Sign on Options
Theme: [Light Selected] To Dark»

Beauty Is in the Eye of the Destroyer

Tom Mc Shea responds to Crytek CEO's comments about the importance of graphics in video games.

"It's always been about graphics driving gameplay." Cevat Yerli's sentiment echoes a belief that many within this industry hold dear. From boardroom executives focused on marketing strategies to forum-goers obsessed with benchmarks, a strong contingent of individuals advocate cutting-edge visuals above all else. Yerli believes that game design evolves when technological improvements are made, forever tying these two aspects together in a harmonious, symbiotic union. And there is some truth behind this philosophy. However, Yerli's evangelistic views have contributed to a blight that has slowly eroded the structural supports that are fundamental to a healthy marketplace. Publishers have pushed all of their chips to the middle of the table, positive that visuals are the main draw of a video game, and their reckless gambling has sent many to the poorhouse.

Yoichi Wada presided over Square Enix during a tumultuous period for the Japanese gaming industry. Console sales have been struggling recently as many people have moved on to the handheld scene, so Square Enix was forced to improvise to appeal to a more Western-focused fan base. And it seemed as if it was headed in the right direction. Sleeping Dogs, Hitman: Absolution, and Tomb Raider have all been released in the last six months, and not only did they resonate with critics, but they made waves at retail as well. With almost 9 million sold between them, they should be the poster children for how to resurrect a struggling company. However, those sales fell so far below the company's expectations that Wada was forced to step down as president. Another casualty in an endless stream of studio closures and executive restructurings.

That Tomb Raider moved more than 3.4 million units and yet still was considered a failure is an absurdity that can no longer be ignored. Budgets have ballooned so dramatically of late that even selling millions of copies may not be enough to recoup investments, and a major reason for the escalating costs is directly related to the increasingly preposterous visual demands. The emphasis on state-of-the-art graphics has forced studios to hire a small army of programmers and artists, and though the result is often breathtakingly gorgeous, the cost of such beauty is too much to bear. Said industry analyst Billy Pidgeon, "For games with development budgets approaching $100 million, to be truly profitable, ratings have to be above 8.5 and sales need to be in the five to ten million unit range."

That Tomb Raider moved more than 3.4 million units and yet still was considered a failure is an absurdity that can no longer be ignored.

It's no surprise that Yerli would proclaim that "making things look spectacular and stylistic is 60% of the game." He runs a company that makes and licenses a high-end engine, after all, so he has a financial stake in raising the bar for visual fidelity. And you can't blame Wada for going along with the latest trend, either. To create a cultural sensation, a game that would make the viewer take notice when it appears in a commercial or on a late-night talk show, you have to make sure first impressions are positive. If Tomb Raider bore the rough, polygonal edges of the 1996 original, it would have looked like an outdated relic, retro to a fault. So Square Enix was forced to sink a fortune into development costs. The end result was a finely tuned, emotionally rich experience that has made its way into the homes of millions of people. Its legacy is a failure so extreme that the president was replaced.

That so many studios have been shuttered or forced to restructure could be seen as inevitable growing pains as the industry goes through a transformation. But the shift that's occurring has had negative reverberations that have severely affected the landscape. Blockbuster games demand an expensive commitment that few publishers can afford. And because the cost of development is so high, and the risk so great, we've seen homogenized experiences that are the antithesis of what publishers need most right now. The only way to offset the rising cost of game development is to attract a larger and more diverse audience. But games have become narrower in focus to minimize the risk of releasing something that doesn't succeed at retail. It's a deadly cycle that has halted the growth of console games at the same time that the mobile and social spaces are gaining in popularity.

The rising cost of game development--which is tied to the graphics evolution that Yerli touts--has forced many studios to abandon AAA releases entirely. Lightbox Interactive, Double Fine Productions, Spicy Horse, and others have packed up their supercomputers to work on mobile, free-to-play, and downloadable games. And though these teams have been able to stay alive by shifting their focus, many others have been closed completely. LucasArts and Junction Point Studios are just two recent examples of developers who are no longer in business. There's a depressing number of people who have lost their jobs in recent years as the industry continually loses money because of the virtual arms race it has entered into.

