| |
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
|
|
|
|
DevilsBane
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 39
|
Don't you think that theres a huge deal of "Technology/Graphics/ect going up and Content going down"?
It seems to me the extra expenditure on advanced 3D graphics is being discounted in hours into the depth and content of the games.
Now realistically it is going to take a lot more time to create the scale and depth of a Baldurs Gate II (just an example) in a modern engine, and have all the dialogue and diversity there also, but surely if you sacrifice on those levels in an CRPG especially, isn't it degrading to the game?
Let me try it another way, IF you could take the game content of NWN or Morrowind, and place them into an Infinity engine game style like BG II, would you be satisfied?
I know its a lot of work to produce the depth and scale with modern 3D graphics, BUT if that is something game developers are not willing to finance , then is the sacrifice good for the game?
Personally I would rather have the depth and gameplay with dated graphics if the choice is there.
If you consider how much was 'taken out' of NWN compared to BG II or the earlier games in terms of dialogue, quests, gametime, character development, plot density, party development/management/control.........and then consider what they added, Graphics and Multiplayer....well theres my point, is this really a good trade?
I don't know about all the earlier ones like Ultima...I never played them, BUT I find it hard to imagine they boast better depth and quality than something like BG II? I mean the work on that game whether you like the game or not, its fair to say they put a serious amount into it in terms of depth and detail 
You say you want something which increases the feeling of the fanatsy universe? Well surely what is best for that is much more depth and quality in the characters and the story, its those things which are paramount to immersion, the graphics can be compensated with imagination. But if the game world has few characters and little dialogue or depth, then it will never be immersive.
There is only so much visuals can achive. I agree they provide and initial "ooh ahhh" factor, but as Morrowind demonstrates that quickly wears off, and when it does the game gets painfully slow and monotonous
Now if that world had been rich with characters and dialogue and depth, it would have been a great game indeed.
I just worry that the companies have bad intention. They are using flashy graphics to increase sale, pushing into a more popular market, and like so many thing in that market they are becoming shallow and flimsy to boot 
That would not bear well for the CRPG of the future I think
If they could provide the graphics without the expense of gameplay I would be happy though.......as yet I dont think they have even tried |
Wed Nov 20, 2002 10:34 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
quote:
Originally posted by DevilsBane
I don't know about all the earlier ones like Ultima...I never played them, BUT I find it hard to imagine they boast better depth and quality than something like BG II? I mean the work on that game whether you like the game or not, its fair to say they put a serious amount into it in terms of depth and detail
Run out right now and buy the Ultima collection, then download Exult, then install Ultima 7 and repent of this blasphemy while basking in the glory of the crown jewel of the Ultima series.
BG2 may be in my top ten RPGs and I truely love it, but it still doesn't beat Ultima 7. No way.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Wed Nov 20, 2002 11:39 pm |
|
|
DevilsBane
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 39
|
Well I never played those so I can't comment, I know BG II rocks though , Ultima must have been some game to be better
I don't want to ruin the experience by playing with c64 graphics, since I hear there are several projects ongoing to rebuild the Ultima games on modern engines. So if I save them for that time I can experience them in the modern age |
|
Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:10 am |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
Well, I haven't heard of anyone trying to rebuild Ultima 7. However, I am really excited about the projects for Ultima 4 and 5 (4 and 5 were also some of the best of the series).
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound= |
|
Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:17 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
@DevilsBane, you're a bit hard on NWN, I think. I agree that the SP campaign was less than stellar, but I don't think this was because of resource restraints; I think some design choices did not turn out as well as they might have hoped.
Not having a party wasn't due to the devs concentrating on graphics but a concious design choice from the beginning, as were the DM system, toolset and multiplayer. In the end, NWN will stay on many gamers hard drives much longer than if it did have a better SP campaign through MP and modules.
I agree that story and gameplay depth shouldn't be sacrificed for graphical glory, but developers should try to advance their products - and that means not always using old engines over and over. |
|
Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:48 am |
|
|
stanthony
One Smart Dog
Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Posts: 556
Location: Tallinn, Estonia |
quote:
Originally posted by DevilsBane
Now realistically it is going to take a lot more time to create the scale and depth of a Baldurs Gate II (just an example) in a modern engine, and have all the dialogue and diversity there also, but surely if you sacrifice on those levels in an CRPG especially, isn't it degrading to the game?
LOL! You sound like a real BG-adept  Join the club! I remember that my first reaction to this game was pretty much the same.
