# Is this really hurting the gaming industry?



## TransformerRobot (Sep 30, 2013)

Just read this article. Gave me quite the thing to think about:

Could high quality visuals hurt game development itself?

I agree with what the article said about the mention of Final Fantasy XIII, and the art style in Journey, but I don't know of any examples of companies downsizing or closing because high quality graphics screwing with a game's budget, or even causing companies to close or downsize.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Sep 30, 2013)

TransformerRobot said:


> Just read this article. Gave me quite the thing to think about:
> 
> Could high quality visuals hurt game development itself?
> 
> I agree with what the article said about the mention of Final Fantasy XIII, and the art style in Journey, but I don't know of any examples of companies downsizing or closing because high quality graphics screwing with a game's budget, or even causing companies to close or downsize.



Uhh Journey did have financial troubles. I don't know where the article got its research but the co founder quit and many staff did get laid off for a while until the money for the game came in. It went bankrupt. http://www.examiner.com/article/interview-with-thatgamecompany-s-kellee-santiago

The problem isn't just graphics but the mentality companies had towards its employees. - http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/...e-problem-of-crunch-time-in-game-development/

Many studios were shut down because they couldn't meet their budget. EA isn't just a developer but it's a publisher. So you need to know the difference between development and publishing. They don't just show a bunch of random names at the beginning/ending of games for show. A lot of those are different studios that worked on the game.


----------



## Armaetus (Sep 30, 2013)

Too much budget on graphics is one reason it is higher than others. You don't need crisp AAA graphics to make the game, you need _good gameplay_. A game is shit if it has poor gameplay but fantastic visuals.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 30, 2013)

The problem will hopefully be mitigated in the short term with less development budget needing to be spent on optimizing in order to get those AAA graphics to even run on consoles, but as has been said, it's as much the mindset of the developers and publishers responsible for the problem as the graphics themselves.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Sep 30, 2013)

Runefox said:


> The problem will hopefully be mitigated in the short term with less development budget needing to be spent on optimizing in order to get those AAA graphics to even run on consoles, but as has been said, it's as much the mindset of the developers and publishers responsible for the problem as the graphics themselves.



I think developers are going to push for the best when they realize new toys at their disposal. It's like painting/drawing. Once you figure out more methods your time is going to go into it. I don't think it will mitigate even in the short term as it's just a vicious cycle until someone has the senses to put their foot down on behalf of employees and costs in general.


----------



## Judge Spear (Sep 30, 2013)

Glaice said:


> Too much budget on graphics is one reason it is higher than others. You don't need crisp AAA graphics to make the game, you need _good gameplay_. A game is shit if it has poor gameplay but fantastic visuals.



Yet somehow, those games will get high reviews anyway. *cough*SineMora*cough*


----------



## Arshes Nei (Sep 30, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Yet somehow, those games will get high reviews anyway. *cough*SineMora*cough*



Graphics in Games are like GUI. It's the first thing people will see and determine worth using/playing. While it shouldn't be the big motivator, think about how many people use Twisted Brush Studio or Dogwaffle instead of other programs - for example


----------



## DrDingo (Sep 30, 2013)

I like good graphics in games, but I don't mind playing games with lower-quality visuals if they look fun and interesting. Still, super-awesome graphics is what appeals to a mass market. Without it, I bet games like Call of Duty would go down the drain and everyone would complain. (Haha, I rhymed)


----------



## TransformerRobot (Sep 30, 2013)

DrDingo said:


> I like good graphics in games, but I don't mind playing games with lower-quality visuals if they look fun and interesting. Still, super-awesome graphics is what appeals to a mass market. Without it, I bet games like Call of Duty would go down the drain and everyone would complain. (Haha, I rhymed)



I doubt the Call of Duty part.


