View Full Version : EA's Vision of the Future
bapenguin
07-20-2005, 04:32 AM
Gamespy (http://www.gamespy.com/articles/634/634928p1.html) sat down with Glenn Entis, VP/Chief Visual Officer at EA to talk about the next generation of consoles and what EA's vision is moving forward. It seems EA care's a whole lot about graphics and not too much else.GameSpy: Okay, everybody knows that you can create all kinds of great graphics with the new systems. Everybody knows that the new systems have plenty of processing power and that you can run 3500 individual characters on the screen at once, all with their own A.I. Is that all we get with the new systems?
Entis: We've obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this. It starts with the graphics. We know graphics are a great focus and a great way to signal that something is new. One of the most important things that graphics have to do is deliver strong emotional impact. When I watched people yelling during the Killzone video [at Sony's E3 conference], you could see it's all about emotional impact.
So graphics first, gameplay second. Boo.
LilEvilFish
07-20-2005, 04:52 AM
y'know I've not been one to jump on the EA hating bandwagon. I still remember playing Road Rash for hours on end, that was made by the good old EA of lore but this is just.. well it's stupid.
"It starts with the graphics" oh fuck off does it! It starts with an idea, you think about how you'll realise that idea and then how to make it FUN. Not REAL.. FUN!
Pissed off with this bloody industry these days.
Liquidize105
07-20-2005, 04:56 AM
EA has a vision?
Emotions come from within the context moron, graphics can only do so much. People don't yell at games at home. Well, if you wanna call frustrated outcry of how such and such is a complete POS as being full of emotional impact.
LilEvilFish
07-20-2005, 05:08 AM
Many games strike emotion when they require the use of your imagination. Flamboyant games with "super mega 3D type graphics" don't require any use of your brain and as such generate as much emotion as.. this bottle of water.
Now when sephiroth killed aeris I nearly cried THAT was emotion.. I'll stop now..
what did she ever do to you you bastard?! *sob*
AspectVoid
07-20-2005, 05:23 AM
This isn't really surprising. You gotta look at the market that they're trying to sell to, the 12 year olds who's parents will buy them anything and the druken college students who just want things that look cool. And what sells to those people is great graphics.
Justin_McElroy
07-20-2005, 05:40 AM
Hey, I hate to be a Johnny Reality to rain on your idealism parade, but how many people have you heard complaining about being underwhelmed by the Xbox 360's limited jump in gameplay?
CapnAJ
07-20-2005, 05:48 AM
I like nice graphics :)
cppcrusader
07-20-2005, 05:50 AM
This is nothing new, EA's philosophy has always been visual. They put major emphasis on the front end of the game. If it looks well polished it must be.
Azrikam
07-20-2005, 06:25 AM
EA has a vision?
Oh, they have a vision alright... heat vision. And a forked tail, and tiny horns on their head.
See, 'cause I'm implying that they're the devil. Yes, the devil has heat vision... it's a common fact.
thegameguru
07-20-2005, 06:30 AM
Well...the interview is with the "Chief Visual Officer" (goofy ass title btw) so its pretty obvious he's going to talk about "visual" aspects..
TrackZero
07-20-2005, 06:31 AM
This seriously just has to come down to executives not being able to understand any aspect of game design except graphics. "Ohhh, the pictures look better, it MUST mean the game plays better. Do more of that!".
Hizawky
07-20-2005, 06:33 AM
I can not think of a game that had gorgeous graphics that was not at least fun to play.
Kefkataran
07-20-2005, 06:41 AM
I can not think of a game that had gorgeous graphics that was not at least fun to play.
... really?
Wow. I'd better get out the ol' book of crappy games.
Given the title I was expecting something like enslaving gamers to work in their underground salt mines.
In all truth, a part of me wants to say that this whole "graphics first" mentality makes sense. If you just take a quick glance around the boards here, all you see when a post is made showing off new screen-shots is "OMGWTF LOOK AT T3H JAGG33Z!!1111!" I even think that our concern seems to (not saying it does, but it appears that way on the surface) rest solely on how the game looks first. I don't agree with what EA is saying because I'm of the opinion that the best game library rests with the original NES, but I think it's funny that you see so much complaint when it comes to next-gen screens - heck, even current-gen - and then EA goes and starts addressing graphics and people flip.
Edit - Speaking of: just go over to the Res Evil 5 post. So much hating on the graphics. Nevermind that it's going to be wicked fun to play.
