| |
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
|
|
|
|
X-dANGEr
Unknown Destiny
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2383
Location: The X place |
I just looked at the Gothic 3 site again. I had a flashing idea when I looked at the banner, wondering if the gaming uniform will ever reach the ability to make such scenes in a normal game, with no cutscenes.. And if it will, when can we expect it?!
I think that in the next 7-10 years we will have even better Graphics than in the banner. What do you think?
http://www.gothic3.com/index.php (Banner of that page)
_________________
 |
Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:11 pm |
|
|
Arma
Mysterious Lady
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 1230
Location: in the middle of hell |
I admit that I don't care about graphics. Much. While it is indeed nice to look at, most games these days pay too much attention to their good looks and non to what's inside. Some of the best games I've played in years have little to no eye candy.
My other point, beside what I just said, is hardware cost. At least PC harware cost. If you look at it reasonably, Gothic 3 (and not only it) would require high end hardware to run. Oh, you might manage to get it to run at a mid-level PC with older hardware, but it would be crippled play and cut at least, I repeat, at least half of the fun and switch it at least 3 times the more negative feelings towards the game. My rule for years has been - if I don't have the proper machinery to run it good, not to bother at all. I can play it later on.
For comparison sake - Oblivion is developed for both XBox360 and PC. It would (probably) run smoothly on the XBox, but to have the same experience on PC you would need a top end graphics card, plenty of RAM and so on. A XBox360 supposedly cost bout 400 bucks. a high end PC grap card runs at about 700 (or so I believe).
Further down the road we have the GBA for about 70 and it has some fabulous games for it (you can check with the new article at the Dot http://www.rpgdot.com/index.php?hsaction=10053&ID=1191) and Fire Emblem, Fire Emblem : The Sacred Stones and Final Fantasy Tactics Advance offer plenty of gameplay all by their selves to justify the purchase. And their graphics are such that you can probably count the 10 pixels each character consists of.
 I was not trying to bring in another console vs PC, btw. It just turned out that way |
|
Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:21 pm |
|
|
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
I must admit that I care a lot about graphics. However, I agree with Lady Armageddona that good game means more than good graphics.
Other thing is that I don't really like the tendency to achieve as realistic look and feel as possible. I want new worlds that don't look like the one I'm living in.
And it is true indeed, that top graphics means that you need top hardware and that means a lot of money. For whom? For hardware companies. And who pays for these top of the line games? Same hardware companies (at least partially).
I read somewhere short article from someone who discovered that some top game (probably BattleField II) was compiled without any optimization. One of the reasons may be request to make a game that will use/require top level GPUs (he stated that there might be other reasons he don't know about). Just an interesting idea, isn't it? |
|
Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:42 am |
|
|
X-dANGEr
Unknown Destiny
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2383
Location: The X place |
quote:
Originally posted by Arma
I admit that I don't care about graphics, Much. While it is indeed nice to look at, most games these days pay too much attention to their good looks and non to what's inside. Some of the best games I've played in years have little to no eye candy.
I think that it doesn't matter how much you care or not, as for the fact a 2d game wouldn't grap your attention, so you won't even try it. So I see Graphics are a very important element of a game. Of course, not more important that it's story and atmosphere (Which partially depends on Graphics).
quote:
Originally posted by Arma
My other point, beside what I just said, is hardware cost. At least PC harware cost. If you look at it reasonably, Gothic 3 (and not only it) would require high end hardware to run. Oh, you might manage to get it to run at a mid-level PC with older hardware, but it would be crippled play and cut at least, I repeat, at least half of the fun and switch it at least 3 times the more negative feelings towards the game. My rule for years has been - if I don't have the proper machinery to run it good, not to bother at all. I can play it later on.
A very good principle that is, still, I think money should never be the problem. As long as you once got a PC, you can get another one again. And in this spreading technological growth, price is a factor in achieving it, and that goes the same for all other products.
quote:
Originally posted by Danicek
Other thing is that I don't really like the tendency to achieve as realistic look and feel as possible. I want new worlds that don't look like the one I'm living in.
Yes, but what have you seen of the world? Our Earth is one of the most exciting planets in the universe (As I was at any lol), sun rise, sun set, streaming waterfalls with birds' sounds down at the buttom...
