|
| Thread: Graphics or gameplay? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · NEXT» |
|
Gom_Jabbar
Promising
Famous Hero
Revealer of Truth
|
posted June 06, 2006 01:31 AM |
|
|
Graphics or gameplay?
What counts more: graphics or gameplay? That is a question that all of us game lovers have been asking ourselves and others for a very long time. The thing is that this two shouldn’t exclude one another at all. Usually good games have both, even if there were exceptions. Lately anyway, game developers seem to think that if they make a game that needs a ton of resources and has the latest technology in graphics, they can make a game with the lousiest story ever and we should buy it. Yes, of course you will maybe excited by the game a day or two, being amazed by the high polygons, shadows, high quality physics and effects, but that’s all there is. After that you will only remain with the bitter taste of wasted money (if that is the case) or to realize that you have another game that wastes you disk space.
I realize that the gaming industry “money talk”, like in any other industry, but that doesn’t mean that they have to play us for fools. The big giants here are EA and Ubisoft, and I can imagine the bosses sitting comfortably in their expensive offices and talking about deadlines, market efficiency, and other stuff like this. Do they really care what we think? They say they do, that they are always interested in keeping the customer happy, that there is a lot of feedback from game enthusiasts, that they gathered a lot of information about how the game should be, but in the end all it matters is that we give them the money.
What about those deadlines? I don’t really care if the game is delayed for 6 months, if it comes out like it should. I wouldn’t care less if HOMM5 was released in October, all I wanted in return for my patience was the great game I was dreaming about. Why are there so many bugs? I can hardly imagine they didn’t find enough game testers. If only they would have posted a thread here on heroescommunity there would have been at least 2000 people that would have helped them for free. What if a big boss, after building himself a house find out that the company in charge screwed because the toilet seat would not get down, the lights turn on and off randomly, there is a hole in the bedroom wall, some of the doors would only open if they are hit first, and so on? I don’t think he would appreciate that company’s work and would want his money back. Well, so do we if they screw us. I’m not saying I want my money back but at least I want to know they are working hard on that first patch and for a change they would listen to us.
I want gameplay, because that what kept me for countless hours in front of the monitor playing HOMM3. I want gameplay because I’m tired of everyone competing to make the best graphics engine that requires a NASA computer. I want gameplay because in the end that’s all that matters. I want gameplay rid of bugs for HOMM5 because it’s a concept too good to be wasted, when it can easily become another improved HOMM3.
____________
|
|
okiesolidarity
Known Hero
right brain/left brain wizard
|
posted June 06, 2006 02:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What counts more: graphics or gameplay? That is a question that all of us game lovers have been asking ourselves and others for a very long time. The thing is that this two shouldn’t exclude one another at all. Usually good games have both,
I still think that pong is a fantastic game.
Quote:
game developers seem to think that if they make a game that needs a ton of resources and has the latest technology in graphics, they can make a game with the lousiest story ever and we should buy it.
slow down, buddy. I think that "story" is another area of games that has been abused, along with with graphics, in an attempt to trick us into playing games with bad, unoriginal gameplay...I thought this was a thread about graphics vs gameplay; not graphics vs. storyline. I'll repeat: I still think that pong is a fantastic game.
Quote:
Why are there so many bugs?
unlike console games, computer games have the luxury of releasing games earlier and then patching the mistakes later. I would be a little more patient. This game has only been out for a few weeks. Yes they had a lot of testers, but programming is a tricky thing, especially when you are one programmer in a team. Sometimes you change one little thing over there for the final version and "oops I didn't realize that that would affect your coding in that way". Luckily, as I said, they can, and hopefully will, patch those sorts of thing soon.
Quote:
I want gameplay, because that what kept me for countless hours in front of the monitor playing HOMM3. I want gameplay because I’m tired of everyone competing to make the best graphics engine that requires a NASA computer. I want gameplay because in the end that’s all that matters. I want gameplay rid of bugs for HOMM5 because it’s a concept too good to be wasted, when it can easily become another improved HOMM3.
