| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| A Word is Worth a Thousand Pictures @ The Escapist |
|
Two interesting counterpoint articles in the latest Escapist Extra. First, John Walker argues <a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/36/26" target="_blank">A Word is Worth a Thousand Pictures</a>:<blockquote><em>Visit a videogame developer while they're working on a project, and you can be certain to hear about one thing: graphics.
<br>
<br>"We're implementing the very latest four-dimensional bloom lighting techniques so every light bulb in the game will glow 47% more - in the past and the future!
<br>
<br>"With the state-of-the-art bump-map particle physics engine we've spent 95% of our budget on, our characters are able to have 10,010 polygons, trouncing the mere 10,000 in our previous game!
<br>...
<br>Now, find yourself a favorite five-year- old RPG. Heck, go mad, go back eight
<br>
<br>years and play Baldur's Gate. You'll wander around Candlekeep for a bit, frustrated by the 640x480 resolution and your inability to zoom in and out. But you'll chat with everyone, you'll complete those first few tasks and then it will be time to be off with Gorion. But oh no! He's been killed by those bastards! What's this? Imoen wants to join you. It's just the two of you, now, and the world to explore, villages to visit, people to talk to, quests to complete... And you stopped noticing the graphics somewhere back in Candlekeep.</em></blockquote>...then Tim Stevens argues <a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/36/31" target="_blank">Graphics Matter</a>:<blockquote><em>A beautiful game constantly rewards you, the gamer, with new sights and visual experiences, encouraging you to continue your journey and get your money's worth. Gaming is an adventure filled with obstacles and rewards. If a new visual reward, like an overwhelmingly massive boss or a gorgeous looking racecar, makes your eyes widen and your jaw slacken with awe, you'll stick with the game to see what comes next.</em></blockquote>Thoughts? |
Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:32 am |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
Yeah, give me gameplay over graphics every day!! 
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:32 am |
|
|
abbaon
Head Merchant
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 64
|
| Re: A Word is Worth a Thousand Pictures @ The Escapist |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
Now, find yourself a favorite five-year-old RPG. Heck, go mad, go back eight years and play Baldur's Gate. You'll wander around Candlekeep for a bit, frustrated by the 640x480 resolution and your inability to zoom in and out. But you'll chat with everyone, you'll complete those first few tasks and then it will be time to be off with Gorion. But oh no! He's been killed by those bastards! What's this? Imoen wants to join you. It's just the two of you, now, and the world to explore, villages to visit, people to talk to, quests to complete... And you stopped noticing the graphics somewhere back in Candlekeep.
First of all, I couldn't have chosen a better game to illustrate my point than Baldur's Gate. So thank you, John Walker. Anyway, I just wanted to point out that almost no RPG designers can tell a compelling story. Most, in fact, will build their plots from the same tedious shit as every other RPG. And I never need to see another cutscene depicting the evil fucking wizard killing my kindly fucking father figure as he seeks his unimaginable fucking power (or whatever happened in Baldur's Gate; I don't remember). I've absolutely had my fill of that. A new standard in computer game art, on the other hand, can still move me in a way that Gorion's death ("oh no!") and a thousand leaden plot devices like it never will again. |
|
Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:28 am |
|
|
Guest
|
Whether the story is cliched or not is another matter entirely. IMO, however, it is a game designer's mistake to rely on graphics to get a player to continue playing their game.
Great graphics that leave you with a shallow experience at the end of the game can be just as bad as mediocre graphics involving a cliched story. |
|
Sat Mar 18, 2006 7:24 pm |
|
|
severius
Village Dweller
Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 1
|
A perfect example of graphics over gameplay can be seen in the ultima series. First if we go back 20 years or so and look at akallabeth or any of the early games there was a depth to them that can not be rivaled by todays games. The coders of those games (usually one or two people) were in charge of all aspects of the game. They KNEW their computer systems down to the most obscure memory address and utilized them for all they were worth. And with that knowledge they created some of the most engaging and fantastic worlds ever conceived in gaming history. Todays games are short, shallow and go for the quick satisfaction with the fancy graphics taking precedence over gameplay.
Lets look at Ultima IX versus Ultima IV. In the latter were several weeks' worth of gameplay and depth. Learning what moongates went where, when certain reagents would be available as some only grew during certain lunar cycles. There also was the morality play that first reared its head during Ultima IV that has not been equalled since (though bioware has tried to come close with KOTOR and Jade Empire). Now look at ultima ix. The last and WORST offering of the ultima series. a perfect example of how one of the greatest rpg series ever produced dies with a whimper. Ya, for the time the graphics were very very good. But the gameplay was horrendous and that was *IF* you could get past the plethora of bugs that made the game unplayable for many.
Now, dont get me wrong. I like pretty visuals as much as the next gamer I am sure. GRAW and Fight Night Round 3 are visually stunning games. But GRAW feels like alot less of a game than the first ghost recon I remember playing. FNR 3 is a fantastic looking game but as a whole if EA had spent more time with fleshing out the career mode, making training a more entertaining minigame, and by adding some sort of a plot hook to the game it could have been beyond fantastic. Instead it is the fact that they spent more time on the deformations of the boxer's faces and the gloves on impact rather than real depth to the gameplay that keep the game a rental rather than a buy. (plus the hiphop soundtrack is the easiest way to a migraine for myself).
