Few artists, big impact

[hishadow]

If you examine the credits for your favourite games, you'll notice that the bulk of people contributing are related to graphics and programming. Is this because those parts of game development are inherently large tasks to solve? Contrast this with the musician, a one-man army where no task seems insurmountable.

My questions are:

Is graphics and programming inherently a large team effort considering todays standards?

Do you know of a select few artists working in small teams who defied these apparent obstacles?

[skavenhorde]

Depends on your standards I would suppose. Many indies only have a few (if that) artists. Some games can be very successful with only a few artists.

Dungeons of Dredmore had only a few I believe. One before David and I'm not sure if he had any other help on the project. If so it can't be many.

Jay's Frayed knights has had some licensed work, some done by him and some commissioned by freelance artists.

IIRC I asked Vic Davis who did his art and I believe he told me that his sister or brother did the art for Armageddon Empires. I'm not 100% on that though.

So to answer your question I think it's yes. David being the prime example of that.

If you want both artist and programming then Jay's your best example. He managed to program the game while getting the art any way he could.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I saw the review of a book regarding "making games" in a computing magazine this weekend.

As far s I saw it, it contained *nothing* about artists.

It's as if people would believe that programming a shooter with no story (like Unreal PvP or so) is all one needs (to do).

I might be biased, but I get the impression that artists who are working on games don't quite get the credits they deserve. And if, then they are most likely graphics artists. No story needed !
The emphasis is clearly on programmers etc. nowadays.

Outside of making software, graphics artists are almost like pop stars in computing nowadays. Not the stars nerds like to see, but stars the (more or less) masses like to see.

At the Games Com I saw a small exhition of "art of games" or how it was called. It was an exhibition of paintings of gam graphics artists.

I thought : "why doesn't there exist such an exhibition for word artists ?"

And - there doesn't exist a thing like "Deviant Art" for word artists either.

There are imho biases of several kinds - sorry that I'm hijacking this thread again.

[hishadow]

Depends on your standards I would suppose. Many indies only have a few (if that) artists. Some games can be very successful with only a few artists.
Just to clarify, I didn't necessarily mean jack of all trades, but small groups of artists (of 5-10 people in total) who can compete with medium-large productions in terms of output/quality, where the lower end of a medium-large production might be akin to Piranha Bytes or Runic Games (25-50 people).

[skavenhorde]

Same quality as PB with 5 - 10 people? Guess it could be possible if they stopped having lives and started living at work. Other than that I would say no, but I know as much about the actual creation of art assets as any other armchair developer.

I'll shut up now and let a real artist answer this question. :P

[GothicGothicness]

For a modern 3d game. You need a small army of artists. I'd say you need more artists than programmers.

The reason for this is, you need to create a high-poly 3d model, a low poly 3d model, normal maps, specular maps, alpha-maps, textures, LOD, and so on. For skeletal assets you also need to create the realistic animations, bounds and so on. The more powerful hardware gets the more time it takes.

An artist is also needed to design the lighting and so on for every in game level.

[Menigal]

For a modern 3d game. You need a small army of artists. I'd say you need more artists than programmers.

The reason for this is, you need to create a high-poly 3d model, a low poly 3d model, normal maps, specular maps, alpha-maps, textures, LOD, and so on. For skeletal assets you also need to create the realistic animations, bounds and so on. The more powerful hardware gets the more time it takes.

An artist is also needed to design the lighting and so on for every in game level.

Very true. Most of the people I know of in the gaming industry these days are artists, and you only need to look at the constant demand for graphic wonderness as the most important feature to see why. Of course, my university had a good computer graphics department, so that skews things slightly.

[DArtagnan]

Well, since the AAA industry has become primarily about "experience-driven" games, the art workload has increased to ridiculous levels.

Personally, I think it's a huge waste of time and effort, but it seems most people are happy with games that mostly play themselves whilst showering you with the spectacle.

The teams get much bigger, which means less creative integrity as a consistent and unified vision is all but impossible to maintain - and the budgets are so bloated that you can't take chances with the design.

To me, it's nothing but bad.

[Menigal]

Well, since the AAA industry has become primarily about "experience-driven" games, the art workload has increased to ridiculous levels.

Personally, I think it's a huge waste of time and effort, but it seems most people are happy with games that mostly play themselves whilst showering you with the spectacle.

The teams get much bigger, which means less creative integrity as a consistent and unified vision is all but impossible to maintain - and the budgets are so bloated that you can't take chances with the design.

