Pushing game play forward and adopting PS2 graphics?

One thing which I have always thought is, what if a game with PS2 level graphics is made and all that extra processing power is put towards game play, physics and so forth?

So we use a lot of power for our complex lighting, textures., models etc but what if we instead tried to push game play itself? Firstly the frame rate would be insanely good! 60 fps easy and high resolution. The amount of enemies on the screen could be near endless, all with realistic physics and other effects which would be too demanding in a modern visually impressive game.

Anyways just wanted to share that thought, in case there are other gamers here who have often thought the same thing ^______^

Also happy Friday!!

First appearances, they sell.

i have also wondered about the same thing. i wouldnt go as far as locking it into PS2 graphics....say PS3/360/wiiu levels. so it would still look good. sometimes some of the most creative things can come when someone has their hand tied behind their back.

so what could they do with all the freed up ram, GPU and cpu capacity? hardware accelerated CFD in racing sims? better and more realistic physics (both the eye candy kind like hair and cloth animations but also the gameplay kind as seen a lot in BOTW). more interesting and robust AI? ai developers usually have to fight for CPU time because AI is difficult to market. more enemies and stuff on the screen (relatively simple assets for a PS4/X1/PC means they can render a lot more of them).

Didn't the latest NPD numbers show that 2/3rds of gamers buy games based on graphics ?

Which is absolute BS by the way, but it's for sure what big publishers think.

Otherwise we wouldn't have companies lying about what games will end up looking like, like Ubisoft has done multiple times.

Exactly the possibilities are large and gets my inner gamer going. I thought I'd use PS2 graphics as an example, but as long as it's past gen graphics with heaps of power left over. AI is something I've always felt could be taken further. Cloth animations would be wicked and hair/fur ^ ^ I like ur thinking

Future consoles will be getting some form of RyZen, which will be a huge CPU boost over Jaguar, even if the core count and clock speed remained the same.

A much better CPU is the first order of business for games to get much better physics, more destructible and dynamic game worlds, and overall new gameplay possibilities not yet achieved.

Think I'll have to google and educate myself on that. have heard the name a few times before. This "RyZen".

Because of how different parts of a machine do different things, just cutting the graphics down to PS2 level isn't going to cut it. In a lot of cases, it will still need a good CPU, like that guy above said.

A little different example than what you are saying but I remember the reason Paradox went 3D with Europa Universalis 3 was not to have better looking assets, but to let GPU handle some work so CPU can be used for gameplay calculations only.

Youd get something cool like Minecraft or WoW.

When examining the technical merits of games, the argument is often raised that gameplay is more important than technology. What Nintendo proves is that a great technology base is necessary in order to deliver world-class gameplay.

Digital Foundry on Super Mario 3d World, 2013

Sure, if all you got to work with is Poo, make mooaar Poo I guess. :P

Eh, that's not completely true. You would absolutely gain some over head to do other things with that power. You dial back your texture quality or whatever, and focus more on stylized visuals or something, and that will definitely give you more room to work with how many enemies you can work on screen and such. It would still be time consuming and probably not exactly cheaper, but it would naturally have its benefits. It's not a surprise the type of games that can be 60 frames per second on consoles aren't necessarily on the cutting edge visually most of the time, or they have a more limited scale in terms of their game space.

Nothing about what the tc wrote would imply a weak game engine. There are plenty of games from gen 6, hell mechanically speaking Sunshine wipes the floor with 3d World, still have tighter gameplay than a shit load of their gen 7/8 counterparts, not the least of which is just because of a tighter framerrate. He's talking about cutting back on the production value in certain areas for something else.

Which we sort of get, it's not like Bethesda doesn't do a lot of visual tricks to at least try to spruce up their games some what visually to pull off the games they make. In Nintendo's case they have more stylized visuals and vibrant art styles to mask the limitations of their hardware. Said trade off so they can have 60 frames Mario, or do what they did with Breath of the Wild (and that's with framerate issues).