_________________
|
|
Tue Dec 13, 2005 3:57 pm |
|
|
Jaz
Late Night Spook
Joined: 20 Jan 2002
Posts: 9708
Location: RPGDot |
I agree with Lady A; for me, graphics aren't everything. To this day, Lands of Lore 1, System Shock 1 and Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall are among my favorite CRPGs - I even replay them from time to time (just like I replay the old Doom, Heretic, Hexen and RotT games... all 3D with pixel sprites, none of them with 3D models).
Even though for me acquiring the necessary computer hardware is not a problem (I just go to the basement and get the stuff), I still prefer good level design and/or a nice plot with twists and/or a great atmosphere to smooth graphics. When I ran Gothic 1 for the first time back then, I thought 'Heavens, this game is *ugly*'. But the story, characters and nitty, gritty atmosphere drew me in. Surpsise, it still is one of my favorite games.
_________________
Jaz |
|
Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:42 pm |
|
|
Arma
Mysterious Lady
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 1230
Location: in the middle of hell |
quote:
Originally posted by X-dANGEr
I think that it doesn't matter how much you care or not, as for the fact a 2d game wouldn't grap your attention, so you won't even try it.
Wrong, X, dead wrong. I would pick a 2D title any day of the week over a 3D one, even if offers the same atmosphere, gameplay etc. In my personal opinion 3D has a long way until it reaches 2D in terms of sheer beauty, even though the last has its problems. Besides, 2D games seldom try to be realistic for realism's sake, and are pretty and colorful to boost. And as an insane I like my games pretty colorful.
quote:
So I see Graphics are a very important element of a game. Of course, not more important that it's story and atmosphere (Which partially depends on Graphics).
Wrong again. For example, the Geneforge and Avernum games offer nothing in terms of eye candy, but have a very strong athmosphere - there are pretty good and athmosphere descriptions of what you meet ingame to make up for the lack of graphics. Actually, I turned wrong - we can credit graphics for this, as well, though it is the other way around.
quote:
A very good principle that is, still, I think money should never be the problem. As long as you once got a PC, you can get another one again. And in this spreading technological growth, price is a factor in achieving it, and that goes the same for all other products.
Get real, you live on Earth, in modern society. Money is always a problem. The more you have, the bigger problem you have. You'll catch up with it.
quote:
Yes, but what have you seen of the world? Our Earth is one of the most exciting planets in the universe (As I was at any lol), sun rise, sun set, streaming waterfalls with birds' sounds down at the buttom...
As I happen to agree with Danicek -> It doesn't matter what I have or have not seen in this world. If it is here (on Earth) I can always go and visit. I may or may not go and visit, but it's the principle of the thing. And while realism (in any way, be it graphics or gameplay/athmoshere wise) may take some credit to enhancing some games (like shooters, for one thing) I see absolutely no aspect in which it improves the gameplay in other games (like RPGs), which's main point is their un-realism, if I may call it that. |
|
Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:13 pm |
|
|
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
quote:
Originally posted by Lady Armageddona
quote:
So I see Graphics are a very important element of a game. Of course, not more important that it's story and atmosphere (Which partially depends on Graphics).
Wrong again. For example, the Geneforge and Avernum games offer nothing in terms of eye candy, but have a very strong athmosphere - there are pretty good and athmosphere descriptions of what you meet ingame to make up for the lack of graphics. Actually, I turned wrong - we can credit graphics for this, as well, though it is the other way around.
I believe this really depends on personal tastes. I say openly that good graphics is very important thing for me. Don't take me wrong. There are other things that make a good game (for me). However it's hard for me to get over bad graphics also in case story is great. This really means that graphics is essential part of the atmosphere of the game (again for me).
And here we get to another question - what is good graphics? Again it depends on personal taste. I don't need "Half-life 2 like" graphics in RPG to say that the graphics is really good.
I have some experiences with what I'm talking about. For example (based on suggestion here on board) I tried out M&M 6 (I think) and I really could not play it because of the ugly graphics.
(I know, real RPGer shoudn't talk like this :]) |
|
Wed Dec 14, 2005 8:16 am |
|
|
Hindukönig
Guards Lieutenant
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 170
Location: Halle (Saale) / Nuremberg [Germany] |
IMHO, there's a difference between outdated graphics and just plain ugly graphics.