To me, it's nothing but bad.

Well, that's what happens when you put marketing teams who don't understand games in charge of game design. They ignore those who do understand games and try to turn them into other forms of media they do understand (ie, films). And that's (possibly) going to drive the mainstream industry into ruin, which will probably be a good thing. The big boys will go away, leaving room for smaller developers to emerge from their little niches and rebuild.

[DArtagnan]

Well, that's what happens when you put marketing teams who don't understand games in charge of game design. They ignore those who do understand games and try to turn them into other forms of media they do understand (ie, films). And that's (possibly) going to drive the mainstream industry into ruin, which will probably be a good thing. The big boys will go away, leaving room for smaller developers to emerge from their little niches and rebuild.

Well, the problem isn't just the people making and marketing the games - but the audience who wants to play them.

I don't think we can really blame anyone, and I don't feel entitled to games that work differently.

Obviously, the businessmen have taken over - and the audience accepts it.

All I can do is feel sad that I'm no longer the target audience.

Thankfully, the middle-market is opening up - and on top we have games like Deus Ex - Human Revolution showing us that AAA games don't have to be all about the spectacle.

But it's going to be some years until the mainstream audience starts to expect more depth and complexity. For now, it seems, they're happy with the spectacle.

Also, it seems that while we have to accept casual difficulty levels and simplified features - some of the big boys still want to hold true to some of the genre staples. Games like Skyrim and Kingdoms of Amalur seem to have enough "good stuff" for gamers like me.

Oh, I won't get the gameplay I want - but at least I'll get huge open worlds full of stuff to explore. That kind of thing was always very rare, and I'm glad that SOME things are improved from the past.

Today, we get games that actually work and that still retain a very ambitious scope - even if we don't have to be awake to actually play them.

It's not quite so bad as I made it sound ;)

[GhanBuriGhan]

It doesn't always have to be an army. L. of Grimrock shows that a small team of pro artists can create a - by modern standards- appealing looking game by limiting themselves on the environments and environmental interaction (- although we will see how good a game it is until released). Games with stylized graphics, like Winter voices, world of Goo, or Limbo also show that strong art direction can still carry a game, even without technically frontline graphics enginges.

Finally, the easily available engines, tools, art repositories etc. get better and better, allowing faster creation of assets - at least if you can make do without the latest and greatest, shader and mapping bling.

But if you want to compete in the "best Gfx" department, then yes, you need those huge teams.

[Menigal]

I don't mind things being a bit simplified, as long as there's enough fun left in the game. Like you, I think Skyrim's going to have enough good bits to balance out the "streamlining", and the modders will work their magic to fix any glaring issues.

As for the audience being part of the problem, how many of them simply don't know any better? Let's face it, most people who call themselves gamers now probably wouldn't have, say, 10 years ago. They were eased into it by games that a lot of us older gamers already thought felt outdated, overly consolised, and relied far too heavily on graphics (generalising massively here, of course, so don't take this as an attack on younger gamers), but were normal to them. That's what they're used to, and, as you say, that's the market the big developers cater to.

Anyway, getting slightly off topic here. Yes, graphics/animation take up a huge percentage of the development budget that would probably be better spent on gameplay.

[DArtagnan]

As for the audience being part of the problem, how many of them simply don't know any better? Let's face it, most people who call themselves gamers now probably wouldn't have, say, 10 years ago. They were eased into it by games that a lot of us older gamers already thought felt outdated, overly consolised, and relied far too heavily on graphics (generalising massively here, of course, so don't take this as an attack on younger gamers), but were normal to them. That's what they're used to, and, as you say, that's the market the big developers cater to.

Yeah, that's true.

But it's like everything else you can spend your time with.

You know, like I enjoy a good glass of wine - but I don't really give a shit about the "finer" points of where it was made or what the history of it is.

A wine "conneseur" would bash me over the head, because I drink cheap crappy wine.

Then he could spend several hours educating me about the grapes and the "flavor" or whatever, and he'd probably be right. But it's an acquired taste - and a lot of people will never care about such things.

That's how I tend to look at gaming. We can't expect the "uneducated" to ever care, and there's no "right" way to play or make games.

I can but hope that there is such a thing as an objective quantification of quality in games, and that more and more people will eventually agree with that.

If so, then the mainstream audience should, some day, make sure that game designs actually evolve - rather than constantly orbit the ancient formulas that we're still seeing after all these years. It seems to me that we stopped evolving the actual designs - and instead started refining and polishing them up until only the bare bones of them is left. Then we added a shit-ton of "spectacle" - and that's what most AAA games are today.