The rising cost of game development has forced many studios to abandon AAA releases entirely

Sadly, this trend may not be slowing down anytime soon. Ubisoft Montreal CEO Yannis Mallat recently forecast the continued decline of the industry's middle. "On one end of the spectrum you will have all the big, AAA blockbuster games that [offer] more and more production values, more value for the players, but there will be fewer of them taking a bigger chunk of the market," Mallat said. At the other end, he believes, is where mobile and social games will thrive. "The in-between, the belly of the market, is the one that just collapsed in a way and disappeared." Mallat is most likely right in his prediction--recent trends show that this is the case--and that's a worrying sign. Cutting-edge graphics have separated the industry into the haves and the have-nots, and that segregation is only going to be more pronounced as the technological gap between the two extremes widens.

It doesn't matter if Yerli is correct in his assessment of the importance of graphics or not. What is important is that people believe that he is. The industry's reliance on pushing visuals above everything else has become a serious detriment to game design. Inflated budgets have ensured that only the most successful games are able to turn a profit, which means that all the studio closings may not be a trend at all, but a fact of life in today's marketplace. Development teams are going to keep going under until only the most powerful few remain. And if you think games are too similar now, just wait until only a handful of studios are producing all of the high-profile releases. We have to move away from our fascination with expensive visuals if the industry is going to thrive now and in the future.

Tom Mc Shea
By Tom Mc Shea, Editor

Tom Mc Shea loves platformers and weighty moral decisions. Some call him a T-Rex with bigger arms, some call him a gorilla with smaller arms -- you can just call him the jerk who hates all the things you love and loves all the things you hate.

843 comments
tuzem2
tuzem2

I think visuals are important, but also story and gameplay.

The problem in my opinion is not as much the development costs as are the publishing ones - if publishers switch to digital they would save a great deal of money!

GOGOHeadray
GOGOHeadray

@tuzem2 How do you reason that? Developers need the money of publishers to hire the staff to finance the game in the first place. Not to mention they still have to pay the console makers money to put thier game on the system in the first place. Also by going digital they will cut their customer base. The advantage of consoles is the ease of use and the fact you can just pop in the disc and play. IF the console is going to be online then it losses its advatage and becomes a low end PC.

GOGOHeadray
GOGOHeadray

The cost of development has gone up drastically; and as a result the games may have gotten prettier but have gotten more shallow. Developers need to stop themselves before they crash when 6 million copies sold can lead to bankruptcy somethings wrong.

frylock616
frylock616

Funny, McShea was pretty much bashing the industry for putting out games with shitty gameplay and lack of detail to graphics. Now he changes his tune...must have been all the money.

puppeteer
puppeteer

Graphics have been improved quite a bit. BF 3.5? Don't think so.

puppeteer
puppeteer like.author.displayName 1 Like

What would help is no more exclusives if a game was offered on all platforms sales would increase. This won't be the case for AAA titles that just suck.

Another saving point is no more discs all titles should be digital by now especially here in the states pretty much everyone can get a high speed connection. Of course this can't happen everywhere but the countries that do have a widespread broadband connection can.

Slow down! Don't employ a tonne of people to get the game out in a few years. Or use a little larger team but release games in episodes this seems to be a growing trend anyhow. I'm sure there are other ways to save.

GOGOHeadray
GOGOHeadray

@puppeteer Exclusive titles are mostly first party games at this point; very few if any are third party exculsives so that idea doesn't really help. Heck tomb raider is multiplat. and sold alot and we all know how that ended up. To your second point how will limiting the potential customer base help developers make more money. Also not everyone here in the states can get high speed internet connection and even then the quality of your connection can vary widely from barely above dial up to almost fiber optic levels. Your ideas would kill the gaming industry.

frylock616
frylock616 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

@puppeteer 


Don't know about you but...I like actually physically owning what I pay for.

puppeteer
puppeteer

@frylock616 @puppeteer Sure but if it means the loss of AAA titles due to fund issues a disc won't be needed for anything except for games that can not be developed to match todays or tomorrows hardware.

