It's been repeated a thousand times. I've seen it on this forum board, on others, and in the discussions of just about every video game that comes out. People say again and again that gameplay features, depth, character development, and story are all sacrificed in the name of better graphics. Some have even suggested that if developers were to take a step or two back, and use older graphics, the games could be much deeper:



I wonder about this. I've started to ask myself a series of questions and think about it.
How long does it take for a developer to make 1 tree in Skyrim?
--How long did it take the developer to make 1 tree in Oblivion?
-- --How long did it take the developer to make 1 tree in Morrowind?

What about a house? Did it take developers 30 minutes to make a house in Morrowind, 40 to make one for Oblivion, and 50 to make one for Skyrim? Or, as I suppose, does it take about the same amount of time for each?

What if they were to do it today, like some have said?
If Bethesda today were to make Morrowind, would it take them fewer development hours? They could do it faster, sure, but that's because they have more people and better computers. But in terms of the actual man-hours that go into the graphics themselves, could they really make a morrowind object that much faster than a more modern version for Skyrim?

I propose that's not true. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to say it anyway. I don't think that better graphics actually remove proportionally increasing amounts of time from the development process.

So how and why are graphics getting better? For two reasons. First, the computer systems that Bethesda can use to create their graphics are more powerful. They can render better models and images in the same time that it used to take to make the older, less ones. Second, the target market's average technical capabilities are vastly superior to what they were. If computers in 2002 were anything near as effective as they are today, then Morrowind would have had similar graphics to Skyrim.

In my opinion, it's as simple as that. I don't think that developers are sacrificing more and more of their development time with each cycle in order to dedicate that time to better graphics. Better visuals does not result in any loss of gameplay features, value, or depth simply because they have less time to work on these story elements. I think the only reason graphics are getting better is because they can.

Now I'm open to suggestions here. I've created this thread because I really would like to find out how many of you feel about the graphics developments in Skyrim. Are those pretty pictures and 3d interface options taking away from your gameplay experience? Do you feel cheated because you have nice visuals, because you know that good graphics takes away from depth?

If anyone has any hard data on this it would be incredible. Can anyone compare developer hours from Oblivion to Morrowind? Does anyone know more about how video game graphics are made, and what sorts of resources it really takes to create worlds and effects like Skyrim has? Does that take away from developing other aspects of the game?

I doubt that it does, but I would like to know. Have at!

I both agree and disagree. I agree that the marginal cost of each asset developed may not be higher just because the graphic quality is better. For all I know, some developed tool just procedurally generates a tree at the point the landscaper wants a tree. I disagree on other non-nature assets like armor, weapons, and world objects. I assume (through absolutely zero experience) that it takes longer to create high poly models with gorgeous textures now than it did in previous generations with lower poly counts and lower resolution textures.

There's clearly countless examples of give & take whereby development and design are more efficient due to better tools, but other variables have become more complex and time consuming.

I think the tipping point is the trend for games to be more cinematic. Now studios are spending time and resources on high end music and sound engineering. This is stuff they didn't worry about in previous generations of gaming. It was enough to have a soundtrack at all, and the meanest quality of sounds was all you needed to be convincing.

So its not so much the "graphics" that's taking up a greater % of the development budget, but rather the cinematic nature of games as a whole.

Does that make sense?

I don't really think things are being sacrificed for graphics.

i definitely see what thungrim is saying and it makes a lot of sense. It would be great though to see a comparison of the amount of resources it took each elder scrolls to be made.

Personally though, i feel like with the amount of dedication Bethesda has for TES, I dont think they would sacrifice any depth in Skyrim to spend time making it prettier.

I wonder what happnes when we look at percentages though. Games today have a larger budget than they ever have, and they have a larger budget because they have larger audiences. So with more money, a studio can afford to hire a composer for an orchestrated soundtrack, as opposed to 1 guy doing Midi in his basemant like the old days. So yes, in absolute terms, a lot more money is going into the audio and visual then ever before.

But what about as a percentage? If you only have 100k to spend to make a game, you can only afford 1 guy in a basemant doing MIDI. But as a percentage of your budget, that guy is about equal to the orchestra you can afford with 3M to spend.

So I'm not sure you are exactly right. I know that games have more and better effects and cinematics, but isn't that just a function of the game being larger overall, and not because resources are actually being siphoned off from other aspects?

Yeah I could be wrong, I'm only speculating.

My gut says that the code base for modern games is orders of magnitude larger than in previous eras, which necessitates a larger development team. Plus to market a game to a wider audience means a significantly ramped up costs there too. All told I'd bet (and I have nothing but my gut to go on with this) that the % of the budget that goes to pure design and development is lower now than in previous generations.

I wonder if any of the bean-counters (love you guys btw!) over at Bethesda would care to comment.

Graphics... Graphics.... Graphics... For.... Gameplay..... Oh.. My... God....
Save us, Old Man! SAVE US!
Well... Why Do I care? My PC probably won't be able to run Skyrim....
Then again I will get an Xbox.....
I always thought that It can't get THIS bad that pepole want to not just play games with "Epic" Graphics.. but now developers try to do this? Share the time and push back the release date when you announce it. That way you can do both things...
On the other hand there IS woodcutting, smithing etc.

The story in Skyrim won't be amazing.. But the gameplay will be terrific.. The visuals are great too.. The story does matter but i don't think it would ever take much of your experience out of the game..

I don't believe that gameplay is sacrificed for graphics because it's necessary to do so, but merely because it's possible to do so.