[Menigal]

Hey, you'll never catch me bashing cheap wine! :p

This makes me think about Spore, and what could have happened if it had been a success. Regardless of how shallow, bad, and just mistaken the game itself was (make anything you can imagine… and play through this dull, linear campaign with bizarre "balance" restrictions in the final, real sandbox stage!), you have to admit it showed off what can be done with procedural animation.

[DArtagnan]

Hey, you'll never catch me bashing cheap wine! :p

This makes me think about Spore, and what could have happened if it had been a success. Regardless of how shallow, bad, and just mistaken the game itself was (make anything you can imagine… and play through this dull, linear campaign with bizarre "balance" restrictions in the final, real sandbox stage!), you have to admit it showed off what can be done with procedural animation.

Spore was an interesting experiment, but like most Maxis games - it wasn't really a "game".

I feel the same way about what Molyneux tries to do. They're making toys that do interesting stuff, but they're not making cohesive games.

I'm all for interesting experiments, but I knew that Spore wouldn't be for me way before release.

From my point of view, we already have a very good understanding of what gameplay is - and what is required for entertainment. Certainly, that's what I tell myself.

I'd much rather we evolved what we know than try to desperately come up with "new" stuff.

Much like movies and books, there are only so many stories at the core - and it's much more about trying to tell the same story in new ways, than trying to come up with something unique. For games, I think it's about taking established game design paradigms - and then taking them further. That's what I would do, if I was in a position to do so.

When I think about "peak" designs like, say, System Shock, X-Com, or Master of Magic - I have wonder why developers haven't tried to evolve them.

Oh, we've seen a zillion clones or inspirations - but nothing to actually bring those designs forward.

Even the most popular genres, like shooters or MMOs - seem to revolve around taking established stuff from other genres and implementing it in otherwise archaic designs.

It's as if high profile developers are oblivious to what game design is and how to go beyond what was before.

Maybe they just don't care.

[Menigal]

Maybe they just don't care.

Actually, I think that's a big part of it. Oh, not at the individual level, but with the project team as a whole, with all of the various restrictions, deadlines, demands from executives who've never played a game in their lives, etc. From what you hear from the people in the industry, it sounds like it just sucks the soul out of everything.

There's also the problem of "updating" gameplay in sequels/remakes/spiritual successors in ways it doesn't need. Someone decides that the old game, despite still being played and loved, needs to be "fixed" for modern gamers. Done right, this could improve things, but more often you get the addition of weird minigames or more "gamey" elements in general.

Dungeons comes to mind here. They could have just taken Dungeon Keeper, modernised the graphics, thrown in a few little tweaks, and had a game that old fans would have loved. Instead of making it a simulation game, with creatures to take care of, etc., it's a strange sort of… amusement park in a dungeon game? This one probably wouldn't have been so jarring if they hadn't gone for such a clear "look at this, it's like DK!" approach. A lot of that's the media, of course.

I had a couple more examples when I started writing this, but I've forgotten them now. :p

[hishadow]

Any thoughts on Frictional Games' Amnesia (http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/amnesia-the-dark-descent/credits) which is upward 15 people (and even fewer for Penumbra)?

[Motoki]

Well, the problem isn't just the people making and marketing the games - but the audience who wants to play them.


Well I don't think it's the audience per say as much as it's the companies. Years ago software companies were happy to cater to niche or genre audiences and many became known for doing a particular genre especially well.

Companies aren't happy with that anymore. They have to cast the widest possible net in terms of audience and so everything gets watered down to the lowest common denominator as games try to be all things to all people. The huge budgets necessitate this, but the problem is that companies don't get that bigger does not always mean better and that you can make a profit on a niche game with a much smaller budget and team if done well.

On the other hand, indie's are experiencing a resurgence thanks to digital downloads. These are games that you wouldn't see in the brick and mortar stores next to the big titles but now you do see on the front page of the digital download stores. Just pray that EA doesn't get their way and fragment the digital download market forcing everyone to buy straight from the publisher.

There's also the casual and mobile gaming trend that even if it isn't your thing is definite proof that you don't need to throw a ton of money and have 100 people working on a project for it to sell.

I definitely think we're in a big transition period for gaming. Hopefully there is some good to come out of it. I'd like to see more successful smaller companies and groups that are happy with their size and don't need to be swallowed up by the likes of EA.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Please don't forget adventure games !