----------



## Judge Spear (Sep 30, 2013)

Same actually. Most people I know who play CoD and a lot of sources I follow stopped talking about CoD's graphics back with MW2. The games still look really fucking nice, but not like other titles that blow it out the water (Bioshock 3). I wouldn't doubt that it would lose sales for lesser graphics, Hell no. Just not fail entirely.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 30, 2013)

Yeah, I think most people would agree that while pretty, CoD's graphics aren't the most advanced in the world. It's also pretty well accepted that the only reason they're good at all is because of the closed-in environments the game has you playing in. They're pretty good at making it seem bigger than it really is, though - Remember in CoD4:MW when the US soldiers are closing off streets in the middle eastern town with barbed wire just in time to keep you from going that way?

The emphasis with CoD is: Apply a thick coat of sheen, make sure it can be rapidly developed without major changes to the engine, make sure it runs at 60.


----------



## Neybulot (Oct 3, 2013)

In the long run? No.

In the short term? Yes.

We're starting to get to a point where visual fidelity isn't as much of an issue, so people will care more about frame rates and then when they've maxed that, actual gameplay because you can't really do much else from there but innovate gameplay.

I think if you stuck every console gamer in front of a proper 120Hz monitor with a game running at 120 FPS, they would be shocked and wonder why consoles aren't trying to do that. PC gaming really has the advantage in that aspect and it shocks you how much of a difference in smoothness it actually is and how much more involving certain games feel. This is especially true when games are supposed to be involving and make you feel like you're in control, unlike film or the majority of video running at 24/30 FPS.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 3, 2013)

A lot of people's computer monitors are not at 120hz. However, many don't really understand the correlation with HZ and FPS


----------



## Runefox (Oct 3, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> A lot of people's computer monitors are not at 120hz. However, many don't really understand the correlation with HZ and FPS


This is true. 120Hz monitors do however allow for a higher displayed frame rate assuming the display accepts 120Hz signals and not just a 3D mode. 60 FPS is generally around the upper limit to what the human eye is able to detect in terms of motion (actually closer to 80 or so but differs from person to person), but a higher frame rate means less noticeable frame rate stutter at the higher frame rates, and a lower input latency in games.

Generally speaking, this is not a big deal; 60Hz with a high enough frame rate mitigates part of the problem anyway, and input lag isn't as big a problem as it used to be with LCD's. The biggest draw to 120Hz is the lack of 3:2 pulldown in 24FPS film content (assuming you're not running a 120Hz monitor for the 3D).

It should be noted that non-3D "120Hz" and "240Hz" TV's do *not* accept a 120Hz signal; Instead, a motion compensation system handles the 60Hz input and smooths frames, ironically causing higher latency. Personally, I do like the higher frame rate effect this provides for TV and cartoons especially, but prefer native for movies and games because of the latency and introduction of artifacts and sometimes inconsistent frame rates.

</another useless technical trivia post>


----------



## Teal (Oct 3, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> A lot of people's computer monitors are not at 120hz. However, many don't really understand the correlation with HZ and FPS


I don't even know what that is.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 3, 2013)

Teal said:


> I don't even know what that is.


<another useless technical trivia post>

Hz or "refresh rate" refers to how quickly a display can actually show unique images on the screen; 60Hz is the standard in North America, which is a product of the electrical system, which also runs at 60Hz (in Europe, it's 50Hz; The 120Hz analogue there is 100Hz). 100/120Hz is a requirement of 3D in order to keep things smooth while alternating each eye. 3D shows two images per eye in the same time as a 2D image, which needs double the refresh rate.

FPS is the number of full images *sent* to the display per second by the source, regardless of the display itself. Usually, video games run at 30 or 60 FPS; 30FPS is considered sluggish, and anything lower is normally considered very poor. North American TV broadcasts run at 30FPS*, while film runs at 24FPS. The problem with film's 24FPS is that it doesn't divide equally into 60, so in order to keep the film running at the proper rate, a 60Hz display will have a 'judder' to it known as telecine judder. 120Hz displays on the other hand can display it without judder, because 24 divides equally into 120 (and so does 60 and 30). In Europe, TV broadcasts at 25FPS, and film is simply sped up slightly (audio included) to match that.