Smokescreened84
Smokescreened84

Pretty graphics are all well and good, but without strong game play then all you have is a very pretty looking borefest of a game and a disc that is best used as a coaster or a frisbee.


Given the choice of a game with beautiful, realistic visuals but little to no game play or a game that doesn't look all that great but has game play so rich and engaging that it can drive you to tears at how enjoyable it is, then I go for the second option.

RetryAgain
RetryAgain

A wonderful, thoughtful, and wise article. The gaming industry is going down. The release of the next gen of consoles is going to make things even tougher on devs. I hope we never see a PS5 if it destroys the heart and soul of all games that can appear on it.

Nickprovs
Nickprovs like.author.displayName 1 Like

@Iostn

Interesting analogy, but you can't compare cars to games very well. Games aren't driven by graphics just as a car is driven by an engine. Good games are often driven by raw gameplay, or gameplay in tandem with a good story. An example of a game that sells million based upon gameplay and nothing else is Monster Hunter. And a game that sells because of its story would be Heavy Rain.

Now the problem with these high-budget games being the standard such as Crysis 3 is that their development teams are so incredibly large that the writing and creative process can only come from a few. Most people at CryTek are programmers. Their jobs probably so specialized that one guy might only be tasked with programming the lint and dust on a soldiers clothing mesh.

These mega-developers backed my mega-publishers are often the reason why games fall short of players expectations but sell so incredibly well. Sure games like Battlefield 3 and Crysis 2 & 3 sell well. But I bet you 9 times out of 10 long-time fans of the series will say they had way more fun with previous installments. Graphics don't make a game, the developers make a game. And when they focus too much on aesthetics, it impedes the actual experience.



zyxe
zyxe

i'm playing the original NWN with my friend, co-op. how old is that game? the trick is that it is STILL a good game and i'm enjoying it very much, even with old graphics. the graphics are good enough to keep me interested, and the polish of the rest of the game--the menus, function of the features (i.e. it's not too cumbersome to move through menus and sort items) and the overall gameplay--is what keeps me coming back to the game. that and my friend is really fun to play with :)

graphics are great and all, but they will never make up for a horrible gameplay experience. the graphics just have to be good enough to fit the style of the game and not hinder gameplay, anything more and they are an added bonus to me.

RT-XD
RT-XD

I'm not going to say graphics is not important. It is. But it's certainly not 60%. Crysis 1 for example had brilliant graphics and I also liked the gameplay + story. Most people loved the game from what I hear, and the one thing about the game that always comes up first is: "DUDE! YOU HAVE TO PLAY THIS, THE GRAPHICS ARE INSANE!!". But truth is, it comes down to gameplay and story more then anything else and I'd rather it goes down that route then the one it is going down right now. Yeh, graphics are great - but make it look insanely good when you are sure the game is perfect in any other way first! (Though, I did like Tomb Raider in terms of all three: gameplay, story and graphics and that went downhill :( bad luck I suppose)

adamomars
adamomars

It's like that sexy xhick who just lies there when you fuck...sure she's hot, but you (might) resent the fact that she is undeniably boring.

adamomars
adamomars

I said like three months ago on this site that gaming has become a weak cinematic experience rather than a unique challenge, problem solving, or often even fun. SOO many new games (the plague of military shooters) are repeatedly the same crap with a new facade. What I want is reasonable graphics, and excellent gameplay. Reasonable as in impressive -- I want the developers to put effort into making a game look nice, but it shouldn't be 60% of the game. Anybody knows that game with excellent gameplay can of weak graphics and still be far beyond it's douchebag peer...that is the fancy tool with expensive sunglasses. HA!