BTW when you have your expansion installed you can use additional modules (like in NWN). Not all of them are great, but some are really good.
quote:
Originally posted by DevilsBane
Let me try it another way, IF you could take the game content of NWN or Morrowind, and place them into an Infinity engine game style like BG II, would you be satisfied?
IWD2 is the last Infinity game. We have to live with it  Morrowind in my mind just has another idea, just like Daggerfall had it - they're both about exploration and about enjoying the world through the eyes of your character (it was really possible in Daggerfall, despite its dated graphics). I think 3rd person games are more plot-oriented, while 1st person games are more world-oriented, if you please. I cannot prove it, I just feel it is so 
quote:
Originally posted by DevilsBane
I don't know about all the earlier ones like Ultima...I never played them, BUT I find it hard to imagine they boast better depth and quality than something like BG II?
You're clearly biased  No, in fact Ultima is just a very different game. Not worse, just different.
quote:
Originally posted by DevilsBane
You say you want something which increases the feeling of the fanatsy universe? Well surely what is best for that is much more depth and quality in the characters and the story, its those things which are paramount to immersion, the graphics can be compensated with imagination. But if the game world has few characters and little dialogue or depth, then it will never be immersive.
Graphics CAN be compensated by imagination. That's the whole point. You see, many people (including myslef) enjoy table-top RPGs. No graphics there... But the game world in the hands of a good Game Master, and several players exited about having fun and creating a proper atmosphere for the game do it all. Game can rule even with your eyes closed. Imagination is a truly great thing, and when it works together with good graphics - well, it's even better |
|
Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:49 am |
|
|
Ammon777
Warrior for Heaven
Joined: 20 Apr 2002
Posts: 2011
Location: United States |
quote:
Originally posted by Joey Nipps
quote:
Originally posted by Ammon777
umm what planet are you from? Of course they are getting better. Must i make a comparison? Okeys how about compare Ultima 1 with Morrowind. Which one is better? Its easy. Figure it out  BTW just because someone posted it, doesnt mean its true
I totally disagree unless one wishes to judge a game based upon more modern graphics (then of course Morrowind will beat any 20 year old game hands down). In many ways I far preferred Ultima I. It satisfied me in ways that Morrowind (and other modern games as well) do not. Morrowind pretends to be ground breaking - Ultima I WAS and didn't have to pretend at all.
[EDITed out something that was irrelevant.] Morrowind is a great game, and its all variably depending on one's perspective and gaming tastes. Maybe the reason Ultima was nice was because it was a new form of entertainment and there was NOTHING ELSE to play, and it was groundbreaking because there was NOTHING ELSE like it. I think you just have nostalgia. I can say that Ultima 1 was shallow, boring, and had bad graphics just like you can say that Morrowind is empty. It all depends on someone's perspective and tastes.
I just bought an unopened copy of Daggerfall from EBay, and i played it for a while, and you know, according to my tastes i didnt like it, in fact it was boring, because the graphics and control scheme sucked. I just dont like Daggerfall. That doesnt mean its a crappy game, though -- it just was not suitable to me.
It all depends on personalities, and the beauty of people is that everyone is different, so it is kind of subject to personality traits and personal experiences as to whether any given game is good to that person or not. Sometimes its the user interface that turns someone off, another time it could be the graphics, another time it could be the lack of something -- in any case you know what i am talking about.
So the point is that you are correct in saying that Ultima 1 was better than Morrowind, because for YOU that was and is true. And for me, Morrowind beats Ultima 1 any day. It all depends on the person. Am i right? |
|
Thu Nov 21, 2002 1:11 am |
|
|
GhanBuriGhan
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 208
|
quote:
Don't you think that theres a huge deal of "Technology/Graphics/ect going up and Content going down"?
Not really. Firstly you keep citing The infinity engine as an old engine - I can well remember the time when this engine was touted as the latest and greatest, just like MW now. This engine was developed with considerble expense of time too, you know. Then, if people like it you make a series of games of it. The Netimmerse engine of MW, BTW is licensed (not developed although severely modified by Bethesda) and is allready seen in several games, and I bet Tribunal wasnt the last TES we have seen on this engine. Time moves on. Content wise TES offers a lot - concerning both amount of dialogue and background reading (in game literature) there is few even of the old text-heavy games that could rival it. Storywise its not the best game I played, but its an extensive story with twists and turns nonetheless.
quote:
Personally I would rather have the depth and gameplay with dated graphics if the choice is there.