If the FPS is higher than the refresh rate, "tearing" can occur, where the screen is unable to keep up and receives images too quickly. This is usually minor, but results in two different images being shown at once. With PC gaming, VSync fixes this by locking the frame rate to a multiple of the refresh rate and ensuring that the screen receives new images to display only when it's able. The unfortunate thing about this is that it's "holding back" frames, causing some lag. Some people swear by having it off to squeeze extra milliseconds off of their reaction times in games.

* : 29.97. Originally _actually_ 30, but when colour TV came about, in order to keep black and white TV's compatible, the colour signal caused a very slight delay. Imperceptible, may as well call it 30.


----------



## Teal (Oct 3, 2013)

Wow.


----------



## Judge Spear (Oct 3, 2013)

Teal said:


> Wow.



Just nod your head and rub your chin like you know what they're talking about. That's what I do. :3


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 3, 2013)

Runefox said:


> It should be noted that non-3D "120Hz" and "240Hz" TV's do *not* accept a 120Hz signal; Instead, a motion compensation system handles the 60Hz input and smooths frames, ironically causing higher latency. Personally, I do like the higher frame rate effect this provides for TV and cartoons especially, but prefer native for movies and games because of the latency and introduction of artifacts and sometimes inconsistent frame rates.
> 
> </another useless technical trivia post>



You mean the Soap Opera effect? I actually *hate it*. I'm glad you can turn that off. I noticed it when watching shows like Game of Thrones. It immediately made it look like it was shot with video, making the green screen look more obvious. We had first noticed it on my sister's TV watching Dark Knight Returns wondering why the damn thing looked so fake. It's fine for Sports, but it does make feature animation look more bizarre due to art direction and movies look stranger. That's why the Hobbit 48 fps was not met with enthusiasm. http://news.cnet.com/8301-33620_3-5...ct-when-your-tv-tries-to-be-smarter-than-you/

However, the general knowledge of HZ goes out the window when talking about Plasma TVs because it's not the same. That's why I was kinda dismissing the previous post about "Proper 120hz monitor and a game at 120 FPS" since they're not the same and is not the factor for gaming. 120HZ works better because of the division in the case of LCDs and LED (again Plasma is a different animal). 24fps can divide evenly into a 120hz but not in 60hz.



Teal said:


> I don't even know what that is.



When you go into Advanced Settings for your Monitor http://gyazo.com/4fea5e40dab9ab8136bcaa30064ce159.png?1339959493

You'll know what HZ your monitor is.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 3, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> You mean the Soap Opera effect? I actually *hate it*.


It's not for everyone, and not for every type of content. Beyond the mocomp, you still get the solid 24FPS with a 120Hz display, so it's not all gimmick.



> However, the general knowledge of HZ goes out the window when talking about Plasma TVs because it's not the same.


I'll be honest: I'm still not exactly sure where plasma TV's get their wacky 480Hz and 600Hz shit from. Apparently it's some kind of technique to reduce flicker and create better-looking images due to how plasma works (more like turning a light switch on and off quickly), but it's a huge misnomer because people constantly compare the two even though they mean different things entirely.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 3, 2013)

Here: http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/


----------



## BennyBunnycorn (Oct 3, 2013)

XoPachi said:


> Yet somehow, those games will get high reviews anyway. *cough**SineMora**cough*



...I'm starting to wonder if you guys think games automatically suck if they have anthro-characters in them. No one here ever seems to show any praise for any anthro game, and when talking about games that suck, anthro-games are almost ALWAYS the ones getting mentioned.


----------



## Kalmor (Oct 3, 2013)

BennyBunnycorn said:


> ...I'm starting to wonder if you guys think games automatically suck if they have anthro-characters in them. No one here ever seems to show any praise for any anthro game, and when talking about games that suck, anthro-games are almost ALWAYS the ones getting mentioned.