I can not think of a game that had gorgeous graphics that was not at least fun to play.
Wow, what a absurd thing to say. I can think of plenty off the top of my head.
Hizawky
07-20-2005, 06:44 AM
... really?
Wow. I'd better get out the ol' book of crappy games.
Waiting on that buddy.
Waiting on that buddy.
Mind you I ain't speaking for Kefk, but I'm going to just go on out and say Tao Feng. It's like finding that person you just think is mad hot only to discover they can't even handle velcro shoes. Maybe you're into that sort of thing?
Waiting on that buddy.
Can this list of games that had incredible graphics (and was bad) include old games that looked incredible when the title was released, but now looks dated...or do you mean only current games?
Kefkataran
07-20-2005, 07:27 AM
Lineage 2. For one.
Liquidize105
07-20-2005, 07:55 AM
I can not think of a game that had gorgeous graphics that was not at least fun to play.
Well, Pariah.
Unreal 2.
I can keep going.
Nanobreaker.
Pacific Assault.
Killzone.
Tekken 4.
Devil May Cry 2.
Maybe you're just extremely easy to please?
Hmmm crappy games with good graphics?
well there's the classic Rise of the Robots. Then there's Donkey Kong 64, Wreckless (Xbox), that fighting game for xbox who's name I can't pronounce but you could break eachothers bones, batman begins, the getaway. I'm sure there are more and I'll be back to name them.
Total Annihilation-Kingdoms, Dungeon Siege, Trespasser
Justin_McElroy
07-20-2005, 08:36 AM
Stop the presses, I have the best example:
Man of the House: The Game (http://getthesugar.blogspot.com/2005/07/exclusive-psp-game-review-man-of-house.html)
Aquanox and Comanche 4 come to mind.
Kyle Jones
07-20-2005, 08:40 AM
Ah, the exact reason why I hate EA.
Vermillion
07-20-2005, 08:49 AM
Syndicate
Civilizations
Lemmings
Worms
Great Invention Machine (or whatever it was called)
Anything that was made by Bullfrog
StANTo
07-20-2005, 09:09 AM
Many games strike emotion when they require the use of your imagination. Flamboyant games with "super mega 3D type graphics" don't require any use of your brain and as such generate as much emotion as.. this bottle of water.
Now when sephiroth killed aeris I nearly cried THAT was emotion.. I'll stop now..
what did she ever do to you you bastard?! *sob*
I agree, it ends up similar to sitting and watching television or a film. Mark Rein was even quoted to saying that the gameplay doesn't even matter compared to 3d graphics.
LilEvilFish
07-20-2005, 09:14 AM
the new metal gear solid games are evident of this filmic interpretation of a game in that the user is merrily pushed along a subtle conveyor belt of cut scenes.
I recall a game where I stumbled a few meters, hit a cutscene, stumbled some more and hit another cutscene. May have been a final fantasy game.
the new metal gear solid games are evident of this filmic interpretation of a game in that the user is merrily pushed along a subtle conveyor belt of cut scenes.
I recall a game where I stumbled a few meters, hit a cutscene, stumbled some more and hit another cutscene. May have been a final fantasy game.
Xenosaga? Perhaps?
LilEvilFish
07-20-2005, 09:18 AM
*shrug* was shit anyway
"When I watched people yelling during the Killzone video [at Sony's E3 conference], you could see it's all about emotional impact."
Maybe they were yelling, "I paid good money to get in here show me some fucking game footage you tossers" ?
IagoTheHunted
07-20-2005, 09:41 AM
It's scary that the only example they gave was a prerendered scene (and for those that think it was realtime, bear in mind that I'm an artist in games and I know lots of other artists in games and NOT A SINGLE ONE has any doubt it was prerendered. Not because the console can't do graphics like that, but because of other subtle clues that prove it couldn't be done in realtime the way it was shown). So my point is, even ignoreing the fact that they totally left out gameplay in favor of graphics, they also showd off the amazing power of... drumrole... a DVD player. Fucking anything can show prerendered graphics. Seriously sad.
mister_slim
07-20-2005, 10:00 AM
I like how Burnout 3 was used as an example of EA creativity. That wasn't even creative checkbook usage.
Royal Fool
07-20-2005, 10:03 AM
Syndicate
Civilizations
Lemmings
Worms
Great Invention Machine (or whatever it was called)
Anything that was made by Bullfrog
Troll alert.