Carpetfluff
Carpetfluff

Crysis 1. Played it to death. Crysis 2. Played it to completion once. Crysis 3. Played it to the last level and even though it was decent, I got distracted by other games and I still haven't put it back in to finish it off.

sahandx360
sahandx360

gameplay, gameplay and gameplay

Just play Super Mario, Super Meat Boy or Minecraft to Understand

Shaoran_Li
Shaoran_Li

Welp, time to move time backwards and play *drumroll* "R-r-r-r-R-RAAYMAN!!!" (1996). I swear Ps1 the last generation when I actually PLAYED games. More than half the time I'm on PS3 is playing CTR, Crash Bandicoot, Jumping Flash Tomb Raider (1) and maybe its sequel, etc. More than half the things I buy on PSN are PS1 games I've never played before and man are they fun. I was going to say its just nostalgia when the real reason I go back to them is because they're more FUN. Not to deny some titles today that have incredible visuals of course. Just stressing the point of the fun factor, even if games have "bad graphics" that many of us survived then and even now.

And to quote from a kid this generation that played the classic Tomb Raider (1996): "The graphics are so minecraft but it's so fun!"

Lockjaw2000
Lockjaw2000 like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

I have a lot more fun playing old games with terrible graphics (comparing to this time and age) than newer games.  Newer games are just empty.  I like good graphics, sure, but that is NOT what drives a good game.  At all.  Visually, yes, it can really help the game, but if there's nothing else there then it's a failure in my book.  Tomb Raider should NOT be considered a failure.  That's really sad, and I love Square Enix.  A lot of people hate them because of some of their decisions, but I just wish game developers would focus on what makes games GOOD, not what makes them LOOK good.  Also, it's really greedy that publishers and devs are doing this to AAA devs, because they are the truly underbelly of the market, and if they go, the industry will either tank completely or become too inaccessible and become a high "luxury". 

GabrielOnuris
GabrielOnuris

When you sell millions of copies of a game and it's still a failure, the answer is clear: stop wasting time on graphics; we don't even hear about Crysis 3 anymore, and it was released just a couple months ago. Focus on gameplay, mid range graphical quality and you will get an accessible, robust, and almost bug free game. And ofcourse, 3-4 millions of sold copies will be considered good again.

GFreeman85
GFreeman85 like.author.displayName 1 Like

If Yerli's Premise were true then ALL games that were created between 1980 and 2000 would not be enjoyable- which is obviously completely faulty logic.

neoperol
neoperol

Dont be silly and stop commenting. Back then developers tried todo make games as best looking as they could. Alladin and TMNT sold a bunch because they looked great. Ir doesnt matter that for your teen eyes they look like crap nos.

lostn
lostn like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

Would Tom McShea prefer we all buy Wiis, the anti-thesis of good graphics? Oh wait, everyone DID buy Wiis and it didn't make a difference to game sales, aside from Nintendo games. 


So what's your suggested solution to the problem Tom? Should developers stop making cutting edge graphics? The expectation from the consumer is that as technology gets better, we expect more from our games. Just as cars get better every year but don't go up in price. We just get more stuff as standard equipment for the same price. 

Developers could go for art style over polygons. There's nothing wrong with more indy development. 

Lockjaw2000
Lockjaw2000

@lostn That's because Nintendo, for some god awful reason, are really adamant in their AAA dev selection and don't like to take risks in games, or at least it's rare to see them do so.  Graphics aren't everything, and they're definitely NOT 60%.  Devs SHOULD stop doing this because look at the facts and look at what it is doing to the market:  A lot of AAA have to cut their losses and shut down, and that's sad because that is the backbone of the industry.  First party titles are good and all, but there isn't enough of them, and even those can get empty.  Look at Resistance 3, that game was such a let down and a few steps away from what Resistance 2 was.  First party titles can fail where all games can fail, so the margin of failure has to be increased which can only be done if there are more developers...and developers are shutting down.  Thus, graphics are a huge factor in killing this market.

Also, look at Crysis 3.  No one talks about it.  It's practically dead, and it just came out.  Good graphics make a good game?  I think not.

neoperol
neoperol

Dude, you didnt get the point. The demmand for good graphics isnt killing AAA game, they are killing mid range games. Beca use people dont want "gameplay". They want games that look great and the same Nintendo IP that people care less how they look because there are few games that can compite with Mario, Zelda or Smash, who sell tales base con their name. What the other names with less name and the new IPs got to do, improve the graphics.

