The Devil is in the detail

There are several core elements which make up a computer/video game. Code, Art, Animation, Lighting, Scripting, AI, Audio, VFX – all these elements hopefully come together to create what gamers around the world will hopefully enjoy.

And each game will be judged based on those components. If a game is buggy, code often is blamed; AI and Scripting are also looked at closely. Audio and music are key ingredients to create an atmosphere and a believable game world.

But it is Art (both character as well as world art), Lighting, Animation and VFX who are most often used to promote a game early on. Stunning concept art, stunning character art, beautiful worlds, impressive VFX (a lot of explosions, particle effects, volumetric fog etc.) and everything lit to perfection – that’s what PR and Marketing teams want and gamers drool over.

The question is though – how much detail is actually needed in the final game? Will the average gamer actual notice or are we not better off creating a game world and game play which are entertaining to play through and experience?

We can spend hundreds of hours adding little animation details to our main character (a subtle scratch of the thigh here, a twitchy finger there – while idling of course), but if this is a 3^rd person action game and the pacing is rather fast, will the player actually have time to notice them?

We can add minute details to cars and assets, perfect tiny bullet damage to the front lights of a car for example, but chances are, if this is a shooter of sorts, I won’t have time to admire my work. I’ll either be busy shooting stuff, avoiding being shot or, when a combat scenario is finished, I’ll probably quickly move on to the next area.

Why am I asking these questions?

Well it was the VGX awards recently and one game among many seemed to stand out. Ubisoft’s “The Division”. Lavish environment and stunning detail all around – have a look for yourself in this (ambitiously called) gameplay trailer.

What we see is a tech demo. A most fucking impressive tech demo, don’t get me wrong, but a tech demo still. A beautiful world, meticulously crafted. But that is pretty much all we see. For a game that has (according to rumor) been in the making for 5 years, that’s not a whole lot. I saw their E3 outing and I was impressed.  6 months on, I am not anymore. Don’t get me wrong, visually it’s stunning, their tech seems to be great (and I have to say “seems” because next-gen or not, we don’t know what the actual GPU and CPU cost is for this tech) – but where is the gameplay? Have they crafted such a highly detailed world that they simply cannot spawn in any AI due to memory restrictions perhaps?

Are we going to see yet another Ubisoft game that has the same gameplay mechanics as their Assassins Creed behemoth (and which seem to have made their way into “Watchdogs”)?

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for pushing the boundaries on tech, allowing us to get ever more immersive worlds, believable characters and environments, but honestly – after the marketing spiel is over and the players first “wow this looks awesome” moment, does anyone actually notice all these tiny details?

Before you answer yes, try to take off your game developer hat (if you are wearing one) for a second and imagine the game in full play. Take into consideration the type of game (1^st person, 3^rd person, shooter, action, puzzle etc.) and then imagine the pace you are likely to have as you go through the world. Don’t think of how you INTEND the player to go through your world. Instead think of how he ACTUALLY goes through your world. If you cannot make the distinction, I strongly suggest you get some focus testing going most ricky-tick.

Yes there are people who will literally stop and smell the roses, look at everything, but I believe that these are not your average gamers, not the majority of our customers.

There is a multitude of games out there which look stunning but deliver sub-par gameplay, don’t sell well and rate low. Just look at the latest Killzone game or Crytek’s Ryse.  Both companies excel in tech, but both games are distinctly average.

So my opinion here really is this: Depending on what type of game you make, visual quality can be important. The detail on characters, the environment, animation and VFX is important. Pushing tech and trying to find better ways, cheaper ways and faster ways of creating outstanding, immersive game worlds is important. But I don’t think it’s paramount, nor should it be the most important thing. There is a certain level of quality players will not look beyond. Gradually this is being pushed up, by new tech, new tools and new techniques. But the devil in the detail can cost a lot of time, money and can come at the sacrifice of gameplay. And that is never a good thing.