.  It seems like
Adding vehicles and making the Arenas larger really affect the popularity of that genre.

The only reason I brought up AAA titles initially was because that is where you see the
most 'improvement' graphically.  Personally there are some lesser known titles out there
that have better graphics and gameplay.  IMO the reason they are AAA titles isn't because
of Graphics or Gameplay its because of marketing.  You see this in the movies industry as
well.  There are some pretty good movies out there that B titles simply because they didn't
get marketed.

I don't think anybody in this community really wants to compete in that market but we always constantly see projects that could easily rival mass marketed games. 

I mostly intended this thread to talk about using simple effects in game design that look complicated until you really look at it.  Just like a magic trick.  Looks amazing until you realize the magic behind it is actually really simple.  Just wanted to point out that the indie industry can and does pump out AAA quality projects. 

[petroz]

Infact, I would go so far as to say 99% of GTA fans don't want innovation.

Well it was not advertised as gta3 + extras. It was was said to be 'a strong contender for game of the year' by IGN. It was 10/10 in almost every review i could find. I think anything which just revamps the graphics of the old version can slightly improves the interface cant be a game of the year. It's like the song of the year going to a remix.

They're not out to innovate, they're out to make money and this series already makes masses of $$$.

This is my point, the gta franchise like every other 'AAA' game has become a vehicle for generating revenue.

I see computer games as a medium with infinite possibilities, with room for creative vision and the ability to innovate. I guess, much like hollywood and the music industry, the main stream are happy with the pop-music titles which are formulaic. Personally i will still choose something new and interesting over something I've seen before with different visuals.

-Petroz

[AriusEso]

Well it was not advertised as gta3 + extras. It was was said to be 'a strong contender for game of the year' by IGN. It was 10/10 in almost every review i could find. I think anything which just revamps the graphics of the old version can slightly improves the interface cant be a game of the year. It's like the song of the year going to a remix.
This is my point, the gta franchise like every other 'AAA' game has become a vehicle for generating revenue.

I see computer games as a medium with infinite possibilities, with room for creative vision and the ability to innovate. I guess, much like hollywood and the music industry, the main stream are happy with the pop-music titles which are formulaic. Personally i will still choose something new and interesting over something I've seen before with different visuals.

-Petroz

I agree with you. What I posted was more of a pre-emptive strike. Very often these threads degenerate into "If it has good visuals, it's a rubbish game". Which is not true in some cases. In the case of GTA4, yea it's true.

[Maroonhawk]

The argument of graphics vs gameplay kinda reminds me of a lvoely little episode I played witness to in the limited train sim niche.

Let's say we have Sim A and Sim B. Sim A has been around for many years and has sold over a million copies of the various editions of their train sim. They have a very active community forum with over 200,000 registered users (that's people that have bought the sim). However, Sim A is still running on a very old graphics engine, and isn't too graphically impressive (although some community-made add-on content can make for stunning scenes.)

Sim B is announced, and screenshots shown of a new sim with graphics that, while still not dazzling, are quite an improvement over those of Sim A.

The first thing anybody says about Sim B on Sim A's forum?

"The developers have spent all of their time on graphics, the gameplay will probably suck."

(Paraphrasing, of course.)



Anyways, I'm personally of the opinion that "great graphics" doesn't necessarily mean "photorealistic graphics." For example, I consider Super Mario Galaxy to be a great-looking game, and Lord knows it's hardly photorealistic.

[serial]

Well what about games that are ahead of thier time.  Like Crysis.  Great game.
Outstanding graphics.  From my point of view Crysis' graphics does affect gameplay.
As in its a slide show on anything that doesn't have 4 gigs of ram and SLI.

[AriusEso]

Well what about games that are ahead of thier time.  Like Crysis.  Great game.
Outstanding graphics.  From my point of view Crysis' graphics does affect gameplay.
As in its a slide show on anything that doesn't have 4 gigs of ram and SLI.

I feel Crysis is lacking, severly, in gameplay. This is an opinion of course. I've never been a huge fan of CryTek games. I do however think that some of the technical boundaries they're pushing are quite impressive. Some of their terrain work is top-notch. I also like the fact that they have left everything pretty much open to everyone. Their shader work for example is fully commented in the paks. Which is kind of nice.

[Maroonhawk]

Well what about games that are ahead of thier time.  Like Crysis.  Great game.
Outstanding graphics.  From my point of view Crysis' graphics does affect gameplay.
As in its a slide show on anything that doesn't have 4 gigs of ram and SLI.

Powerpoint games.....brilliant!

What will they think of next? 

[AriusEso]

Powerpoint games.....brilliant!

What will they think of next? 

Your handle appears oddly on the members page.

Re: Get Real atsfrr3000 Design and Theory

Doesn't read at all like Maroonhawk. 