... Please don't fucking start this argument again. I sense a "you guys are not furries" comment coming.


----------



## BennyBunnycorn (Oct 3, 2013)

No, I'm just asking if games automatically suck for having anthro-characters in them.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 3, 2013)

BennyBunnycorn said:


> ...I'm starting to wonder if you guys think games automatically suck if they have anthro-characters in them. No one here ever seems to show any praise for any anthro game, and when talking about games that suck, anthro-games are almost ALWAYS the ones getting mentioned.



I can think of a lot of examples to the contrary. Dust: An Elysian Tail, Star Fox, Sonic the H-hahahaha, no, but seriously, old Sonic games were rad, Beyond Good & Evil, Ratchet & Clank, Jak & Daxter, Banjo Kazooie, Crash Bandicoot, The Elder Scrolls, World of Warcraft (I consider it bad but many don't), Final Fantasy, Breath of Fire (<3 Katt), Rayman, Klonoa, Sly Cooper...

The thing is, games with anthro characters aren't bad because they have anthro characters in them. They're usually only bad when furries make them. Dust is a GIANT exception to that one.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 3, 2013)

BennyBunnycorn said:


> No, I'm just asking if games automatically suck for having anthro-characters in them.



You'd have to be fucking retarded to _genuinely_ ask a question like that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

It's been discussed MANY times on this forum about adding anthros to games (or anything really) doesn't detract from the quality of the game itself, but you have these three scenarios:

A: Someone makes a game for furries. The game is actually horribly, shittily made, incredibly bland, and highly unoriginal. The only selling point to this game is "woof it has furriez!! ^.^" The game gets played by only 50 people until they realise that the game actually fucking sucks and they instead play fundamentally superior games.

B: Someone makes a game that has anthropomorphic characters in it. The game is actually decent. However, the game was made with the intent of appealing to furries at the same time and anthropomorphic animal characters are thrown in with reasoning that just doesn't fit into half-decent design. It's like putting medieval knights into Star Wars just because you "can". _It just doesn't fit_. This poorly-reasoned design choice is often a flag that indicates that the game will no doubt have other parts in it that were poorly designed/planned, holding the game back from its potential which could have been reached if it wasn't headed by someone who wanted to put his favourite thing into everything.

C: You make games like Runefox mentioned. The anthro animal characters fit PERFECTLY with the mood and the setting and the scenario of the game. It becomes an example of why people are into anthro animals in the first place - CLASSIC CARTOONS. The niche little subculture that is the furry fandom latches onto it, and the game profits because it draws in lots and lots of other people. It's not a wolfabooweeb fap fantasy. It's a quirky lighthearted game with fun animal people that has a _ton_ of universal appeal.


----------



## BennyBunnycorn (Oct 3, 2013)

Gibby said:


> B: Someone makes a game that has anthropomorphic characters in it. The game is actually decent. However, the game was made with the intent of appealing to furries at the same time and anthropomorphic animal characters are thrown in with reasoning that just doesn't fit into half-decent design. It's like putting medieval knights into Star Wars just because you "can". _It just doesn't fit_. This poorly-reasoned design choice is often a flag that indicates that the game will no doubt have other parts in it that were poorly designed/planned, holding the game back from its potential which could have been reached if it wasn't headed by someone who wanted to put his favourite thing into everything.



I don't normally mind if they're "out of place" as long as the game is fun.


----------



## Wither (Oct 3, 2013)

BennyBunnycorn said:


> ...I'm starting to wonder if you guys think games automatically suck if they have anthro-characters in them. No one here ever seems to show any praise for any anthro game, and when talking about games that suck, anthro-games are almost ALWAYS the ones getting mentioned.



Starfox 64, the best on rails shooter (almost) ever imo. 

Yeah I hate it. 
Spyro? Yeah that sucks too. 

I literally facepalmed hard enough to leave a mark.


