# Today I am reminded why new game companies are rare.



## ADF (Jul 28, 2008)

> i hope someone doesn't accidentally buy this game...





> I demand this trash to be removed from the site. D:





> whats with the graphics? theyre total shit





> Jesus, are they serious?
> 
> I mean, with all the technological advances that our modern technology has made in console and PC gaming, I get this? Wtf?





> WTF was THAT!!!!!!!!
> 
> i can believe actually they will relese rhis kind of game!!!!





> This is a joke right???
> Look how realistically the buildings dissapear into the ground when damaged WOOOH NEXT GEN B**CH





> it looks like shit!!! wtf are they thinking releasing a game with this graphics!!!!





> Graphics look like playstation one game WTH? We are in 2008 dammit.



Because everyone is so freaking spoiled they won't give any new company a chance unless they have a multi million budget in one hand and a brand new engine in the other.

I enjoy graphics as much as anyone else, but I'm not thick headed enough to expect top of the line visuals from a start up indie developer. What's the game? That is irrelevant, as people are not even interested in knowing anything about the game because the graphics dared to not meet modern expectations.

So we the gamers deserve the endless regurgitations from big name developers, we deserve the repetitive game play and rarely seeing anything new being brought to the table, because we won't give anyone new a chance.


----------



## Rockario (Jul 28, 2008)

amen to that! Graphics shold be one of the last things on the mind of a gamer (or developer for that matter), they should get good gameplay, add a good story, refine the game-play, and then add better graphics, if they run out of money or time to put amazing graphics on Oh Well, that's what sequels are for!
this might not have anything to do with anything but, it makes me mad when people complain about graphics on a game like Guitar Hero, I bought it for the Wii and it plays the same as on every console but some people don't like it 'cause it doesn't look as good!


----------



## Widontknow (Jul 28, 2008)

I sill play sim city 2000 and sim tower >.>

But I agree this is a problem... outside the open-source community.

Wesnoth ftw!


----------



## AlexX (Jul 28, 2008)

While I most definitely agree that gamers aren't giving new companies a chance, I must disagree on the theory that graphics mean nothing. While it's not the most important thing in the world, it's not meaningless, otherwise my friend who's a professional graphic designer would be in need of a new job.


----------



## Aurali (Jul 28, 2008)

>.> seriously now. The amount of effort alone to make a videogame is enough to turn off a company...


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 28, 2008)

Not quite an excuse. Sub-par graphics are only a visible problem to a production team if they can't handle the basics of game design. Every bit of non-realistic debris, destruction, explosions, lack of bump-mapping or HDR, bleak sound, what have you - can all be tip-toed around with use of stylisation, shading, attention-grabbing or various other ways. Case in point: Geometry Wars, Audiosurf, Portal.

There are lots of things that make up a videogame, and while it's hard to string together everything at once, doing so is what makes a good product.

That said, I'd like to know what is the game in question here.


----------



## ADF (Jul 28, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> That said, I'd like to know what is the game in question here.



I'd rather not get into the specifics as genre bias starts to come into play, all I saw was pages and pages of people complaining about the graphics. This is the groups very first game; yet they were expecting a modern looking game right off the bat.

I love graphics, I'm a major graphics whore and consider more powerful technology to contribute an important part of a modern gaming experience. However I still appreciate the older games such as Arcanum and Fallout for offering an experience that does not rely on graphics, I'm not going to wish death on a company for not producing a current gen looking game; especially when it is *their very first game*.

I mean look at the Indie developer Spiderweb Software, they have games that look like they are from the DOS days. However they have survived for years and have a loyal fanbase; because when you look past the horrible graphics their gamers offer an in depth role playing experience, unlike some of the more action orientated games the mainstream tries to pass off as RPGs.


----------



## DarkTalbain64 (Jul 28, 2008)

Graphics are indeed a plus but it's really sad when people write off a game so easily just because it doesn't have the best graphics that are capable right now. I would at least like to see what game this is so i can see why people are bitching about it.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 28, 2008)

ADF said:


> I'd rather not get into the specifics as genre bias starts to come into play, all I saw was pages and pages of people complaining about the graphics. This is the groups very first game; yet they were expecting a modern looking game right off the bat.
> 
> I love graphics, I'm a major graphics whore and consider more powerful technology to contribute an important part of a modern gaming experience. However I still appreciate the older games such as Arcanum and Fallout for offering an experience that does not rely on graphics, I'm not going to wish death on a company for not producing a current gen looking game; especially when it is *their very first game*.
> 
> I mean look at the Indie developer Spiderweb Software, they have games that look like they are from the DOS days. However they have survived for years and have a loyal fanbase; because when you look past the horrible graphics their gamers offer an in depth role playing experience, unlike some of the more action orientated games the mainstream tries to pass off as RPGs.