[Maroonhawk]

Yeah, I went by atsfrr3000 for a while before deciding to switch to Maroonhawk. I asked Sylvain about it and he said I could change my "display name" to maroonhawk, but my login name would always be atsfrr3000.

Apparently this forum software prefers the latter in displaying certain things 

[Lenn]

Sim B is announced, and screenshots shown of a new sim with graphics that, while still not dazzling, are quite an improvement over those of Sim A.

The first thing anybody says about Sim B on Sim A's forum?

"The developers have spent all of their time on graphics, the gameplay will probably suck."

(Paraphrasing, of course.)

Doesn't have to be that way. Games where graphics are not as "important" such as sims, have players review the gameplay by themselves or read gaming mag reviews. They will try out the game, even though they and others on a forum may assume that gameplay sux. These assumptions rarely influence the actual response to the game.

One thing I do agree however is that marketing (or more specificaly advertising) is given too little importance by most smaller studios. In my opinion, any studio making a game should budget something along the lines of 15% coding, 45% art, 40% advertising. In terms of time/money consumption, if you have a great engine, you might not even need to code anything, such as with most games using generic engines like the new UT engine etc. They just script a few things in, make a GUI and voila. For example Rainbow Six las vegas 2 (or was it 1 as well). They spent about half the budget on hiring 3d artists, and a third on advertising. The cost of licensing the expensive engine was maybe only 3% total because of hiring expensive artists. Roughly speaking, because advertising is the job of the publisher in most cases, but in the context of indie or smaller studios it has to be compared with the total budget.

So yeah, creating an image of a future game is very important and releasing the media in the right moments, to wow the masses before release is crucial. Gamers today are sophisticated and there are two sides to every coin. If you make a pretty game then people not caring about gameplay will try it out more, and if you have simple elements - they may even be drawn into the game. The same number of gameplay-aware people might have their reservations due to graphics being too good, so you're pretty much back at zero. my 2c

[Shadowsong]

Wow all of you went so much off-topic! 
Let's get back to serial's actual idea: "get real"

Games have much to do with movies in graphical aspects. It is the same as in movies, you often have to make an effect unrealistic and overdriven just to make the viewer/player believe in it. The biggest example are explosions in action movies. A car would never blow up like in those movies but a realistic explosion would be so lame and boring that no viewer would accept it. So they have to overdrive it.

I remember the "cloud shadow" effect of C&C Generals and C&C Tiberium Wars. You have those cloud shadows on the ground which create a dense atmosphere and make the scene look more "alive". But in fact, those cloud shadows are very far from realism and extremly overdriven. However, if they would have used realistic cloud shadows, nobody ever would have noticed them (have you ever seen cloud shadows rushing over the ground outside?).

C&C Tiberium Wars is a good example for those overdriven effects. They are using so much shaders and all of them are far from realism. But the player is just "WOW look at those pretty effects!".
Like the fire/heat shader used on every explosion and weapon. Or the "bloom"/glowing effect used on every model. It looks great because everything looks quite metal and shiny but if you watch it carefully it is way overdriven and gives a feeling of bright sahara sunlight.

So what I think serial wanted to say is, making something look realistic often doesn't mean to make it as-real-as-possible but rather use simple and overdriven effects.

[AriusEso]

Yea. Hyper-Realism I beleive is the expression.

[ZaPPZion]

Exactly.
Yesterday i was at a friend of mine. He got his new computer (Intel Core 2 Quad 9450, 4GB ram, XFX 9800GTX), so we decided to go and check out the nVidia directX 10 demo's. Especially the cascades demo was impressive. We were both stunned by the amazing graphics. Then i thought about this topic and wanted to see how they made the cascades so extremely look like water. We zoomed in on them, and what did we see? Horse-shoe/elipse like white things rushing in the direction of the water. It's just a couple elipses falling down some poly's! It's quite simple actually. Then i looked at the supposedly wet stone. It had just a higher specular level than the rest of the stone, and the diffuse color was slightly darker. It really was looking awesome, but the effect is quite simple actually. Ofcourse there are things that you can't see or can't make yourself, but yes, most of the time it's easier than you think to create some awesome graphics.
just my 2c

[micmanos]

To start selling food you need to make it smell nice and you're done.
To keep selling it you also have to make taste as well too.

Graphics is like a pack of matches ... Gameplay is the wood. You need the first to start the fire and A LOT of the second to keep you nice and warm.

The thing about 'Game Play' is that the term is somewhat misleading. It's not equal to Innovation as it has been stated above but HOW is the game played. This includes ...

Graphics (Yes, they're part of it but only a small one).
Sound, Controls, Difficulty, Complexity, Scenario, Goal, AI, Variation, Variety, Replayability, Goal, Strategy, Tactics, .... and a million other characteristics, each specific to the genre, purpose, environment, ... etc of the game.

Title series like all those you've mentioned are successfully because they provide new content in more aspects than just graphics. If those ingredients don't mix together well, you've got a failure.