----------



## BennyBunnycorn (Oct 3, 2013)

It's really not as stupid as you guys make it out to be. You don't see your posts the same way another person might, so their interpretation of a post seems stupid. But some might have a hard time interpreting otherwise.


----------



## Wither (Oct 3, 2013)

BennyBunnycorn said:


> It's really not as stupid as you guys make it out to be. You don't see your posts the same way another person might, so their interpretation of a post seems stupid. But some might have a hard time interpreting otherwise.



People being stupid is not _*my*_ problem, It's their's.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 3, 2013)

BennyBunnycorn said:


> ...I'm starting to wonder if you guys think games automatically suck if they have anthro-characters in them. No one here ever seems to show any praise for any anthro game, and when talking about games that suck, anthro-games are almost ALWAYS the ones getting mentioned.



Maybe he thinks a game fucking sucks because it concentrated on graphics and not gameplay Quit accusing people of being some kind of hate on the furry parade because he already stated why he hated the game previously. HE said NOTHING about it having anthro and I don't know why you have a bug up your ass about Xopachi


----------



## BennyBunnycorn (Oct 3, 2013)

Huh? I don't have a bug up my ass over XoPachi. I just find it odd that he chose, like, the one furry game that goes "graphics over gameplay" instead of anything else. And not to mention, I notice that a lot of people here slander anthro games even when they're not even bad. In no way is it just XoPachi.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 3, 2013)

BennyBunnycorn said:


> Huh? I don't have a bug up my ass over XoPachi. I just find it odd that he chose, like, the one furry game that goes "graphics over gameplay" instead of anything else. And not to mention, I notice that a lot of people here slander anthro games even when they're not even bad. In no way is it just XoPachi.



You decided to pick apart his dislike for a game with a really ballsy ass assumption. Yes I'm calling you out on your bullshit. You don't get to hide behind "Everyone else" facade. you are being just as much as a judgmental ass as you claim others to be. You could at least apologize that it was your mistake to assume that it was the reason for why he disliked a game and stop lumping him in with whatever prejudice you have of others. 

You stop making everything some "anti furry" bullshit.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 3, 2013)

BennyBunnycorn said:


> Huh? I don't have a bug up my ass over XoPachi. I just find it odd that he chose, like, the one furry game that goes "graphics over gameplay" instead of anything else. And not to mention, I notice that a lot of people here slander anthro games even when they're not even bad. In no way is it just XoPachi.



Dude.

There's a whole bunch of people wanking it to Okami, Animal Crossing, Pokemon, Digimon, Conker, Starfox, and Chocobos from Final Fantasy in multiple threads in this section.

Nobody here slanders games because they're "furry".


----------



## Wither (Oct 3, 2013)

BennyBunnycorn said:


> Huh? I don't have a bug up my ass over XoPachi. I just find it odd that he chose, like, the one furry game that goes "graphics over gameplay" instead of anything else. And not to mention, I notice that a lot of people here slander anthro games even when they're not even bad. In no way is it just XoPachi.


Alright, sorry to instigate this further, but please give examples. I have not seen this anywhere ever.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 3, 2013)

BennyBunnycorn said:


> Huh? I don't have a bug up my ass over XoPachi. I just find it odd that he chose, like, the one furry game that goes "graphics over gameplay" instead of anything else. And not to mention, I notice that a lot of people here slander anthro games even when they're not even bad. In no way is it just XoPachi.


The only time I have ever seen someone bitch about anthro games were the new Sonic games. And it wasn't because of anthros, it was because they were bad.
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of furry gamers here love the hell out of games with anthros in it.

It would be kinda hard to go all "no anthros period" given that a lot of games HAVE ANTHROS IN IT that tickle our nostalgia.
Croc
Gex
Spyro
Crash Bandicoot
Sly Cooper

and holy mother of fuck was Okami a good game.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 3, 2013)

Why are we even talking about whether furry or not is the problem? This whole topic is about Graphics hurting the industry *which is why Xopachi chimed in with Sine Mora*, someone can stop being an idiot and stop derailing it.