E.g., Ultima Underworld 2 has really neat graphics, some photorealistic textures, nice character portraits, etc. pp. Atmosphere through pixels. I can play it again whenever I want, without bleeding eyes. In some contrast, early "full 3D" games, like Thief, are getting uglier every year, because of the increasing polycount in games in general. But it still has atmosphere, I confess. Thanks to the engine. |
|
Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:36 am |
|
|
X-dANGEr
Unknown Destiny
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2383
Location: The X place |
quote:
Originally posted by Arma
Wrong, X, dead wrong. I would pick a 2D title any day of the week over a 3D one, even if offers the same atmosphere, gameplay etc. In my personal opinion 3D has a long way until it reaches 2D in terms of sheer beauty, even though the last has its problems. Besides, 2D games seldom try to be realistic for realism's sake, and are pretty and colorful to boost. And as an insane I like my games pretty colorful.
Hehe, surely not my taste. If I get to be choiced between the same game, only difference is 2D and 3D, I'd pick the 3D one.
quote:
Originally posted by Arma
Wrong again. For example, the Geneforge and Avernum games offer nothing in terms of eye candy, but have a very strong athmosphere - there are pretty good and athmosphere descriptions of what you meet ingame to make up for the lack of graphics. Actually, I turned wrong - we can credit graphics for this, as well, though it is the other way around.
I really didn't play these 2 games, but to get a nice-going game, good Graphics will never be a problem. 
quote:
Originally posted by Arma
Get real, you live on Earth, in modern society. Money is always a problem. The more you have, the bigger problem you have. You'll catch up with it.
I think you didn't understand what I mean in my reply. I simply said that however you somehow once managed to get a PC, you can get another one again the same method. And money is always their to worry about.
quote:
Originally posted by Arma
As I happen to agree with Danicek -> It doesn't matter what I have or have not seen in this world. If it is here (on Earth) I can always go and visit. I may or may not go and visit, but it's the principle of the thing. And while realism (in any way, be it graphics or gameplay/athmoshere wise) may take some credit to enhancing some games (like shooters, for one thing) I see absolutely no aspect in which it improves the gameplay in other games (like RPGs), which's main point is their un-realism, if I may call it that.
I can see your point, but in my life (Which's short till now), every world I've seen in any game or movie, is inspired by the true world we live, every year, day, hour and minute. And we seem to like many of them!
I must note that all the replies above are only, and only IMO!
_________________
|
|
Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:01 pm |
|
|
Arma
Mysterious Lady
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 1230
Location: in the middle of hell |
I must clarify that I don't overestimate graphics as a gameplay/athmosphere enhancing feature of a game. I was just saying that I can live over it, and there are some great games out there, especially RPGs that prove it. (For the sake of completeness, the one thing that can really turn me off a game, no matter how good graphics, sound, story, etc it has, is bad interface.)
And for the most part, I was saying that the tendency, in games in general, not stricktly RPGs, is to offer better and better graphics and shallower and shallower gameplay.
X -> I agree to some extend that every 'created' world is to some extend based on the real one. But on the other hand, many people play games because they are not set in the real world. (this is almost a 100 % true when speaking about RPGs). Many more play games to escape the real world and their day-to-day life. And you should really play Geneforge and Avernum |
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:19 am |
|
|
ShadowMoses
Head Merchant
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 69
Location: UK |
quote:
Originally posted by Danicek
And here we get to another question - what is good graphics?
In my opinion, good graphics are those that communicate effectively to the player what they are looking at. There should be cohesion in style and ideally be pleasing to the eye.
Whether it's 2D or 3D is irrelevant except for the way it impacts on gameplay. For example: if Fallout was 3D then you would have the advantage of being able to see objects behind walls better but at the same time the 3D quality would probably reduce the overall atmosphere of the game.
quote:
Originally posted by X-dANGEr
quote:
Originally posted by Arma
I admit that I don't care about graphics, Much. While it is indeed nice to look at, most games these days pay too much attention to their good looks and non to what's inside. Some of the best games I've played in years have little to no eye candy.