I am tired of the graphics boom, too. A lot of hardcore gamers are tired of it. Let's make a game together, with crappy graphics but great gameplay. It won't sell at all and our company will go completely bankrupt, but somewhere, some dude will post a comment on some board about our kicka** game and how nobody appreciates how awesome it was.
|
|
rpgguy
Adventuring Hero
Scholar
|
|
posted June 06, 2006 03:47 AM |
|
|
yep we all are idiots for buying their game. when heroes 6 comes out dont buy it! (only i will buy it to test it for you guys  ).
that will teach them!
____________
Week Of The Rabbit
Triple Growth For All Creatures
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 06, 2006 07:28 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 07:39, 06 Jun 2006.
|
Gameplay or graphics?
Well, gameplay has the word "game" in it, graphics doesn't. A good game is a good game regardless of the graphics.
How long has the game of chess been around? Chess is the same whether it's pieces are crudely carved from a chunk of wood, or finely shaped by the greatest sculptor. Either way doesn't change the game itself. Sure, the fine art of the playing pieces can be appreciated, but only as something separate from the game.
From the beginning of computer games, the graphics has always pushed the technology. The first games I played, I had to stand in line with a box of punch cards at the uni. Then wait for more than a hour to get a printout on paper. Then personal comps came out and the paper printout was (almost) instant. Then monitors came out and we had the first text based games with instant feedback.
The first graphics came out maybe in the late 1970's-early 1980's. At first it was nothing but ASCII symbols you could make with the keyboard. Then came color monitors and animated pixel art.
In the mid 1980's the technology had gotten to the point that gaming companies didn't really know what to do with it. They started experimenting with all kinds of weird graphics and interfaces. They came up with really strange things to do with that new thing called a mouse. From the mid 1980s to early 1990s, graphics didn't really improve that much. More colors and higher resolution was about it.
In the early 90's, the 486 came out with a built in floating point unit. That changed everything. Suddenly the possibility was there to actually process and manipulate graphics, as opposed to simply displaying predrawn images or moving a sprite past a static background.
At about the same time, the masses of the people were starting to buy their first computers. It was no longer just a geek thing. Grandma was buying a computer to email her grandkids. When the masses started buying comps, all that money coming in caused the entire comp industry to take off like a rocket.
But the thing is (in my opinion), by the time the technology was there to do serious graphics processing, the graphics were already "good enough" for gaming. The days of crude pixel art were long past. The technology could easily display a dwarf that looked like a dwarf...with plenty of color depth and resolution. And the background was no longer static, but had true panning, multiple light sources, shadows, etc. That was good enough.
Anything beyond that added nothing whatsoever to gameplay. It was nothing but eye candy. Like the fine carving of a chess piece, it could be appreciated for the art, but it didn't change the game. All the "oohs" and "ahhs" and "check out the cool graphics!" is fine....and to be honest, I like it myself. But after ten minutes of being impressed with cool graphics, I begin to wonder if there's actually a game hidden in there somewhere.
I think one problem with computer gaming, and computer software in general, is that the technology is changing so rapidly. In other types of business there have been centuries of experience how to run the business. In the tech world, the idea always seems to be for a company to design and market the latest and fastest high tech gadget, or to market a product that takes advantage of that technology. At least that's the way it's been for the last 25 years.
But in the last 5 years, there's been a major downturn in the tech industry. Sales of the latest stuff slowed down dramatically. The technology had gotten ahead of itself. The technology got to the point where people began to realize they didn't NEED the latest stuff any more. An 800MHz Pentium 3 with a 16-32Mb graphics card and 256Mb of RAM was way more power than the average person needed.
I work in the engineering world designing stuff far more advanced than personal computers....and I don't need anything faster than an 800MHz comp. And most engineers and programmers I work with don't need it either. Sure they might wait on the comp every now and then, but that's not normal. Usually it's the other way around, the comp is waiting on the user to do something.
It used to be I could justify the cost of a new comp for other reasons besides games. But I can't justify a new comp any more unless something actually breaks. There is no way I'm going to buy a new comp just so I can play HOMM5 or any other game. If UBI is idiotic enough to think they need fancy 3D graphics and the kind of system requirements they have, then they won't get my business. Graphics is fine as long as it doesn't detract from gameplay and have outrageous system requirements. But I'm sure as hell not going to buy a new comp to play a game, when there are 100s of games out there that run on the computer I have now.
Let's see, I have Bard's Tale around here somewhere and haven't played it yet. Like chess, if it was a good game long ago, there's no reason it shouldn't still be good.