----------



## Wither (Oct 3, 2013)

Oh my god, Gex! I forgot about that gem <3

Er
Uh
Graphical focus is hurting the industry a bit, yeah, but not as much as the lack of Innovation.


----------



## BennyBunnycorn (Oct 3, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> You decided to pick apart his dislike for a game with a really ballsy ass assumption. Yes I'm calling you out on your bullshit. You don't get to hide behind "Everyone else" facade. you are being just as much as a judgmental ass as you claim others to be. You could at least apologize that it was your mistake to assume that it was the reason for why he disliked a game and stop lumping him in with whatever prejudice you have of others.
> 
> You stop making everything some "anti furry" bullshit.



It didn't even have anything to do with XoPachi. I didn't even notice it was his post until you pointed it out. And again, I've noticed that from MULTIPLE people here: anthro-games labeled as crap even when they aren't.


Arshes Nei said:


> Why are we even talking about whether furry or  not is the problem? This whole topic is about Graphics hurting the  industry, someone can top being an idiot and stop derailing it.



Honestly, a game that fits this example is Final Fantasy XIII. Great graphics, sub-par gameplay.

Also, I'm not being an idiot.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Oct 3, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Why are we even talking about whether furry or not is the problem? This whole topic is about Graphics hurting the industry, someone can top being an idiot and stop derailing it.



I don't think that graphics is hurting the industry as a whole, but it does jack the costs and development times of AAA titles _right the fuck up_. 

On the other hand, look at all the indie games with 16-bit graphics faring so damned well financially and spiritually.


----------



## Wither (Oct 3, 2013)

There was a thread mad a bit ago about furries in video games. You can bring it there Benny so as to not get in trouble for derailment.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 3, 2013)

BennyBunnycorn said:


> Also, I'm not being an idiot.



You aren't, when the topic was about Game Graphics hurting the industry and you come in with a stupid sidebar that had nothing to do with the topic?


----------



## BennyBunnycorn (Oct 3, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> You aren't, when the topic was about Game Graphics hurting the industry and you come in with a stupid sidebar that had nothing to do with the topic?



Yeah, I know I shouldn't have, but that doesn't make me an idiot.

Honestly, though. I can think of many games that choose graphics over gameplay. Usually, game-play and fun-factor are what I care about most. I could care less if a game had ugly, pixelated graphics as long as it was fun.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 3, 2013)

Gibby said:


> I don't think that graphics is hurting the industry as a whole, but it does jack the costs and development times of AAA titles _right the fuck up_.
> 
> On the other hand, look at all the indie games with 16-bit graphics faring so damned well financially and spiritually.



Yeah a lot of it has to do with culture of the industry. With people so in tuned with finding about their games on time, there's definitely more development time pressure that's passed on to the employees working on the game. As an employee you do have that comradeship and want to finish the game. On the other hand companies are taking advantage of their labor. Then of course with threats like sending jobs overseas...it can get pretty terrible.


----------



## DarkShadow777 (Oct 3, 2013)

I really think that this graphic quality madness it hurting the whole gaming industry... for the worse, I've read that the next Metal Gear game will add automatic life regeneration to the gameplay, so they can focus more on kickass graphics and less on giving the player a real gaming experience...

I really miss that times when difficulty was the aim for a challenge in any game you bought and played, now, is just like making games with superb graphics for mentally uncapable... really sad.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 4, 2013)

DarkShadow777 said:


> I really think that this graphic quality madness it hurting the whole gaming industry... for the worse, I've read that the next Metal Gear game will add automatic life regeneration to the gameplay, so they can focus more on kickass graphics and less on giving the player a real gaming experience...


Since when does an automatic health regeneration mechanic have anything to do with graphics quality?

As if eating a million rations to regen health made any more sense.


----------



## DarkShadow777 (Oct 4, 2013)

Runefox said:


> Since when does an automatic health regeneration mechanic have anything to do with graphics quality?
> 
> As if eating a million rations to regen health made any more sense.