Better graphics aren't made by sacrificing gameplay or vice versa.

These games aren't made by one person alone, there's an entire team behind them and amongst them there are people specializing on the visual design, while others work on quests and whatnot...

And graphics by their nature are more expensive. Designing gameplay elements doesn't require entire studios and special equipment and they won't come up with better ideas if you give them more money.

LOL

You're saying they're making a cheap-ass game with good graphics, on purpose, with that excuse?
Not sure. If that's what they were going for Skyrim would have had AT LEAST Crysis graphics, which it doesn't


As for me, I believe that developpers are trying to make games prettier simply because it's a good thing to improve, and when improvement isn't possible/needed, the best to do is not to stall, but to change (in ALL domains). If you always put the exact same thing in a different game, then it will be more of an expansion, and less of a completely different game. Bethesda understands this (and we know Beth is one of the few that do).

Also, it is NECESSARY to have better graphics in every game you make. totally out-doing every other game isn't, but improving is. Otherwise, even your fans get tired, and in the end only the old-school still buy the games, who, while being a loyal fanbase, represents far too few sales to even care about making a whole game again

So in the end, of course they'll spend more and more time each game making it look good. But it's Bethesda we're talking about, they still make their games REALLY complete, and worth hundreds of hours of gameplay

I'm honestly surprised at how little discussion this thread has. Given how often I've seen the point made, I thought more people would comment. I wonder if few saw the thread, or if few really had anything to say.

The game can have nice graphics, interesting story and great gameplay. Pick any two of those.

I'm not sure that's quite the right set of options. With enough money, you can have any of that. From my understanding, the industry motto is that you can pick any two of fast, cheap, and quality.
That makes perfect sense. If you want fast and quality, it won't be cheap. If you want cheap and fast, it won't be quality.

Both variants apply.

I dont think that graphics take too much more time to make better ones, and a lot of the times it takes a while to be dialed back so it can run well, but there are new effects that are added to the game to make it look better, so that could be something

also graphic artists are not coders, they could spend 5 min or 12 hours on one mesh but they will spend the same amount of time on the actual gameplay mechanics, 0

I wouldnt really worry about it too much becuase there are a lot more people working on skyrim than Morrowind or Oblivion

Oh noes the game looks and plays fantastic! The story must be crap.

You know, I started playing Oblivion, and I liked it. Played back to Morrowind and I like it even better. And now I'm moving forward to Skyrim. Skyrim looks GREAT! Compared to high end games like COD, Crysis, or Mass Effect, not so much. Guess what I'm going to remember this game for? The gameplay.

The graphics are fine the way it is. I'm glad that they're spending a ton of time improving the leveling system, fighting mechanics, and hand crafting little details for the sake of a better game.

Crysis, Oblivion, Halo, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Medal of Honor.

bioshock 1 and 2

Gameplay in both was quite stale.

Just because there are examples of terrible games with great graphics doesn't mean that having good graphics makes the game terrible. That's pretty much the point of this thread. If you want to show that it somehow does, you need to explain why.

what are you talking about the combat systems were awesome with the plasmids
also Assassins creed 2 had pretty good graphics gameplay and story

Nothing is perfect. There is always a balance between the three.


That's a subjective opinion. It was stale since most of the plasmids rarely saw any use, the gameplay in general was repetative and once I found effective tactics, I had to apply them from the very beginning to the very end.


Exactly, "pretty good" does not equal great. You add to one aspect - you lose in the other since they are all interdependant. Besides, all AC games in the series were quite repetitive.

They are examples though of the point I made the first time the thread popped up - games that were at least moderately successful (and in some cases, wildly successful) in spite of poor story and/or gameplay and at least to some degree because of good graphics.

Again - it's not so much that particularly good graphics necessitates skimping on other parts of the game, but just that particularly good graphics can allow it. The devs might well be able to get away with skimping on other parts of the game and count on the graphics to make the game popular enough that it's at least profitable.

All a game has to offer in order to be at least moderately successful is something. It doesn't necessarily have to include everything, and the odds certainly are that it won't. It will come up short somewhere - graphics, gameplay or story, to stay with the three broad categories that have been outlined in this thread. And it should be noted here as well that it might only come up short relatively - that is, 10/10 graphics, 10/10 gameplay and 8/10 story, for example, but it's pretty much inevitable that it will come up short somewhere, if for no other reason than just because perfection doesn't exist. So if nothing else, incredible graphics just about guarantees that story, gameplay or both, even if they're better than the norm themselves, are still going to suffer by comparison. So at the least, it's going to make it appear as if they got short shrift. And, again, it's entirely possible (and not all that unlikely really, considering the staggering costs of developing a mainstream game in today's world) that the other elements will come up short because the developer skimped on those parts of the game, counting on the graphics to make enough sales for the game to be profitable.

So, again, particularly nice graphics don't necessarily mean that the other aspects of the game will suffer, but they do make it possible for the developer to skimp on those aspects and get away with it. Whether they do or not depends on the game and the developer, but it's undeniable that that has happened, and will continue to happen.

And it should be noted, as a bit of an aside, that this can cut all ways - a developer can put together a game with a great story and skimp on graphics and gameplay, or one with great gameplay and skimp on graphics and story, or what-have-you. In that context, I suspect that graphics gets a bad rap particularly because that's the most common way it seems to go, and because emphasizing graphics and skimping on gameplay and/or story appeals to a more superficial sort of gamer, which gives the elitists an opportunity to indulge themselves.