I could deal with Xbox/PS2 graphics for 60fps entirely.

Gameplay and graphics are not mutually exclusive.

yep, a good game is a good game regardless of how it looks.

The Game doesn't need to break graphics card benchmarks to be considered "Amazing." But that also doesn't excuse the game of having a terrible art style.

One of the directors of Breath of the Wild said that when they had to make a choice between making something more interactive for the player or making it prettier, they always chose putting more time into making the game more interactive.

I think once graphics reach their limits overall, more focus will go back to gameplay. Developers will always have the limitations of time and have to make choices.

Dynasty Warriors did this. How successful and engaging are those games? :P

I'm very happy with the Wii U era level of graphics. If graphics never got any better I'd be fine.

Mind completely BLOWN!

SW can't connect the two.

Given the choices, I would pick graphics as my #1 out of that list too. There is no general gameplay option in that poll.

I don't care about stories, I don't care about online gameplay exclusively, price only bothers me if it's above the standards, and nostalgia is irrelevant.

That said, graphics are a big selling point. A lot of casual gamers love good looking games.

3D engine developers are spending significant time just to get their 3D engine to run more than 10 fps.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-how-the-crew-was-ported-to-playstation-4

At the Ubisoft E3 event, the PC version of The Crew was running at 30 frames per second, but the first working compilation of the PS4 codebase wasn't quite so hot, operating at around 10fps.

PS4 Pro has 30 percent faster CPU hence, 13 fps with direct port from PC. Project Cars developer has used four CPU cores just for GPU command list generation threads.

For PS4, Multithreading and Async Compute Engine (ACE) Units are required to maximize it's capability. PS4 has 8 ACE units.

For XBO, Multithreading, custom D3D12 command processor**and two Async Compute Engine (ACE) Units are required to maximize it's capability.

**In place of Windows PC's double stage JIT(Just In Time) re-compiler.

@ronvalencia: Honestly, the fact those statistics include mobile games, means that data is pretty irrelevant to those of us who game on PC or console and never touch mobile.

Who gives a **** what Joe Schmoe who's thinking about buying clash of clans thinks?

Is Joe Schmoe gonna go read a bunch of reviews, and figure out how good the gameplay is on a $5 mobile title? No. he'll probably click the app in the store, look at a few of the screenshots, and make a decision.

Your argument with mobile games are red herrings. The real issue is buyer's purchasing priorities.

Do you even know what red herring means?

Your argument doesn't address the buyer's purchasing priorities.

@ronvalencia: Not what it means at all, but thanks for playing.

You like charts and quotes so much, here's one for you.

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/graphics-not-among-the-top-reasons-people-buy-game/1100-6426659/

Imagine that, when you exclude mobile gamers, and focus on console gamers, the reasons for purchase change dramatically.

So I ask you, why would console developers develop based on the preferences of a demographic that includes MOBILE gamers?

Here's another chart for you too. This one focuses on probabilities.

Unsupported bullshit.

@ronvalencia: very effective and well thought out response. Kudos to you sir!

Following your example.

I don't think most people care if it's 30fps. Pushing better graphics will only make the game look better for the casual consumer.

I'd love the idea but generally not great for business.

So, the Switch?

@metalslimenite: LOLOL nice.

ps2?

why not adapt NES graphics like those hipster indie trash?

bbbbbut teh game play......

Most of the processing in modern consoles are within the graphics card and not the CPU.

My apologies, perhaps I should have clarified further. I'm actually referring to the entirety of modern consoles, no just CPU's. So the graphics card, RAM, everything. Dynasty Warriors was mentioned above and I feel that was actually a good example. When that launched, on the PS2, you just knew that was not possible on the PS1 and was taking advantage of extra power outside of graphics. Anyways, guess I'm saying I would like to see new gameplay elements or something added, even if its at the expense of looks.

That sounds about right and I am super glad they made that choice. The world feels very alive as a result