I am not usually a conspiracy nut but with more and more games carrying the logos for certain videocard companies makes me think that the games' publishers and graphics card companies are in cahoots. Back in the day new hardware did not come out every 4 - 6 months. this allowed developers to build their engine then spend time on the gameplay. Now a days we get games like Quake 4 that sure, push the newest systems to the very edge but all in all are shorter than the demo versions of the original games. And instead of the next version of a game taking the hardware and optimizing their function calls etc they take the lazy way out and basically say F-You to the gamer... in order to play our next game you need new hardware so you can play an even shorter version of the last game but it will look nearly lifelike! Also we will fill the game with advertisements for mountain dew and dodge trucks just to slap you the gamer about the head with a large trout a second time. |
|
Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:53 pm |
|
|
abbaon
Head Merchant
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 64
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
Whether the story is cliched or not is another matter entirely. IMO, however, it is a game designer's mistake to rely on graphics to get a player to continue playing their game.
Great graphics that leave you with a shallow experience at the end of the game can be just as bad as mediocre graphics involving a cliched story.
To you, certainly. To me the situation looks like this: design houses shouldn't rely on story to compensate for the lack of attractive art and compelling game mechanics, because almost none of them have writers worth a damn. |
|
Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:44 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
Just to let you know ea purposly destroyed the Ultima series and if ea hadn't bought origin or didn't try to ruin the series Ultima 9 would have probably been alot better. |
|
Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:22 am |
|
|
abbaon
Head Merchant
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 64
|
Expanding on this idea:
To have any affective impact on me, a game has to show me something I've never seen before. Focusing on graphics allows developers to achieve that impact relatively easily. They don't need extraordinary talent in their art or programming departments, just an evolutionary step forward in game technology (and a lot of money). Advancing the state of game design, though, usually requires a visionary like [insert your favorite design god; I'll take Will Wright], and those don't grow on trees. Storytelling presents the hardest challenge of all. Not a whole lot of people have the ability to break new ground in a art form that's existed for as long as the species has, and perhaps a dozen of them write for computer games. So, speaking only for myself, I think any attempt to move the focus of development away from presentation and toward story would diminish the experience provided by the average game. |
|
Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:22 am |
|
|
rackrmnn
Guest
|
My experience has always been that graphics can make the game. Take Doom III for instance. I loved that game, really for no reason other than it's graphics. It, and other eye-candy intense games, have these "holy crap" moments that games without eye candy simply cannot provide.
What I don't get is why people always seem to think that great graphics have to come "at the expense" of great gameplay. Take Oblivion. If it's about to live up to it's hype (which from previews floating around seems pretty likely) it will have both. Shadow of the Colosus had both. So did Black and White, Fear, Psychonauts, Myst, and a slew of other games.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a graphics snob. The last two games I purchased were Spiderweb Software games. But I don't buy into this "good graphics means crappy game" attitude that so many people seem to be adopting these days. A good game is a good game, whether it achieves that through graphics or gameplay is irrelevant. It's just a matter of personal taste. |
|
Sun Mar 19, 2006 6:07 am |
|
|
Guest
|
| Re: A Word is Worth a Thousand Pictures @ The Escapist |
|
Having just spent 8 or so hours over the last two nights (I'm married, so the days of 18-hour RPG-a-thons exist only in my memory) with an old classic, I fall firmly in the "words over pictures" camp. PlaneScape: Torment was imbued with decent graphics for its time, but the 3rd person isometric view was already falling out of favor with the RPG world. But what a game!
There is more wit, more color, more creativity, more cleverness, and more genuine surprises in that game than all of Bethesda's games combined. Now, I don't dislike the Elder Scrolls series, but storytelling is obviously not their strong suit (nor do they market their games that way). Yes, PS:T has a lot of reading, and lots and lots of NPC dialogue... but my preference is for an immersive, gripping story every time.
Much of the attractive power of a game rests in its ability to unfold secrets over time: characters start out simple, but become increasingly complex and interesting as they reveal themselves through dialogue. Watching the relationships evolve in BGII was one of the most pleasing aspects of that game. (Well, the spectacular voice acting helped a lot, too!) Bioware hasn't quite developed that psychological analysis skill yet, so PS:T is lacking in that area when compared to later games.
The depth of the world and the tight relationships between the milieu's concepts - that's what makes a great game for me. Why do I read Tolkien's "Silmarillion" once a year? Because the completeness of the JRR's conception is staggering - it truly feels like you're stepping in to another world. A great game matches this escapism. Those are the things that linger with me - not the pretty pictures.
---Jason |
|
Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:53 am |
|
|
xSamhainx
Paws of Doom
Joined: 11 Sep 2002
Posts: 2192
Location: San Diego |
I like good graphics in a game, but "good graphics" is a relative term, we all have certain preferences. I personally think BG has good graphics, they serve their purpose, theyre entertaining to look at, and they look like what they are supposed to look like and represent. Alot of people think good graphics means more picture-like, i dont know, "realistic" photo-grade looking. I disagree. I think people tend to mix up "state of the art" and "good". Something good is not necessarily state of the art, and vice versa.
"Good Graphics" to me is a convincing and interesting representation of something. Some style doesnt hurt either
_________________
“Then away out in the woods I heard that kind of a sound that a ghost makes when it wants to tell about something that's on its mind and can't make itself understood, and so can't rest easy in its grave, and has to go about that way every night grieving.”-Mark Twain |
|
Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:56 am |
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
I think there is a balance to be made for just about every game and it is the developer's/publisher's decision. Not that I don't often question that balance for a lot of games. More often than not, though, it is the graphics side that gets too much attention, particularly since functionality gets forgoten. Oblivion looks like it will be a perfect example of this. The game looks designed from the ground up to make great screenshots and nifty bullet points for the box. Currently I think Oblivion is the least interesting major RPG title since NWN. |
|
Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:11 pm |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