____________
|
|
detheroc
Adventuring Hero
noticed my 2 weeks miss?
|
|
posted June 06, 2006 08:55 AM |
|
|
i've talked soooo much about this problem so i'll be concise: definatly i prefer the gameplay, many times i noticed that i was playing a,let's say , old-school game for hours and hours...of course if that good gameplay has nice graphics to go with it's perfect as long as that eye-candy doesn't ruin the feeling of the game...and H5 is a wonderfull example of good gameplay and very nice graphics too, i was really surprised with the balance between graphic and GP, IMO 
|
|
Fuzzier
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 06, 2006 07:03 PM |
|
Edited by Fuzzier at 19:05, 06 Jun 2006.
|
Gameplay Eternal!!!
That's why great games remain great, no matter how old they are.
No matter how great a director may be, or how many eye-candies there are, a movie can never match the original novel which the movie tries to show.
The essence lies in gameplay, but eye-candies.
That's why H3 is great, H4 is bad, H5 is ok.
|
|
detheroc
Adventuring Hero
noticed my 2 weeks miss?
|
|
posted June 06, 2006 07:36 PM |
|
|
|
Who sais H4 is bad?I really prefer H4 over H3,which is just too imba.Of course, many felt dissapointed with H4 because it changed very much the gameplay, but it definitly isn't a bad game.If it had a RMG,or more scenarios(cause it's better this way than the H3 rmg, wich sometimes generated absolutely stupid maps)then it would have been played by many peolpe till today.IMO.
|
|
ZeroXcuses
Known Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2006 07:31 PM |
|
|
Inevitable
Graphics changes will happen. Welcome to 2006. Like sprites on consoles, sprites on PC is becoming extinct. Going to polygons was an essential step, especially with other strat games (Total War, C&C) going to polygons.
Most fans wanted more H3, and that's what we got in 3D. That's fine by me, because H3, no matter what H4 fans say, was the most popular and best game of the series. It played great right out of the box unlike its successors.
The last poster said that H3 was imba (Conflux I presume). Obviously, he has not seen Death's Vampire Legion.
|
|
SuperDave9x19
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2006 08:01 PM |
|
|
I have always thought that if someone were to take Unreal Tournament graphics, which are pretty nice, and turn it into a mega game it would be awesome and playable by anyone with a 1 GHz machine.
Imagine Making a game in post modern times after some cataclysm (Krakatoa2, Nuke War, EMI destruction of all electrical infrastructure, Yellowstone Megavolcano etc.) then have dang near infinite weapons (lotta gun owners in USA) available then implement REAL carry restrictions (a la Action Quake 2). Wander thru the ruined US picking up resources (a la HOMM) and food and weapons but have a family to return to (a la SIMs) and protect from other such opportunistic wanderers as yourself.
Then you could band together with neighbors (perhaps using Morrowind style reactions to people) to achieve some local form of defense and then perhaps microgovernments. You would probably have to train your kids in basic foraging, survival and firearms use and even reloading and bullet casting.
Let's face it. without guns it wouldn't sell.
Probably have to have an agriculture skill, a salvaging skill and such to simulate how to feed. I suppose there would be like 3 objectives:
1. Eat.
2. Protect your loved ones.
3. Conquest via a good mix of diplomacy and military might.
eh. I am just freaking bored at work and counting down the days to my vacation.
|
|
SuperDave9x19
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2006 08:07 PM |
|
|
o and on topic a bit further. Without modern graphics most games would be tough to advertise. You cannot SHOW great gameplay on a box but you can show good graphics. Martketting guys in some way rule the market.
The problem is that in ramping up to great graphics, resources get diverted away from scripting, creative storylines and such. Anyone that has done any 3D CAD work knows that nice models are NOT easy work. Add in reasonable animations and it's a LOT of difficult work.
Does anyone know what the percentage is between modellers/animators and scriptors/programmers in a modern gaming company?
I do think that HOMM5 did a good balance (The game can be set to low details. I JUST WON'T DO IT) and I suspect that 6 months from now this will be quite a "megagame" after the map editor is released and more user maps are made available.
|
|
SuperDave9x19
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2006 08:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The first graphics came out maybe in the late 1970's-early 1980's. At first it was nothing but ASCII symbols you could make with the keyboard. Then came color monitors and animated pixel art.