Cwagmire21
Cwagmire21

I will agree with Tom on the industry has to change when a game selling 3.4 million copies is considered a failure.

Darth_Ultima
Darth_Ultima

@Cwagmire21 I am curious just how much they expected to sell.  Were they expecting CoD or Halo numbers?  If so then they miscalculated.

reddog00
reddog00

It is always all about the benjamins!  I want to see the belly make their home at kickstarter or some other similar donation or game investment site.  There is always a place to make your game become a reality.

Soundaholic92
Soundaholic92 like.author.displayName 1 Like

Here I am playing Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate on my 3DS and am I glad Capcom jumped ship to Nintendo and that it's developed for the 3DS. The 2nd screen with touch controls on the 3DS adds so much more to the gameplay experience than the supposed improved graphics on a Vita release would ever do. Gameplay >  Visuals. Art direction > Visual fidelity

LordVawn
LordVawn

Agree with the article or not, it raises a valid point! Demands for flawless graphics and gripping gameplay force developers to now create games that cost the same as a Hollywood blockbuster! Graphic artists, programers, writers, voice actors! With the quality we have now, how much better can it go, how much will it cost and how can that be sustainable! Something will have to give! Will that be the industry's capability to deliver, or user demands/ expectations!

MurderMode
MurderMode like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 4 Like

@LordVawn It's the industry that created that demand. Publishers are too scared to do something original for fear it may not work out, so instead they only finance statistically safe ideas which doesn't leave much room for anything else but a graphical upgrade and a new marketing angle.

LordVawn
LordVawn

Interesting point! I partly agree!

DudleyDawson101
DudleyDawson101 like.author.displayName 1 Like

"The rising cost of game development has forced many studios to abandon AAA releases entirely" Good. Theres been a huge oversaturation of the market. If I never play a military style FPS again it'll be too soon.

DarthLod
DarthLod

Gameplay, Story....then graphics.

Gamer_4_Fun
Gamer_4_Fun like.author.displayName 1 Like

Like I said, graphics plays a huge part in the art of a game. Remember graphics doesn't always mean realistic.

DinoFarmBlake
DinoFarmBlake like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 8 Like

Graphics are 60% of the game...if the game is an unoriginal reskin or variant of the same 5 game designs we've been playing for 20 years.  If all you have to bring to the table in terms of design is a new gimmicky input mechanism or "new guns," slapped onto the same core design we've played 500 times, then you're pretty much FORCED to dazzle the audience with technological spectacle.

A good idea, an original game design, something that is...not unbelievably derivative or boring, and is interesting in and of itself?  You don't need a 10 million dollar art budget.  Spelunky, Minecraft, Outwitters, etc. They are infinitely replayable and engaging and have primitave or otherwise simple graphics.


We are so unbelievably indoctrinated at this point to marvel at the continual effort towards fantasy simulation.  Fantasy simulation is not game design.  There are still 1000000 original, lasting, amazing game design ideas just waiting to be discovered that could still be accomplished on NES technology.

The write of this article is so short-sighted, and so misguided as to what game design actually is that he himself has, without knowing it, admitted "video games are so boring that we have to distract players from how boring they are with spectacular graphics."  I'd say, in his purview, "60%" is actually conservative.  

Picture Crysis 3 with graphics technology from 2001.  It can totally be done.  Would anyone play it?  No.  It's because it's a generic, balls-numbingly easy, paint-by-numbers, art-by-committee, cynical waste of time(the single player, anyway).

Hopefully in our lifetime, we'll be reminded of what it's like not to be bored into mania by generic, "square peg-in-square hole" patronizing mass market shlock, and realize that good ideas are free, and go a long, long way.

JoeGamer1234
JoeGamer1234

Skyrim for instance was built using a modified Gamebryo engine which has been used for close to a decade and the game is absolutely beautiful. Look at the Steam Engine... My God that thing is ancient and still being used to this day by Valve. These are the companies that deserve medals because they can use the same tool and still make a beautiful masterpiece with small tweaks.