Those need - in the current state - only a relatively small team - are sometimes even in 2D (Full Pipe, for example) and can thus be made by a relatively small team.

But on the other hand, they need - as far as I can see it - *very* good writers, because that'd be their (the games) strength, then.

It's part of the genre : It doesn't need great graphics to succeed. It needs a good story.

And that makes me wonder why exactly adventure games are so few internationally ? doesn't the public want good stories - or the "industry" ? Or both ?

Even LucasArts is doing rather shooters and remakes instead of good, story-based games nowadays - and that says a lot (imho) !

[DArtagnan]

And that makes me wonder why exactly adventure games are so few internationally ? doesn't the public want good stories - or the "industry" ? Or both ?

Basically, the audience willing to invest the mental resources required to succeed in an adventure game - is too small for the AAA market.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Ah, yes, okay, if you see it from that point, it would also support shooters ...

On the other hand, I also onder whether this is an age-thing, too ? Shooters for the younger audience, casual games - and probably adventure games as well - for the older generations ?

[DArtagnan]

Ah, yes, okay, if you see it from that point, it would also support shooters …

On the other hand, I also onder whether this is an age-thing, too ? Shooters for the younger audience, casual games - and probably adventure games as well - for the older generations ?

I think it's about level of interest.

Let's say you're casually interested in Soccer - and you go to a match. You wouldn't necessarily know the players and their history, and you wouldn't necessarily give a shit about who won. You're just there to have a bit of fun and drink beer.

Most of the mainstream audience probably just want to sit down after a hard days work, and have an entertaining experience. They don't want to stare at the screen for hours, trying to figure out some obscure puzzle to get access to the next 2D screen.

Not because they're stupid or have a "short attention span" - but because they have other things in life for that kind of challenge or experience.

[Motoki]

Basically, the audience willing to invest the mental resources required to succeed in an adventure game - is too small for the AAA market.

According to VG Chartz L.A. Noire did about 1.8 million copies each on the PS3 and 360. Those aren't Call of Duty numbers but they're a lot better than DA2s for example.

Of course, the developer of L.A. Noire also went tits up recently so there's that.

[DArtagnan]

According to VG Chartz L.A. Noire did about 1.8 million copies each on the PS3 and 360. Those aren't Call of Duty numbers but they're a lot better than DA2s for example.

Of course, the developer of L.A. Noire also went tits up recently so there's that.

It's also not a puzzlebased traditional adventure.

I really liked L.A. Noire, but it was a very casual approach to challenge. I certainly don't remember being stuck for long.

It was also shock-full of "the spectacle" and featured completely superfluous action-based gameplay on the side. The budget was likely pretty damn big, and is a good example of what you'd have to do to get the mainstream into the "adventure" genre again.

[Motoki]

It's also not a puzzlebased traditional adventure.

I really liked L.A. Noire, but it was a very casual approach to challenge. I certainly don't remember being stuck for long.

It was also shock-full of "the spectacle" and featured completely superfluous action-based gameplay on the side. The budget was likely pretty damn big, and is a good example of what you'd have to do to get the mainstream into the "adventure" genre again.

Adventure doesn't have to be some lazy cookie cutter 2D Where's Waldo point and click affair. I think the problem is not with the audience but the developers and the presentation. L.A. Noire was a genuine AAA attempt at an adventure game with all the positives (great visuals) and negatives (streamling) that entails.

[DArtagnan]

Adventure doesn't have to be some lazy cookie cutter 2D Where's Waldo point and click affair. I think the problem is not with the audience but the developers and the presentation. L.A. Noire was a genuine AAA attempt at an adventure game with all the positives (great visuals) and negatives (streamling) that entails.

It seems you're not really following the discussion. This isn't about players not wanting to play games with adventure elements.

It's about why the traditional adventure games are no longer being produced by non-indie developers.

It's my opinion that the audience is just too small for that kind of game, and I don't think L.A. Noire has much to do with the traditional adventure game - beyond the detective aspect and the fact that it has a story.

Alrik is precisely talking about "Where's Waldo point and click" games.

It's because they don't reward you unless you're willing to sit down and figure out puzzles, and there are no distractions in the form of the spectacle or action-based gameplay. It's just you and your brain.

That kind of game needs a player willing to make such an investment, and - speaking in general terms - you won't find someone like that in the mainstream audience.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Alrik is precisely talking about "Where's Waldo point and click" games.