Maybe they are not, but seems that there is a somewhat weird relation between dumbing down  a gameplay and increasing quality of graphics, may be wrong, but the most impressive the game looks, the easiest it becomes.

Having life regen is just making things easier when is not needed, where is the effort needed by the player of winning without this helps? Th funny part is that ths game is supposed to get really impressive graphics (720p or 1080p... I guess the former)...

Again, I may be wrong, but I see this relation


----------



## Judge Spear (Oct 4, 2013)

There is no relation.


----------



## Judge Spear (Oct 4, 2013)

BennyBunnycorn said:


> ...I'm starting to wonder if you guys think games automatically suck if they have anthro-characters in them. No one here ever seems to show any praise for any anthro game, and when talking about games that suck, anthro-games are almost ALWAYS the ones getting mentioned.



I heard my name. And no. As a Shooter fanatic there is slew of reasons why I hate that piece of shit. Anthros were the LAST thing on my mind.

EDIT: Fook... Pardon the double. ><


----------



## RTDragon (Oct 4, 2013)

I am surprised we are talking about 3D graphics yet not much respect for 2D graphics. I am surprised there's not many games that do both right.


----------



## Judge Spear (Oct 4, 2013)

Cave, WayForward, and Vanillaware have my favorite ongoing 2D styles.


----------



## Iffy350 (Oct 8, 2013)

Expect better gameplay early on in generation 8(xboxone and ps4) and better visuals later on. Its becoming expensive for devs yes but I think the industry will aim for better gameplay in the coming generation over graphics as it will be cheaper but also make for a better gaming experience. Later when they can wrangle in the cost of visuals expect better looking graphics and great gameplay as well.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 8, 2013)

Iffy350 said:


> Expect better gameplay early on in generation 8(xboxone and ps4) and better visuals later on. Its becoming expensive for devs yes but I think the industry will aim for better gameplay in the coming generation over graphics as it will be cheaper but also make for a better gaming experience. Later when they can wrangle in the cost of visuals expect better looking graphics and great gameplay as well.


This is kind of what I expect, but not because of any particular emphasis on gameplay or executive decision; Rather, I expect the extra overhead as far as power goes with the coming generation to allow less time spent during development on actually getting the games to run properly (_especially_ due to the very PC architecture of the next-gen systems, which will ease development dramatically, along with largely similar architectures between the big two and PC's, leading to easier cross-platform development). This, at least in theory, means that there's more development time and money available to try new things with gameplay and overall add more polish/QA to new titles.

As time goes on, expectations are that graphical fidelity will increase, and this will ultimately lead to the current state of affairs in the next generation all over again, as it always has. As unbelievable as it may be, eventually the wall will be hit again (in this case, most likely in processing power rather than memory constraints, along with upcoming 4k displays), and another generation of consoles will have to roll out. The way things are looking, future home consoles will eventually end up streaming titles instead of actually playing games on the consoles themselves. The advantages of this lie in the fact that hardware is no longer limited; Need more graphical horsepower? Sure, pop it into the server. No need to upgrade the console. The disadvantages, however, are immediately obvious to anyone who lives in an area with high latency or low bandwidth. Not to mention the problems with online play on release day that almost every major title has had over the past couple years.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Oct 8, 2013)

Since Sony is also working at 4k displays, I would not be surprised if PS4 is already spec'd or will be ready to work with the new resolutions. Something similar to when they banked on 3D being the big thing.


----------



## Runefox (Oct 8, 2013)

Arshes Nei said:


> Since Sony is also working at 4k displays, I would not be surprised if PS4 is already spec'd or will be ready to work with the new resolutions. Something similar to when they banked on 3D being the big thing.



I'm pretty sure both the PS4 and XBOne are specced to "support" 4k displays, but only in the same way that the PS3 and 360 "support" 1080p - Almost never rendering at that resolution.


----------