I think that it doesn't matter how much you care or not, as for the fact a 2d game wouldn't grap your attention, so you won't even try it. So I see Graphics are a very important element of a game. Of course, not more important that it's story and atmosphere (Which partially depends on Graphics).
Graphics may in some way add to atmosphere but not nearly as much as good writing. A pixelated blob with good dialogue adds far more to a game than an infinite number of polys ever could. Play planescape Torment and then compare it to... well, anything in 3D! (although PS:T still has great gfx today... but i suspect you disagree)
Also you should play Space Rangers 2, it's the best game of the year and has the best gfx too and all in glorious 2D!
_________________
Dak’kon: "Your reasons for your incessant clicking are not *known* to me."
-=:ASHES:=- || -=:Xenus-hq:=- |
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:21 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
I'm mostly with Lady A - graphics are far less important than gameplay; I still love some of the beautiful 2D art in BG2/IWD/PS:T and no 3D game has yet matched that for me. On the other hand, while I don't mind the graphics in Spiderweb games (for example) the interface and art cohesion are pretty awful, and I find that a distraction.
Nevertheless, graphics are important for a lot of players - we've often posted news about a new game with readers making comments like "that looks fantastic" - and that's based purely on the graphics from a couple of screens. Any AAA game needs to make an impact with graphics or art to get the attention of the market.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:16 pm |
|
|
X-dANGEr
Unknown Destiny
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 2383
Location: The X place |
Well, I also do have my very nice 2D games that I favour above many others, but those, aren't RPGs anyway 
The topic in here isn't to discuss the importance of Graphics for each and every one of you (Although it's nice to discuss that, too! So keep them on!). But to discuss the fast evolution of it!
While you may think Graphics aren't as important to you, better Graphics do drag more players, and even more pleasure to the game.
P.S. Every 2D RPG I played I hated, mostly because you can't do the fighting yourself..
_________________
|
|
Fri Dec 16, 2005 1:16 pm |
|
|
ShadowMoses
Head Merchant
Joined: 09 Jun 2005
Posts: 69
Location: UK |
quote:
Originally posted by X-dANGEr
The topic in here isn't to discuss the importance of Graphics for each and every one of you (Although it's nice to discuss that, too! So keep them on!). But to discuss the fast evolution of it!
The fast evolution has indeed made some rather purty graphics and immersive looking worlds but publishers, marketting companies and anyone looking to make $$$ is quick to realise that pretty pictures sell a game better than any mention of gameplay. Of course people don't buy games just because of the gfx, so just add some spin about revolutionizing the genre, redefining it or whatever and you're done.
While gfx evolution has increased, gameplay, with a few exceptions hasn't. Whether this is as a result of the gfx evolution i don't know but depth of gameplay has, (i hate the term) been dumbed down especially with rpg's. The relentless rise of action rpg's is most likely an attempt to appeal to a wider audience and thus increasing sales.
There is also the fact that creating gameplay for a good rpg is much harder than for, say a corridor shooter. This means longer development time and higher costs so if resources are directed towards the gfx then it seems logical to expect gameplay to suffer. Of course there needs to be the will to make the kind of gameplay a "true" rpg should have in the first place... and publishers willing to support it.
quote:
Originally posted by X-dANGEr
While you may think Graphics aren't as important to you, better Graphics do drag more players, and even more pleasure to the game.
More pleasure?... no. Over time as gfx have constantly evolved and the gameplay elements i crave are constantly ignored, rightly or wrongly i've come to almost despise gfx.
_________________
Dak’kon: "Your reasons for your incessant clicking are not *known* to me."
-=:ASHES:=- || -=:Xenus-hq:=- |
|
Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:26 pm |
|
|
Arma
Mysterious Lady
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 1230
Location: in the middle of hell |
While I agree that better graphics may bring new players to RPGs, what they do these days are put off old players. and the new players are those that complain that RPGs are too difficult for them, because they have never played such a title, and next you know, developers under publisher's influence simplify the gameplay for new players forgetting who were the games made for anyway. In the end you end up with something that neither old or new players are very happy with, and next the publisher is not interested in an RPG cause it's development cost is higher that a shooter and nobody buys it anyway. |
|
Sat Dec 17, 2005 1:20 am |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Wed Apr 10, 2019 12:54 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
