Game development teams get bigger and bigger, and the budgets are as big as those of movies now. This is a huge factor of larger cost for developing games, than in the past. But, for single player games at least, this huge factor only increases the quality of what the human senses get in the game (the detail of maps, the graphics, the audio and music, realistic models and voice dialogues, ...). However, for me, the graphics and audio quality make up only a small fraction of what makes a game good (fun to play, replay value, the "want" to continue playing, ...). That what makes a game fun to play hasn't increased the last 20 years. Mario, zelda, Unreal 1, Wolfenstein 3D, Tomb Raider II, StarCraft, etc.., are all examples of games that are very good for me. I don't see an increase in fun to play, games of today are not "better" than games of 10-20 years ago, except that the cost of developing them was much bigger. Who cares how many triangles the monster you shoot has, in Doom I and Doom II the monsters were really rewarding to kill (thanks to good sounds of both the monster dying and your weapon), few games have been able to achieve that (except serious sam 1 and SE). Do you think the multi million dollar budgets on games are well spent these days?

Quote:
However, for me, the graphics and audio quality make up only a small fraction of what makes a game good (fun to play, replay value, the "want" to continue playing, ...). That what makes a game fun to play hasn't increased the last 20 years. Mario, zelda, Unreal 1, Wolfenstein 3D, Tomb Raider II, StarCraft, etc.., are all examples of games that are very good for me.

All of these games had very good graphics for their time, some even pushed the envelope. Just an observation. For me, graphics is as important as everything else, it helps create the immersive atmosphere which is what I seek in a game.

Quote: Original post by mikeman

Quote:
However, for me, the graphics and audio quality make up only a small fraction of what makes a game good (fun to play, replay value, the "want" to continue playing, ...). That what makes a game fun to play hasn't increased the last 20 years. Mario, zelda, Unreal 1, Wolfenstein 3D, Tomb Raider II, StarCraft, etc.., are all examples of games that are very good for me.

All of these games had very good graphics for their time, some even pushed the envelope. Just an observation. For me, graphics is as important as everything else, it helps create the immersive atmosphere which is what I seek in a game.

Hmm, I included them for gameplay especially:

Wolfenstein: first 3D shooter - agreed, this pushes the envelope of graphics, but it's also a completely new genre

Tomb Raider II: I didn't know its graphics were so special for that time. I found this the best TR of the whole series due to the good levels and atmosphere

StarCraft: brilliant RTS, very good storyline and gameplay. And released in a time when most games were 3D (and luckely SC wasn't, its 2D graphics are better than low poly models...)

Unreal 1: good levels and atmosphere, but you're right, also revolutionary graphics, but made with love :)

Mario: just pure fun

Zelda: Many zelda games are super great, story, gameplay and puzzle-wise, I don't think they were on the frontline of graphics though, just following the technological trends

As mikeman stated, many of the games you listed had top of the line graphics. In terms of gameplay and what made them fun, I think nostalgia has a lot to do with it. Whereas graphical quality can be judged objectively (not how good it looks, but the technology it uses), "fun" is completely subjective. I've seen many kids try some of the older games, even the earlier Marios and Zeldas, and just be completely unable to play them because they were boring and ugly.

Quote: Original post by Lode
Do you think the multi million dollar budgets on games are well spent these days?

That's a business decision for the companies to make. What you believe individually doesn't have much of a bearing.

If their accountants and business analysts believe they can make the game for less money and still make the same profit, then they will do so.

It is fairly simple business calculus to compute and model the estimated cost, revenue, and profit, and then work out a safe balance for their bottom line.




On the consumer side, you don't care about their budgets, you care about if the game is worth the money you pay for it. If you agree, you buy it. If you disagree, you don't.

I had a bout of nostalgia a few years ago and felt similarly to what you're saying here and went back and played a number of my old favorites, including several you've mentioned. Doom I, Legend of Zelda (NES), Super Mario Bros. (NES), Contra, Fallout, several of the Ultima series games, Roadwar 2000, and more. I have many fond memories of all those games.

I ultimately came to the conclusion that what has really changed is our expectations as gamers, and the perception that modern games aren't as good as our old classics is a direct result of those increased expectations, and not a lack of innovations in the games themselves. When I pulled those old classics out of the past and gave them another run, it became very clear to me that, by today's standards, virtually everything about those old classics fell flat on their faces. If you were to take any one of those games and do nothing more than dress them up in the best modern day graphics and audio, they would completely fail next to the latest and greatest games of today.

While only computer game related, the following is an archive of Computer Gaming World.

For you Computer Game History Buffs, or those who just want to see what it use to be like, one thing you'll soon realize is that graphics always mattered.

Quote: Original post by Raskell
If you were to take any one of those games and do nothing more than dress them up in the best modern day graphics and audio, they would completely fail next to the latest and greatest games of today.

I haven't played action games much, so I'm curious -- would you say the same holds for strategy and adventure-type games too?

I played "Beneath a steel sky" recently, it has something like 300x200 resolution graphics, and still was fun. I have never played it before, so there is no nostalgic value to me.

I don't fully buy the "Nostalgia" card, since kids can indeed often go back to old games like Mario 3 and have a blast, while not being turned off by 8-bit graphics. However, it is still a significant factor. I refuse to rewatch Mortal Kombat Annihilation because I know the current me will think it sucks.

Games have

>always

>been

>about

>graphics though, to some degree.

Just remember kids. "Now you're playing with power."

Something I was thinking about not long ago was similar to this topic. I've started playing around with FarCry2 recently and had some fun and "wow"ed at some of the graphics and open world, but only after a few hours of game play I don't feel much of an urge to play it anymore.

I think this is because too much focus goes into graphics and the idea that it's an open world and you can do whatever you want, and not the actual game play. The "game" part of most games seems to be lacking. The old art of mastering something to progress to the next level only to be forced to do it a little better seems to be a thing of the past.

Unfortunately graphics is what sells games. The pretty pictures on boxes and on websites that make people go "ooh i can see the pores on that guys face!". Once the money has changed hands it's almost as if the developer doesn't care if you keep playing or not.

Someone mentioned that it doesn't matter what we think about how the budget is used on a game. While it's true from the business point of view, from a gamers point of view it matters quite a lot. If a game has a budget of whatever and 90% of those resources are spent developing the graphics and the remaining 10% is used on actually implementing a game, then from my "gamer" point of view I could see that as greatly wasted resources. Of course other peoples opinions may differ.

It is true though, that it's up to the company to decide where to put the money and they're going to put the money to what works. Currently that's graphics but I hope (naive maybe) that people will start to get over the "wow" factor of modern graphics and start demanding more game than graphics.