Video games have never been capable of looking better than a well-executed game today, as processing power has brought consoles and PCs the power to create visuals that often border on real life. This has been a wonderful development for gamers looking to get in control of players in sports games that look and feel as much like the games going on in real life.
Unfortunately, it hasn’t been entirely beneficial to the industry or to gamers, as the increased potential for mind-blowing visuals has led to some negative decisions in the development process and in how the broader community discusses games. Today, we look at how, as pretty as they are, these high-end visuals could also be negatively impacting the quality of the games we play.
The Rise Of Next-Gen Visuals In Gaming
Whenever a new piece of visual technology drops in the development world, it becomes a priority among segments of the fanbase to see it proliferate quickly. When ray tracing became the hot topic in visuals, even games not shooting for realism — like the Mario Kart series — became a part of the conversation.
On a positive note, this has led to some truly incredible-looking games that can deliver breathtaking gaming experiences, aided by the intensely realistic visuals. When well-integrated, mind-blowing graphics can transform a great experience into a truly incredible one. There is no denying that, visually, we are in a great moment in video games with no shortage of games that will blow your mind on the screen.
Negative Repercussions Of Accelerating Graphics In Sports Gaming
Unfortunately, it has not always been to the benefit of gaming in general for things to keep looking better and better. While in a vacuum it’s rarely the case that a game taking a visual step forward is bad for the quality of the game, decisions are not made in a vacuum. The sports video game ecosystem is a complicated one with many interconnected concerns, and as a result, there are drawbacks that have come with this improvement. Some of the top concerns about enhanced visuals and their impact on development as a whole include:
Limiting Potential Audiences
The first area where sports games can suffer is PC gaming in general, as mind-blowing graphics become more often the expectation and not the exception, and that’s in the shrinking of the potential audience for games. While PC gamers understand that there are limits to a gaming PC setup and that eventually the time will come when even cranking down settings on new releases proves a bit too challenging for your system and upgrades or a new purchase are required, faster graphical development means faster obsolescence.
There was a time when a sports game would not be expected to be particularly labor-intensive. I used to play leagues of the current Madden with custom teams imported on a fairly affordable laptop in the early aughts, while now, a gaming tower no older than that laptop was in its final years, was still struggling with some textures even on reduced fidelity settings. This limits access to the games, hurting both the gamer community and the industry’s bottom lines.
Reduced Creative Experimentation
Adding in more processor-intensive graphics doesn’t just ask more of a gamer’s PC or console; it is also a bigger ask of the developers making the games. The more enhanced graphics in games also require more work to produce, meaning that they inflate the production costs for the game company, as well.
It’s no secret that the video game industry is currently in a state of flux, with many big-name studios holding layoffs, getting acquired by even bigger names, or shutting down entirely. When you increase the cost of production, you also increase the pressures that those working on the game will feel from these same outsized forces. A development team that is under increased scrutiny from higher-ups may feel disincentivized to take big chances in the developmental process.
A big swing comes with risk: you may hit on the next big mechanic, or you may release a game-killing addition that players hate. The more expensive a game is to produce, the harder it becomes to justify taking a big shot, which can serve to further extend the problem of sameness that already plagues sports video games across the board.
Misappropriation Of Developmental Resources
With so much scrutiny on the spending and generating of cash flow by those with the money in video games, the way a development team allocates its resources becomes even more critical. When it comes to development, time really is money. The higher-ups on a project are working with a budget level they’ve likely had to negotiate with those even higher in the company, deciding how much is available for a given game.
That means that difficult decisions get made on game development projects all the time. Famed developer Tim Cain has spent the last few years answering daily questions and talking at length about how these decisions can be grueling and that a game is never released “perfect.”
One big criticism that developers across video games have faced as graphical capabilities have continued to grow and grow is putting too much of that focus on making a game that looks good, even at the expense of one that is good. Eye-catching visuals are extremely valuable as marketing materials, and they are amazing when included in concert with good underlying gameplay, but when a studio makes looks too high a priority, it can mean precious developmental time is moved out of fixing a gameplay issue or innovating a new mechanic or mode.
Prioritization Of Looks During Conflicts
The process of developing a video game is often a quite long and complicated one, which means that initial budget allocation and planning is not the only time a development team may prioritize visuals at the expense of mechanics. Because a video game often represents a coming together of many different pieces of code and systems into a single gaming experience, there are a lot of opportunities for unexpected problems.
When two areas of development come into conflict, there are generally two paths forward. The first is to identify the root of the issue and resolve it in a way that preserves both elements. The second, when a solution isn’t feasible or worth pursuing, is to remove or significantly alter one of the components causing the clash.
In situations like these, there is the potential for this to lead to graphics being chosen over an in-game mechanic or flourish that would otherwise have been a welcome addition to the game. High-end visuals are often considered a must for a modern major sports game to be competitive, so they’re more likely to be deemed the must-save option if something is not agreeing with a visual component.
Increased Scrutiny As Other Areas Lag
The ability to assess a project after public release and identify areas that went well and areas for improvement is an important part of the development process, both for continued support of the current game and for the development of the next annual release. The way graphical improvements have been pushed hard in recent years has the potential to shape the way this process plays out.
While space in the public conscience may not be as tangible a resource as a financial budget, there remains a limit on how much discussion and attention a community can generate, and where that discussion is focused matters. Those in the industry see where conversations are going and what they need to work on if they want a game to be more well-received.
When so much attention is given to how a game looks, it tells those making the games that that is what matters. This means that next time around, the above concerns about priorities will likely only get worse, as the community response has reinforced the idea that visuals are the most important thing to worry about.
Unreasonable Trend Expectations
The final area that could concern game developers is the way that the graphics boom cannot continue indefinitely. The closer games get to realistic, the harder and harder it gets to find room for improvement. The jump from 2D to 3D is a game changer; the move from very realistic 3D to very realistic 3D (but only a little realer) is not.
This could lead to a bit of a bubble burst if advancements begin to level out, with fans getting used to having steps forward year on year that become harder and harder to see, leading to either fan disappointment or even further resource prioritization to keep squeezing out incremental gains.