JoeGamer1234
JoeGamer1234 like.author.displayName 1 Like

I'm telling you it's the PC Elitiests that are responsible for the decline of this industry. They are the ones responsible for beautiful, but bland games. They spend thousands of dollars building a "rig" and then beg for developers to push their rigs to the max all for a higher frame rate and slightly better graphics. It's become a superiority complex for PC gamers over the entire console market. I'd rather have a decent looking game with truck loads of content and replayability, and that's genuinely fun than a game that pushes the envelope on hyper-realism. Graphics are important, but not 60%... I'd say somewhere closer to 45-50%. Why not have the best of both worlds?

Darkwrath016
Darkwrath016 like.author.displayName 1 Like

@JoeGamer1234 I can see the validity in this argument. How many times have we heard developers and publishers beg sony and microsoft to release the next gen consoles? I know Ubisoft and EA did it. Epic games was asking for a quantum leap in graphics performance as well  and there's a host of PC gamers out there who keep on bragging how PC games are much better looking on the computer than it is on consoles.

MurderMode
MurderMode like.author.displayName 1 Like

@JoeGamer1234 You're really quite wrong in what you say. The decline in gaming comes from the expansion of the audience... modern consoles focus on the average consumer that prefers spectacle over substance. A strong marketing campaign and some flash visuals is all it takes to market the same game to the majority of the general public... it's just like how most movie-goers will put down cash to see the latest blockbuster with all it's explosions and light humor while deeper, more intricate tales get shunned.

BraollusBeBack
BraollusBeBack like.author.displayName 1 Like

@JoeGamer1234 You sure about that, because the way I see it, indie games gotten very popular with PC's, and these games don't have a top notch graphics force. The ones responsible for this "decline" with which I disagree, it's not a decline, the games are better than ever, not only in graphics, but in many other aspects, what happened is, as the games got better, the people got used to it, and wanted even better and better and better, like everything in life, if you're homeless and hungry, you look at other people's sandwiches and homes and dream, how grateful you'd be, once you get what you wanted, when you get a house and a sandwich and after 5 or so years, the appreciation is gone, and you walk around with your bland sandwich in a bland home indifferent, so the same goes for the gaming industry, we just got used to the quality, and no longer truly appreciate something simple, sure indie games who bring something new to the table, something different are not expected to have good graphics, but the innovation makes up for it all. Like me for instance, I was stuck with ps2 and old PC for a while, but once I got a new PC and all these next gen games became available for me, they were truly great, but once you get used to it, you expect something much more. Anyway the evolution of graphics is not because of the PC gamers, or any other platform gamers, it's technology, as it became more powerful, the game developers wanted to insert better graphics, more realism into their games, and as people took this advancement well, then it took off.

bumle
bumle

@JoeGamer1234 Are you kidding me!!! Could you please name a single game made only for the PC in which the main drawing point is the graphics?! On the other hand you have the ever increasing "consolification" of games: ie. make them simple in terms of gamplay, ui and difficulty. PC games are more varied and engaging because they enable developers to fit these aspects to the game and not force them into some narrow spec and controller requirements.

bumle
bumle

Don't get me wrong I enjoy consol games as much as the next guy (well maybe not every next guy :/). However my preferences in consol games are based on games that (I believe) fit the platform. Sports games, driving games, and some adventure games: thumbs up! It is also in these games where graphics and "reallity" are good (maybe the only) selling points. However when games are developed for consoles when their genre clearly doesn't fit into the restraints of consoles it bugs me: RPG, strategy and even FPS for the most part. Despite all its acclaim Mass Effect doens't really fit into the consol platform and the only reason why it was aslo released on consoles was to tap into the huge market. 


On a side note on graphics: I still prefer to play Rome: Total war over any of the Total War games made Since Medieval 2

majere613
majere613

I'm inclined to think that the big opportunity here is for someone to come up with a way of producing these very high-end visual results without such a massive outlay. More ways, for example, to re-use existing assets from one project in another and then tweak them (the 'digital actors' idea which seems to have vanished recently), more flexible engines and smaller teams. You shouldn't need to re-invent the wheel every time you build a new game.

Conversation powered by Livefyre

Top GameSpot Recommendations