A couple of years ago I was talking to game designer Harvey Smith about the levelling off of the curve of the graphical arms race. We were speculating as to how long it would be before the constant increase in visual fidelity would take us to the point where the graphics in a game could be indistinguishable from reality. I suggested that while I did not think we were very close to that point, I suspected we may have already passed the point of No One Gives A Shit. From then on I started referring to that point in time – which I now believe is in the past – as the NOGAS Point.
My current, and more rigorous, definition of the NOGAS Point is: the moment in time when the baseline graphical quality deliverable at runtime in a game stopped being the principle motivator in game purchasing for the average gamer.
What this means is that the average person still cares about graphics and – all things being equal – would prefer superior graphics over inferior graphics. But all things are not equal. Gamers will happily accept inferior graphics in exchange for mobility. They will accept the hyperreal eclecticism of seeing themselves onscreen in a game played with a camera. They will accept cartoony characters in order to play with motion controllers. The incredible success of the Wii and the explosion of mobile, tablet, phone and thin-client web gaming has effectively proven we are beyond the NOGAS Point.
I think the biggest open question for games going forward – and the one that will likely determine the structure of the game industry for the next decade or more – is how the NOGAS Point will impact the future of gaming hardware. I am not exactly sure how it’s going to shake out, but here is the question I keep asking myself: if I had $600 to allot to gaming, what would I rather spend it on?
Would I buy a $599 set-top console with a dual-analogue controller, an HDMI cable, and one bundled triple-A launch title that offers eight hours of linear gameplay and graphics that incrementally improve on subsurface scattering algorithms, spherical harmonic lighting and radiosity, and a beer? Or would I rather buy a $299 fifth-generation tablet that wirelessly streams HD visuals to any TV, plus a Bluetooth dual-analogue controller for $60, allowing me to play triple-A games with current-gen graphics, while giving me the capability to simply take that tablet anywhere and use it to work and play on just as I do today? Plus a dozen or more games ranging in cost from full-price triple-A console games to 99¢ mobile games? And a case of beer?
Some people will say I am crazy and that they would prefer Call Of Duty 8 with better graphics because they are not going to play it on the bus anyway. That’s a valid point, but I am not talking about playing Call Of Duty on the bus. I am talking about having Call Of Duty in your pocket so that next time you are bored in a hotel room you can instantly connect to the TV, or next time you and four friends give up watching the match because it’s a blowout, you can all pull out your tablets or phones and play without the need to all go back to your own set-top boxes and reconvene virtually.
And all of this is to say nothing of the new kinds of ways you would be able to access your game. Open-world games or RPGs like Assassin’s Creed or The Elder Scrolls or GTA can offer more robust simulations of other activities such as developing your citadel or empire, or managing your crime family or guild. All of these new activities could add depth and richness to the simulated worlds, and could easily be designed to be played bite-by-bite as a supplement to the main portion of the game.
Another factor in the equation is the rise of alternate input devices. If the next generation of set-top boxes is going to continue to introduce expensive new alternate input devices including motion sensors, cameras, touchpads, exercise devices, 3D glasses, musical instruments and who knows what else – all in addition to the standard dual-analogue controllers – is the typical consumer really going to want to spend top dollar on the box itself and then shell out hundreds more for peripherals?
To me, I guess, it seems that the cost of a super-hot octo-core machine that requires multiple peripherals and a separate power supply with lots of fans is that I have to have a big, dedicated box plugged into the wall and plugged into my television in exchange for an incremental graphical improvement. What I would prefer is to skip a generation of graphical iteration and do away with all the bulk and cables and heat and cut the chains that tie my triple-A gaming experience down in exchange for mobility, accessibility and the creativity that will need to come from designers to drive this future forward. This future does not prevent me from playing immersive triple-A action games in HD in the dark on my couch – it liberates me to play those games, and many more, in many different ways, whenever and wherever I want.
Comments
5I completely disagree that there is a sufficient graphic baseline now. I think it's a cop out and that the media is trying to sell us this concept to convince us that's how we feel. Yes, development costs and time for detailed graphic worlds are higher and that's a limiting factor, but it doesn't mean that we just need to accept the status quo. In the old days, the goal for future games was photo-realism or hyper-surrealism combined with full immersion (AKA Virtual Reality). I don't see any reason why that goal should change. And we are most definitely not there yet. The reason casual games are winning is because AAA titles forgot to be fun--which goes all the way back to the change from sprites to 3d. Developers forgot that people like fast playing games with simple mechanics. They got carried away with telling stories, that are quite honestly terrible and can in no way compete with film or TV. Games are only now getting sophisticated enough to occasionally be considered narrative art, whereas many games throughout time can be considered graphical art. I am 100% for the creative boom that is happening in indie games right now. Absolutely reclaim the fun factor of games, and bring new control mechanisms to the table. But let's not just assume that graphics are "good enough" now. That's ridiculous. Players should not have to only have looks or only have fun. Developers (hardware and tools developers too) should push themselves for the sake of games fulfilling their destiny to be art. That will take excellence in every department.
A more negative way to look at things might be to say that gaming is bewilderingly fractured. Lots of people don't care about graphics, another large group will go and spend hundreds of pounds upgrading their PC to play Battlefield 3. In between that are a huge spread of people that will trade off game play and graphics on a game by game basis.
Call Of Duty certainly isn't the best looking console game, but sells millions every year. Part of its success might be a solid 60fps frame rate. Hardware that could deliver that for every game might be more useful that a huge leap in graphics.
I really agree with this. Even if we must optimize graphical features like framerate & co, the first goal of video games is the use of interactives ways for immersion. The man machine link.
The new step for more immersive gameplay is in new way of control. Not only motion control, but all the combination to enlarge the gaming applications.
Future Wii U controller, Kinect 2, new tablets... will be the most value for next gen, but not in big improvement graphics.
Costs, uses, needs, engaged us in this direction, and i'm happy to that.
And yet, given all this, if we look at the actual data from sales we see that the 3DS isn't doing that well and has had to have an almost unprecedented price drop a year after launch. We'll see how the vita does but to me it looks like people prefer having the best graphical experience that can be offered when in their home and whilst out and about are happy to kill a bit of time on a $0.99 game.
It all depends on what you mean by graphics. Are you including animation? If so then you are also probably including physics. What about other issues like hair and cloth modelling? There's a LONG way to go before the 'graphics' curve levels off.