Err, no, actually. What you mean is called a "Wimmelbild"-game here. Where's Waldo ?

What I mean with "adventure games" is something like The Day Of The Tentacle, or outright Monkey Island.

"Wimmelbild" is to me "casual games", among other sub-genres within the "casuals" market (and yes, there *are* sub-genres there !)

I assume L.A. Noire has sold quite bad here in Germany, because NO-ONE playes adventure games like THIS in consoles ! I think the developer probably didn't know much about the German market.

Had L.A. Noire been ported to Windows XP at least, THEN, I assume, it would have been a safe bet. slowly, but steadily, because criminal adventures are rare here.

Edit : I just see that L.A. Noire isn't even available for PC here in Germany !

What a mess ! : They totally fail to connect themselves to the - probably - world's biggest still functioning adventure games market for the PC platform …

And on Amazon.com the game is said to be available for the PC platform on "December 31st, 2011" … What a mess. I'm not surprised anymore.

Someone told them BS, I fear. "Make an adventure game for consoles, and totally ignore the only working adventure games market in the world - Germany - in which country almost the entire adventure games market is based on the PC platform."

It's because they don't reward you unless you're willing to sit down and figure out puzzles, and there are no distractions in the form of the spectacle or action-based gameplay. It's just you and your brain.

That kind of game needs a player willing to make such an investment, and - speaking in general terms - you won't find someone like that in the mainstream audience.

Except Germany, again. The "Crazy Machines" franchise is so popular that even today games are produced for it !

And don't forget games like the (in)famous "simulation" games here ! Farming Simulations ? Who the heck needs that ? But it sells here ! Don't know why !

Germany seems to be a very special market, it dawns on me.

[DArtagnan]

What I mean with "adventure games" is something like The Day Of The Tentacle, or outright Monkey Island.


Yeah, that's what we're talking about :)

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Where's Waldo is something entirely different that MI to me.

[Motoki]

Yeah, I wouldn't put Monkey Island in the same category as the multitude of 'hidden object' games on Big Fish. The latest Monkey Island games are even 3D and fully voiced.

[hishadow]

Yeah, I wouldn't put Monkey Island in the same category as the multitude of 'hidden object' games on Big Fish. The latest Monkey Island games are even 3D and fully voiced.
Telltale has quite a bit larger team than say Piranaha Bytes. Same goes for Quantic Dream who did Farenheit and Heavy Rain.

[DArtagnan]

Where's Waldo is something entirely different that MI to me.

It wasn't about the Waldo character, but the kind of gameplay where you look at the screen for interactive objects - and often they're quite well hidden. You look for them, much like you'd look for Waldo in a picture.

[Motoki]

It wasn't about the Waldo character, but the kind of gameplay where you look at the screen for interactive objects - and often they're quite well hidden. You look for them, much like you'd look for Waldo in a picture.

Yeah, I think he get's that part. What we're trying to say is that MI isn't about that. It's about reacting to situations and choosing what to say or do next. There is using of objects and sometimes you find objects, but they are usually out in the open and that's not the bulk of the game like other games where the entire game is locating hidden objects on a 2D picture.

Basically, this is an example of how the gameplay works with Monkey Island

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI47Q1m6Iv4

It's not unlike the dialog segments of c&c oriented RPGs really.

[DArtagnan]

Yeah, I think he get's that part. What we're trying to say is that MI isn't about that. It's about reacting to situations and choosing what to say or do next. There is using of objects and sometimes you find objects, but they are usually out in the open and that's not the bulk of the game like other games where the entire game is locating hidden objects on a 2D picture.

Basically, this is an example of how the gameplay works with Monkey Island

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI47Q1m6Iv4

It's not unlike the dialog segments of c&c oriented RPGs really.

I know MI very well, and though I wouldn't strictly place it the "hard" category of the mentioned "genre" - I would most definitely include it in "traditional 2D adventure demanding patience and cerebral investment". I'm not sure why you've linked to a modern 3D game, but it's not the Monkey Island I'm talking about. Much like Day of the Tentacle, I'm talking about the original Monkey Island.

It's EXACTLY the kind of game that we're not going to see from AAA developers, because the audience for that kind of experience is too small. That's why they eventually moved towards full 3D and console-like controls for the recent ones.

That's been my entire point from the beginning, and I'm not sure why we're even talking about whether MI is strictly a "Waldo point and click game".

I just assumed you understood what the conversation was about, and that's why I assumed your Waldo example was meant to include games like MI or whatever specific games Alrik might have been talking about.

