Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Apr 17 2014, 04:28 AM

So today I was listening to Noah Antwiller's rant about The Bureau: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tubjm4QwIQI

There are lots of games in the history of gaming where the product had to be re-done one or more times due to having to do the graphics over, e.g. Duke Nukem Forever.

Typically this happens when the dev time gets drawn out a long time. And instead of having a game that is really really well developed or well done in some way you get something that is simultaneously late and rushed. It doesn't really get the benefit of a long development time.

It seems like then players are hardly ever satisfied with the product then anyway, so what was the big deal in re-doing the graphics?

I mean, wouldn't you think that people would rather play a really good game with old gen graphics (lower system requirements!) than a POS with clunky high end graphics that is hard to run? What is with this unwavering conventional wisdom that graphics must be re-done repeatedly if they're a little bit old?

Posted by: RHat Apr 17 2014, 04:42 AM

There's a bit of somewhat questionable logic to it - screenshots and videos are your prime marketing materials, so if your graphics are out of date than the face your game presents to the world is out-of-date.

There are, of course, other ways to market the game, such as game demos. But marketing "truisms" like this are usually built on some pretty unsound foundations.

Posted by: Blade Apr 17 2014, 10:07 AM

And when you see how some games get hated or ignored just for not having "nextgen graphics", I'm not sure that most players would really rather play a good game with old gen graphics than a POS with high end graphics.
Very few commercial successes had outdated graphics.

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 17 2014, 10:50 AM

Err . .
SRO
SRR
Wasteland 2
Minecraft
MANY INDIE GAMES o.O

Posted by: nezumi Apr 17 2014, 11:36 AM

Remember, the company's goal is not to make a game you play a lot. It's to make a game you buy once. Given they're limited to thirty second video clips and banner ads, that means it has to look good.

There are a few game companies which have spent the time to build a reputation (Firaxis with Civilization, Maxis with Sim City, Interplay with Fallout, etc.), where graphics being a few generations behind doesn't really matter. But that's clearly a long-term plan, which doesn't work out for everyone.

Indie games have much lower overhead and a much smaller marketing budget, so their only choice is to move products through word of mouth and reviews. Hence, cutting graphics just makes sense.

I would be curious how many sales are made/lost based on advertising vs. reviews/word of mouth. I imagine that would be pretty telling.

Posted by: RHat Apr 17 2014, 12:56 PM

Hypothetically, this is actually an advantage to be had in the DLC model - can't sell people more co tent if they decided the game sucked.

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 17 2014, 01:06 PM

Which they managed to destroy quite fast with the latest Sim City . .
Which only looks kinda nice and plays very meh at best . .

Posted by: nezumi Apr 17 2014, 01:13 PM

Stahsteele, you're right. Plus Civ is working on pushing itself out of the market. I still enjoy playing Civ 2 and Civ 4, and have no compulsion to buy Civ 5.

However, I do regularly need to buy a new flight simulator because those new graphics are an improvement, even if there's no other new content.

Posted by: Stahlseele Apr 17 2014, 02:02 PM

Civ5 is pretty damn good to me.
still as hellishly addictive as ever.
and i am very much looking forward to beyond earth.