Quote:
Originally Posted by Xion Valkyrie
Also, there's the cost issue. The prettier the graphics, the more money the devs have to spend on it, and the less money and time they can spend on the gameplay aspects. This is why even though Crysis is a 2 year old game, it still looks way better than anything that's come out recently.
Then of course there's the hardware limitations. I'd love for the next WRPG to use the CryEngine 2, with outside areas full of lush jungles and what not, but no matter how much devs try, current gen consoles will not be able to handle that level of processing, and 99% of PC gamers won't have rigs that can run something like that.
|
Graphics are one of the big reasons why modern big name titles cost like 10X what they did to develop as they did a decade ago. That said, Crysis actually is not one of the highest budget games this generation: it cost around $22 million compared to $40-$50 for Modern Warfare 2.
As for hardware limitations and Crysis... it's part truth and part hyperbole. You can make the game look pretty at 1680X1050 using a $100 8800GT or HD4770 and only experience slowdowns at a few points - my friends and I played through Crysis and Crysis Warhead on those sorts of GPUs. It's also true that not many people had that kind of gear when the game first came out and that most gamers were looking at spending $200 on a new GPU to run the game well.
Personally, I like games that both look pretty
and play well - that's why I'm a Crytek fanboy. Although as others have pointed out, a game can look pretty due to art direction as well.