Well, it just does seem very situation-specific off the bat. Was the game touted to be graphically impressive? Does it look like it should be on the cover? Is the gameplay actually any good? How important are the graphics in the first place? Are they going for realistic style to begin with?

I can think of loads of games that survive well without all the graphical innovations too, Counter-Strike and World of Warcraft hardly the last on that list. But then we get modern releases like Audiosurf instantly sky-rocketing to popularity regardless of lack of GPU-munching potential.

...Is the game in question an action-type FPS?


----------



## Spaceberry (Jul 28, 2008)

i think there are too many new companies. They release possibly one new hit title and then get absorbed. 

Take doublefine for example. Psychonauts was amazing, now after years they're finally working on a new game (brutal)... no not paws of fury (that was fun game XD)


----------



## Ackart (Jul 28, 2008)

It'd uh, help if you actually told us what GAME they were talking about?

It's pretty easy to talk shit about graphics if the gameplay also looks like an amazing turd (I assume you're talking about that Dangerous Creatures game with the spider. Generic platforming and attack-the-weak-spot boss battles go!)


----------



## ADF (Jul 28, 2008)

As I said earlier I'd rather not show the specific game; people would make judgements on whether they think it is good or not, not respond to the general subject that refers to any title in similar circumstances. 

My main issue is not whether the game is bad or good, it could end up being horrible for all I care. My problem is people are automatically dismissing it based on its visual quality; despite the circumstances of the games creation which is very low budget and a first attempt. 

Every company has to start somewhere and they won't have the budget to license something like Unreal Engine 3 from the get go. If people simply dismiss everything that isn't modern day quality then nothing new will be brought to the market, it will be the same old mega corps milking their franchises.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 28, 2008)

ADF said:


> As I said earlier I'd rather not show the specific game; people would make judgements on whether they think it is good or not, not respond to the general subject that refers to any title in similar circumstances.
> 
> My main issue is not whether the game is bad or good, it could end up being horrible for all I care. My problem is people are automatically dismissing it based on its visual quality; despite the circumstances of the games creation which is very low budget and a first attempt.
> 
> Every company has to start somewhere and they won't have the budget to license something like Unreal Engine 3 from the get go. If people simply dismiss everything that isn't modern day quality then nothing new will be brought to the market, it will be the same old mega corps milking their franchises.


The problem being, there aren't that much similar circumstances. There are tons of popular graphically non-intensive games out there, and then there are also beginner studios churning out cutting-edge games by all graphical standards (Painkiller, FEAR, Defcon, Geometry Wars, just off the top of my head).

And, of course, there are legitimate cases where you can criticize a game for being not-so-packing in the FX dept, like if you're going for a realistic first-person shooter or third-person classical fantasy action - which is simply bad game design.

...Or are you talking about games that have fun gameplay/story/etc. at the core but sport sub-par graphics?


----------



## Ackart (Jul 28, 2008)

(Painkiller, *FEAR*, Defcon, *Geometry Wars*, just off the top of my head).


Monolith and Bizzare Studios are pretty damn far away from "beginner studios" at this point. Hell, Monolith has been licensing an engine since 1998 I believe.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 28, 2008)

Ackart said:


> (Painkiller, *FEAR*, Defcon, *Geometry Wars*, just off the top of my head).
> 
> 
> Monolith and Bizzare Studios are pretty damn far away from "beginner studios" at this point. Hell, Monolith has been licensing an engine since 1998 I believe.


I'm a bit sketchy in the history department, but weren't these games their first releases?


----------



## Ackart (Jul 28, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> I'm a bit sketchy in the history department, but weren't these games their first releases?



No. Bizzare was making Dreamcast games (Something-something racing, and then Project Gotham Racing). Heck, the original Geometry Wars was a bonus game in PGR... 2, I think.

Monolith, on the other hand. Well... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolith_Productions

The more you know.