I think he did it backwards. Crappy graphics with great gameplay, and thus great games.
Meatgortex
07-20-2005, 10:18 AM
Every time a new game gets posted to this site or any other website people make all sorts of comments about what they expect the quality of that game to be like.
More often then not those comments are completely based off the screenshots.
It is no surprise when audience excitement is based on graphics that publishers want to focus on graphics to get the audience excited.
You guys can talk about putting gameplay first all you want, but how many of you have gone out and bought a game on release day you knew looked bad, because you thought the gameplay you've heard about was going to be good?
Vermillion
07-20-2005, 10:27 AM
Sweet, first time getting called a troll. Thanks :)
I agree with Meat. Graphics are what get your first movers in the door. But good gameplay is what keeps them playing and creates a free word of mouth campaign for your game. Doom3 had great initial sales based upon hype. Then lots of people realized the game was lacking and is now held up as the poster child for the "graphics before gameplay" arguement.
Personally, I've (first mover) had two casual gamers (followers) ask me whether or not they should buy BF2 and upgrade their machines, with one even buying a whole new one. I told them no, the game looked nice, but the bugs and load times made it more annoying than fun. They didn't buy it. So somehow, for the 1 they got with good graphics and hype, 2 got away because the game itself was lacking. Take it as you will....
Kefkataran
07-20-2005, 10:34 AM
You guys can talk about putting gameplay first all you want, but how many of you have gone out and bought a game on release day you knew looked bad, because you thought the gameplay you've heard about was going to be good?
Umm... I buy all my games based on gameplay. I don't buy games until I've read reviews. The exception is when it's a game in a series I've anxiously awaited, and even in those cases I'm cautious and at least check out videos. Videos where I'm looking at the gameplay, not the graphics. Of course I hardly ever buy games on release day at all, so maybe I don't count?
But yeah, graphics are what get some people excited. The same people who watch bad movies because they're psyched about the special effects. Which keeps bad studios in business just like this keeps bad companies in business. Either way, it's hardly an excuse.
You guys can talk about putting gameplay first all you want, but how many of you have gone out and bought a game on release day you knew looked bad, because you thought the gameplay you've heard about was going to be good?
Hmmm...well I bought Stationfall the day it came out because I liked Planetfall. Infocom never had good graphics in those days. Does that count? ;)
Personally, I've (first mover) had two casual gamers (followers) ask me whether or not they should buy BF2 and upgrade their machines, with one even buying a whole new one. I told them no, the game looked nice, but the bugs and load times made it more annoying than fun. They didn't buy it. So somehow, for the 1 they got with good graphics and hype, 2 got away because the game itself was lacking. Take it as you will....
You told people not to play BF2? Some friend. The bugs and load times suck, but the gameplay is amazing.
Vermillion
07-20-2005, 11:24 AM
The gameplay is hardly "amazing" in my opinion. It can be lots of fun and the graphics are very nice, but IMHO it's a BF rehash with an award system tacked on (which isn't even a bad thing). The bug and performance issues plague the game and can cause an evening to be more annoying than satisfying. EA's track record on fixing issues in a game are suspect and I am in a wait and see mode as to whether or not this game gets its act together. I fully agree this game could be great, but it's not there yet and with EA at the helm, I'm waiting to see if it ever will be. Until then, it's sitting on my machine getting sporadic use.
I know what my friends like, and I told them both the good and the bad and my personal feelings on it. They made up their own mind. There is nothing saying that if EA gets its crap together, I won't tell them not to go get it. But I wouldn't be a friend if I let them go buy a whole new machine and then laugh when they are just as aggrevated as me.
To each his own.
Achilles
07-20-2005, 11:41 AM
I’m no big fan of EA, but really when you ask the Chief Visual Officer of the company what he thinks will be important about the next generation and he answers graphics, why are you surprised? Did you think he’d say “well my field is meaningless to the quality of a game, what it’s all about is the gameplay” Of course he’s going to concentrate on the graphics, if he didn’t think his field was the most important he wouldn’t be as good at it (and really his field is important, compelling visuals are a huge part of creating a game experience). And if you read the article he talks about graphics in terms of gameplay, not just having higher poly worlds.