Whether you agree with me or not, though, is another matter.

If you think the AAA audience would welcome this kind of 2D traditional adventure game, then we just happen to differ on that.

[Motoki]

Christ, you always nitpick and argue everything down and think everyone is misunderstanding you when sometimes you are misunderstanding them. And oh yeah, the last word thing too. :p

I am talking about the series as a whole, yes it has evolved, and I even mentioned in a previous post that the newer ones are in 3D and fully voiced. They're still classified as Adventure games too.

What I'm saying is that Adventure games, like every other genre, have changed over the years and there's still an audience for modern Adventure games. If you compare an RPG from 20 years ago to an RPG from today they're very different. Every genre is.

Of course there is less of a market for the old style Adventure games. There is less of a market for old style RPGs and for that matter old style games of any genre. The exception being the casual and mobile markets where you will see lots of old style games, at a much lower price point of course.

[hishadow]

Christ, you always nitpick and argue everything down and think everyone is misunderstanding you when sometimes you are misunderstanding them.
You could say, he's an acquired taste. :D

[DArtagnan]

Christ, you always nitpick and argue everything down and think everyone is misunderstanding you when sometimes you are misunderstanding them. And oh yeah, the last word thing too. :p

I am talking about the series as a whole, yes it has evolved, and I even mentioned in a previous post that the newer ones are in 3D and fully voiced. They're still classified as Adventure games too.

What I'm saying is that Adventure games, like every other genre, have changed over the years and there's still an audience for modern Adventure games. If you compare an RPG from 20 years ago to an RPG from today they're very different. Every genre is.

Yes, I just live for arguing and nitpicking - it's the SPICE OF LIFE my friend ;)

Nah, I'm guessing I'm much like yourself in that way. When people seem to misunderstand me, then I like to clarify. The difference might be that I give up much later and if that's a big problem - I advise you to stay far awaaaay from me. It's much easier ;)

Of course there is less of a market for the old style Adventure games. There is less of a market for old style RPGs and for that matter old style games of any genre. The exception being the casual and mobile markets where you will see lots of old style games, at a much lower price point of course.

If it's so obvious - then what's your point again? You could have agreed with me, and then moved on to your point about modern adventure games.

I was STRICTLY talking about old-style 2D adventures - or more precisely cerebral and challenging games of the adventure genre. You brought up L.A. Noire and mentioned that it had a big budget.

If your point is that there's a market for another KIND of adventure game, then I'd tend to agree - though I still don't see anything resembling "old-style" games with an AAA budget. But it's also irrelevant to the point I was making, which is what I'm trying to clarify over and over.

But it is indeed getting tiresome.

As for iPhone games and stuff like that, you're right - but as you say, with a much smaller budget and I suspect the audience is mostly old fans of that kind of game.

You're saying there's still an audience for adventure games, and naturally that's true. A good story is universally appealing. The problem, however, is that you can't expect the modern mainstream audience to engage themselves too much - because they're not that interested. That goes for ANY genre - and adventure games in particular, because they don't really have much in the way of reward or distraction when you're stuck or challenged.

Would you agree with that?

[DArtagnan]

You could say, he's an acquired taste. :D

Like several of the finer things in life ;)

[Dhruin]

Well I don't think it's the audience per say as much as it's the companies.

Don't let the audience get away with it so easily. Even on this website, which we made to support a relatively niche genre, people regularly post about consoles holding back graphics. Not bad UIs or control schemes - what they really want is more polys.

[Motoki]

Would you agree with that?

Yes. :p

I think the problem came in that Alrik said 'What about adventure games?' and you said 'There's not a market for those' and it wasn't really clarified (at first) what sort of adventure games. I was taking the genre as a whole but yeah if you want to look at old style games well any old style games of any genre will have less of a market these days.

Don't let the audience get away with it so easily. Even on this website, which we made to support a relatively niche genre, people regularly post about consoles holding back graphics. Not bad UIs or control schemes - what they really want is more polys.

Except that those same people probably play iPhone or Android games. ;)

I think for me I am critical to a point on visuals for what a game is trying to be. If it's supposed to be a full 3D game and the models are realtively low poly or the textures low res then yeah I'll complain about that. We've got some games like the Witcher 2 that raise the bar very high.

On the other hand, a 2D game that runs in high resolutions with nice art I will rave about. Not because it's more advanced than a 3D game, it isn't, but because it's done well for what it's supposed to be.