IN ANY CASE. Graphics do matter in a way. It's really, REALLY hard to get excited over a game that you control the individual limbs of a fighter in an extremely deep turn based game if the fighters are stick figures on a white plane. (Bonus points to whoever can tell me what game I'm thinking of here.) On the other hand, a game might get good sales for the first few weeks for looking pretty.... but if the gameplay is crap, well, that'll fall off QUICKLY and Gamestop will suddenly have an inventory explosion of second-hand games.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 28, 2008)

Alright. Hard fail on my part there.



Ackart said:


> IN ANY CASE. Graphics do matter in a way. *It's really, REALLY hard to get excited over a game that you control the individual limbs of a fighter in an extremely deep turn based game if the fighters are stick figures on a white plane.* (Bonus points to whoever can tell me what game I'm thinking of here.) On the other hand, a game might get good sales for the first few weeks for looking pretty.... but if the gameplay is crap, well, that'll fall off QUICKLY and Gamestop will suddenly have an inventory explosion of second-hand games.


Toribash. Woohoo, I'm a geek!

Yes, I'd say it's main problem was unrefined gameplay, skill curve as gentle as falling down on a hot iron with most of your face, and the depth compared to that of the pacific trash vortex. Well, alright, that's three main problems...


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Jul 28, 2008)

Same ignorant people bash LBP.


----------



## Micah Coon (Jul 28, 2008)

I've worked the retail end of the video game industry...I've personally dubbed what you describe as the "Ferret Syndrome". Summarized, it's basically a big ol' case of "oooh! Shinee!", since that's all graphics are - shiny. It's the same thing with movies and television - who cares if it's crap? Does it look good?

I'm just thankful there ARE little gems that are focused on game quality instead of pretty lights...who cares if they get panned for not being pretty? Those who know quality are just as numerous as the ADHD sheep.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 28, 2008)

I wonder if Team Fortress 2 actually suffers from "Not shiny enough" syndrome.


----------



## Micah Coon (Jul 28, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> I wonder if Team Fortress 2 actually suffers from "Not shiny enough" syndrome.



Eh...it's got its predecessor's reputation to back it up, so people are still interested.
That and it's got the "unique" humor thing going down.

BONK!


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Jul 29, 2008)

Well that's what you get having silly masses.

Although there is also a reversal - OMGTHEGRAPHICSARESOGOODTHATMEANSTHEGAMESUX


----------



## Lukar (Jul 29, 2008)

I don't really care much about graphics- hell, I could live with something 8-bit (or less, if that's possible). To me, it's the gameplay and replayability that counts the most. That said, if something's 8-bit, I don't expect it to look like crap; I want it to look atleast _a little_ good.


----------



## Kajet (Jul 29, 2008)

Personally I think... if the graphics are good enough for me to clearly see things then I'd say they're good enough, but if they're so piss poor that it's like quake 2 on the lowest settings and a motion blur on everything and bloom out the ass then yeah you probably should change a few things.


----------



## Spaceberry (Jul 29, 2008)

It appears that graphics aren't so much the issue now as the demographic they seem to appeal. i mean take Haze, pretty average graphics but still aims for the shooter demographic and manages. Then take Mario Galaxy, really impressive galaxy that some crowds avoid thinking its "too kiddy"


----------



## Dyluck (Jul 29, 2008)

ADF said:


> Because everyone is so freaking spoiled they won't give any new company a chance unless they have a multi million budget in one hand and a brand new engine in the other.
> 
> I enjoy graphics as much as anyone else, but I'm not thick headed enough to expect top of the line visuals from a start up indie developer. What's the game? That is irrelevant, as people are not even interested in knowing anything about the game because the graphics dared to not meet modern expectations.
> 
> So we the gamers deserve the endless regurgitations from big name developers, we deserve the repetitive game play and rarely seeing anything new being brought to the table, because we won't give anyone new a chance.



I think I kinda love you.


----------



## Urban Wolf (Jul 29, 2008)

Quite a few casual game companies have cropped up over the past few years, they seem to be booming. Nintendo's touch generations also spawned many new third parties into existance, just don't usually hear about them.


----------



## MaxRaine (Jul 29, 2008)

I must say that I, personally, agree that graphics aren't everything... but let's face it... The general gamers of today disagree more or less... A J-RPG for example doesn't really need awesomtastic graphics during the actual gameplay but basically any J-RPG fan has come to expect breathtakingly amazing CGI cutscenes by now... (I'm way more for nicely animated anime cut scenes though =P) A western Action RPG on the other hand nowadays needs quite great graphics to appeal to it's fans... It very much the same for FPS games, if FPS games doesn't look all shiny-"Man-I-can-see-the-dust-gather-on-my-weapon" people shun it unless it has some other unique way of getting a fanbase, like TF2. 