PixelSamurai
07-20-2005, 12:17 PM
EA is the master of generating emotion from their games. I'm constantly getting upset and frustrated with BF2's long-ass load times, crashes, reloads, and that godawful browser that actually got fucked up worse in their debacle of a patch because now you can't change filters and update the list without reloading the goddamn effing game. Now that's emotion!
/runon sentence
Kefkataran
07-20-2005, 12:22 PM
EA is the master of generating emotion from their games. I'm constantly getting upset and frustrated with BF2's long-ass load times, crashes, reloads, and that godawful browser that actually got fucked up worse in their debacle of a patch because now you can't change filters and update the list without reloading the goddamn effing game. Now that's emotion!
Heh. Bravo. Couldn't've said it better.
Shifteh
07-20-2005, 01:53 PM
"I watched people yell during the Killzone video" is going to change to "I watched people yell about how atrocious the in-game play is."
Shifteh
07-20-2005, 01:56 PM
Not because the console can't do graphics like that, but because of other subtle clues that prove it couldn't be done in realtime the way it was shown
You mean "subtle clues" like there's no HUD, the guy never actually gets hit by anything, and there was no change from "cinematic" scenes to "ingame" ones?
My whole class laughed after we saw it - because before hand my teacher told us "they tried to tell us this was in-game.. just watch, haha!"
Hizawky
07-20-2005, 05:16 PM
Wow, you guys sure showed me. Those games you listed that are 'horrible' with great graphics all got over 70% on game rankings. Last time I checked, that meant good.
Kefkataran
07-20-2005, 05:21 PM
Lineage 2 got a 63%. Bitch.
Also, I don't think Game Rankings is a great way of checking this, but I'd say between 70-80% only agrees it's average or just above there, definitely not that it's "a lot of fun" to play or whatever you said.
Hizawky
07-20-2005, 05:43 PM
Oh no, 7% less than 70! It is a 63%! It is a horrible game now, thank you for convincing me. Silly graphics, stop stealing all the fun!
Stop chasing phantoms, guy.
Kefkataran
07-20-2005, 06:57 PM
Oh no, 7% less than 70! It is a 63%! It is a horrible game now, thank you for convincing me. Silly graphics, stop stealing all the fun!
Stop chasing phantoms, guy.
I'm not saying graphics are the problem. I was just refuting your ridiculously stupid statement that ANY game with good graphics is instantly fun. Likewise, I was refuting your incredibly short-sighted statement that any game 70% or above on Gameranking means it's good. 70% means mediocre at best, generally. And 7% is a pretty big difference anyways.
Last time I checked 70% meant that your game was almost in the upper 30 percentile of the spread. Isn't THAT good?
And all this fucking whining about good graphics bores me. You guys KNOW you're the gaming equivalent of those guys in black turtlenecks and fucking berets that go on about art house movies. When are you going to realise that every person on this site could quit buying EA games tomorrow and EA wouldn't be out of pocket from it. They're not selling to us, they're selling to the REAL market - the market that never finishes its games, buys all the Madden titles each year and doesn't spend its freetime researching or commenting on game development online.
And if you want to hit the sector of the market that we refer to as the "Profit making sector" then good graphics are more than an adjunct - they are KEY.
I mean, I loved Uplink and I'm currently playing Darwinia, but I DO realise that I'm in a minority here.
Azrikam
07-21-2005, 03:08 AM
Last time I checked 70% meant that your game was almost in the upper 30 percentile of the spread. Isn't THAT good?
That would be true if the average game rating was 50%. It's clearly not. I think it's closer to 70 or 75%. (Game Critics are teh suck at statistics)
Kefkataran
07-21-2005, 06:22 AM
Last time I checked 70% meant that your game was almost in the upper 30 percentile of the spread. Isn't THAT good?
70% has basically become average because game reviewers tend to review high. I haven't looked up stats on GameRankings yet, though I will if you want. If a game gets 60-75% you can bet it's probably average or just above. If a game gets less than 60% it's probably pure shit. Again, my argument was not that these games (or at least Lineage, the one I named) are completely horrible, but that they aren't fun. My point is just this: assuming a game must be fun because it has good graphics is dumb. That's it.
I also recognize that I'm in a minority as far as gaming is concerned. I'm still going to be disgusted with EA's thoughts on graphics just as I'll continue to be disgusted with the crap that Hollywood feeds us even as I know I'm in the minority that doesn't eat it. I'm not going to whine about it, but I am going to think it's stupid and, should the subject come up, say so.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.