Remember the Star Trek Game for the Apple2+ circa 1980? That was sweet. Even when Wizardry and Dark Forest and such games out I still played that ASCII Star Trek game quite a bit.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 29, 2006 09:31 PM |
|
|
Graphics or gameplay? surely gameplay is more important, but nice graphics make the game more lasting too! And it doesn't mean >flashy< graphics, just solid, like in blizzard games.. starcraft's graphics still look nice, after all those years it's still fun to watch dying marines or dragoons. It's the matter of design, I guess. So, great gameplay and good graphical design is what makes games remain forever on top.
big GJ to blizz for making all those fantastic games (especially warcraft3, which I love ^_^)
|
|
Fuzzier
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2006 02:53 PM |
|
Edited by Fuzzier at 14:54, 30 Jun 2006.
|
We need BOTH!
Yes, gameplay is more important, but that doesn't necessarily mean we don't care about graphics, especially when graphics becomes a key feature.
IMO, if someone wants to put the graphics of HoMM to a higher level, then he/she EITHER pays enough attention to make the graphics very good, OR doesn't do it at all by remaining in 2D. Unfortunately, H5 falls in the middle , and that's why so many people complain about the graphics of H5.
The balance of H5 should improve. We definitely need more spells.
|
|
arkm1
Adventuring Hero
Cube Monkey
|
|
posted June 30, 2006 06:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Graphics or gameplay? surely gameplay is more important, but nice graphics make the game more lasting too! And it doesn't mean >flashy< graphics, just solid, like in blizzard games.. starcraft's graphics still look nice, after all those years it's still fun to watch dying marines or dragoons. It's the matter of design, I guess. So, great gameplay and good graphical design is what makes games remain forever on top.
big GJ to blizz for making all those fantastic games (especially warcraft3, which I love ^_^)
Starcraft is a great example of how gameplay excels over graphics. Starcraft has good graphics, but nothing compared to modern RTS games. Yet it's still my favorite RTS game. That doesn't mean I don't like looking at pretty pictures now and then too  .
|
|
Fuzzier
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2006 03:25 PM |
|
Edited by Fuzzier at 15:27, 01 Jul 2006.
|
Quote:
Starcraft is a great example of how gameplay excels over graphics. Starcraft has good graphics, but nothing compared to modern RTS games. Yet it's still my favorite RTS game. That doesn't mean I don't like looking at pretty pictures now and then too .
Yes, Starcraft with its expansion set really is the greated RTS game ever ! Strategies are still developing, and I still watch replays these days.
I wonder when Blizzard will focus on Starcraft 2.
|
|
Gulshog
Tavern Dweller
Storyteller
|
|
posted July 01, 2006 06:39 PM |
|
|
People are still passionate about Chess, and the graphics have not changed all that much over the years. So, I'd say gameplay. Graphics are one thing that can get new players to try a game, though. So, they are important, but it is gameplay that gets them to stick around.
____________
The Mordigoer Tablets: A new campaign for HOMM5(Needed: Map Editor and Campaign Editor)
|
|
OOPMan
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted July 02, 2006 04:13 PM |
|
|
I like a good combination of graphics and gameplay...
Too bad the games industry doesn't want to play ball :-(
____________
It's all fun and games, until someone loses an eye...
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 13, 2006 03:12 PM |
|
|
You can have fun with both, or just gameplay. You can't have much fun with just graphics
I guess H5 has neither.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
TemjinGold
Known Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2006 04:38 PM |
|
|
If you're an oldschool gamer, gameplay. If you're the company trying to sell the most copies, graphics.
|
|
imnotatroll
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2006 08:22 AM |
|
|
But I do recall back when EQ first switched their graphics engine over to a much more pretty version they ended up losing 1/4 of their customer over graphic card issues "I was one of them I had a pos computer at the time >.<" So what I look for is  gameplay well over  graphics to be blunt you can put a ribbon on a pile of dog sh!t and to me my friend thats still a pile o crap .
There are a few games out today that offer both and a hella lot of really PRETTY games that have no replay value what so ever.
____________
I'm not a troll I just look like one, and yes thats Kfc I'm eating Mmmmm good.
|
| |
|
|