Basically what I'm trying to say is that humanity is easily spoiled and if it has come to expect a certain level of quality it finds it lame not to get that even if the company is new... it might be sad but unfortunately true.


----------



## Micah Coon (Jul 29, 2008)

WolfoxOkamichan said:


> Well that's what you get having silly masses.
> 
> Although there is also a reversal - OMGTHEGRAPHICSARESOGOODTHATMEANSTHEGAMESUX



Now now, to be fair, I don't judge by graphics. I judge by uniquity and pre-established prejudices against Final Fantasy and Halo clones.


----------



## humbuged (Jul 29, 2008)

I think that as long as the game manages to engage the player, most of the little flaws are forgivable 

Graphics are good to lure players in, then storytelling will hook them into the game


----------



## KazukiFerret (Jul 29, 2008)

Well considering I'm a masochist I intentionally seek out games that might be horrendous failures and I play them. And in my honest gaming experience, some of the worst games I've ever played in my life had great graphics and were mainstream; like BLACK, which is a game that to this day I despise with all my heart. Recently I had Disgaea 1 forced on me by my friend and now let's see what this game had against it with me going into it: it's a JRPG (I hate JRPGs), the main character look like a skeleton with flesh wrapped around it, the in game graphics are sprites, and it's an RPG. Now I ended up loving Disgaea and it was a game that mostly based on graphics some people would pass up. On the other end of the spectrum I also recently forced Turning Point: Fall of Liberty on myself because the graphics looked pretty enough and the cover art had a guy firing an M1 Garand rifle, I picked this up because it looked pretty and I now hate that game more then BLACK and Resident Evil Survivor combined because it played like ASS got raped by FAILURE and it was the sick twisted mutation that was shat out nine months later and was promptly thrown in a storm drain from an airplane.

But basically I say give each game a try, just got to a video store and rent them; if like then buy, if you hate just return it.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 29, 2008)

I'm the kinda guy that looks at Jetfighter II and finds it beautiful. Jetfighter III was godly.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 29, 2008)

Runefox said:


> I'm the kinda guy that looks at Jetfighter II and finds it beautiful. Jetfighter III was godly.


You are awesome.


----------



## Verin Asper (Jul 29, 2008)

*still playing Unreal Tournament* eh...you say something? graphics...who needs them as long I'm having fun. *resumes killing spree on UT*


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 29, 2008)

Desume Crysis Kaiser said:


> *still playing Unreal Tournament* eh...you say something? graphics...who needs them as long I'm having fun. *resumes killing spree on UT*


Reminds me. I used to manually re-texture weapons in Quake 3 so they'd look decent in this day.

Also, yes, UT is great. Ironically, it was the graphics whore of it's time and is, frankly, not bad in aesthetics department.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 29, 2008)

Unreal Tournament is and always will be a staple of my game library. The later ones are fun, too, but I just have way too much fun playing UT to put it down for good. Still, Unreal Tournament came way later for me. I started off seriously with PC gaming with Wolfenstein 3D (I admit I'm not young enough for CGA, but then my family never got a computer until I was 12 - I played it at my cousin's house on his Pentium 90). That era was definitely what I consider to be the golden era of PC gaming, and I still consider it to be. The most creative, innovative titles of all time graced the world then, on all platforms. From Wolf3D to Doom to Duke3D to Quake and all the way to Half-Life and Unreal Tournament, that's when the really good games happened.

For the PC alone, we had titles like Wolfenstein 3D, Raptor: Call of the Shadows, Duke Nukem 3D, Doom, Rise of the Triad, X-Com: UFO Defense/UFO: Enemy Unknown, Terminal Velocity, Descent, Jetfighter II/III/Full Burn, Jane's Fighters Anthology (and USN97 and ATF before it), Sopwith (=D), Quake, Half-Life, Unreal Tournament, Destruction Derby, Mechwarrior 2/3, Grand Theft Auto (the real one), Command and Conquer, Starcraft... Need I go on?

Nowadays, we mostly get cookie-cutter clones of the same game over and over again, with a few gems shining from the rough from time to time (Hi, Portal!). There's all sorts of great graphics out there, but really, it all looks the same. Back then, things _really were_ more colourful, and a lot better drawn, if you ask me. Case in point: Male WoW avatars.

Also, get off my lawn!


----------