Questions is, do you have to? Again I wonder if BGII even qualifies as dated.
quote:
Let me try it another way, IF you could take the game content of NWN or Morrowind, and place them into an Infinity engine game style like BG II, would you be satisfied?
Reversely I could ask, if you could place the content of BG into the MW engine wouldnt it make it a better game? Engines and content influence and in the best case complement each other, so the question doesnt make too much sense - however yes, I believe that the story and Material in MW could have been made into a good infinity engine game, provided it had been adapted to the mechanics of that engine.
quote:
You say you want something which increases the feeling of the fanatsy universe? Well surely what is best for that is much more depth and quality in the characters and the story, its those things which are paramount to immersion, the graphics can be compensated with imagination. But if the game world has few characters and little dialogue or depth, then it will never be immersive.
There is only so much visuals can achive. I agree they provide and initial "ooh ahhh" factor, but as Morrowind demonstrates that quickly wears off, and when it does the game gets painfully slow and monotonous
Now if that world had been rich with characters and dialogue and depth, it would have been a great game indeed.
Without good story and interesting story it wouldnt work, sure enough. Now I happen to find MW not at all boring and it hasn't worn off for me in half a year - so MW suits my tastes I guess - lots of background info, interesting world (I dont let anything come on the depth of it - if you didnt see it you didnt look), freedom to explore, good visuals to make it all believable. MW does fail somewhat in the uniqueness of NPC, I am quite ready to admit that - but many games even in the past have used filler NPCs, just as MW does or worse just used settings where you could do with 20 of them. In MW you can at least ask everyone some basic things (much more so than in the so often cited Gothic, famed for its realistic NPCs, where all the diggers and guard really have hardly anything sensible to say and you can tell them I am new here even when you are allready the niw big bad boy in Town. And it was even worse in the original Baldurs Gate by the way - you could spot any quest-NPC by name and by the fact that they had nothing to say). MW suits the exploration type of player (me) why should that make it a worse game than one that better suits the story kind of player (you)?
Finally it might be intersting to note that in the way the story is driven, MW is actually quite a conservative text driven game - much closer to games like BG or old ultimas then to the (in that respect) more modern Gothic. Yet usually peple tend to rather complain about this then applaud it :p |
|
Thu Nov 21, 2002 1:30 am |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
quote:
Originally posted by DevilsBane
Don't you think that theres a huge deal of "Technology/Graphics/ect going up and Content going down"?
It seems to me the extra expenditure on advanced 3D graphics is being discounted in hours into the depth and content of the games.
I could be wrong, but I have this same impression. The first Ultimas ran on puny PCs clocked at 8MHz or even less. MW requires a 500MHz processor. That's a lot of additional horsepower, which is being diverted mostly, IMHO, to the graphical portion of a game. Imagine all that speed used to control realistic NPCs...
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
|
Thu Nov 21, 2002 1:57 am |
|
|
Joey Nipps
Orcan High Command
Joined: 03 Jan 2002
Posts: 849
Location: Outer Space |
quote:
Originally posted by Ammon777
I can say that Ultima 1 was shallow, boring, and had bad graphics just like you can say that Morrowind is empty. It all depends on someone's perspective and tastes.
No, you cannot say that Ultima I had bad graphics (well, you can say it but you would be very, very wrong). It has nothing to do with taste or perspective. Ultima I had fantastic, state of the art graphics - just as Morrowind does today. One cannot judge 20 year old graphics on the same set of standards as graphics produced today.
quote:
I just bought an unopened copy of Daggerfall from EBay, and i played it for a while, and you know, according to my tastes i didnt like it, in fact it was boring, because the graphics and control scheme sucked.
And therein lies the problem, you are judging the quality of a CRPG by the least important properties. Don't get me wrong - not liking the graphics or control scheme are very valid reasons not to enjoy playing a game - but those have little or nothing to do with the overal quality of the CRPG aspects that ARE important. BTW, I didn't much care for the graphics either (I don't recall the control scheme).
This would be like deciding the quality of a novel by the cover art, the page numbering scheme and the texture/coloration of the pages.
_________________
When everything else in life seems to fail you - buy a vowel. |
|
Thu Nov 21, 2002 1:59 am |
|
|
DevilsBane
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 39
|
Maybe what this post show, is that theres a need for two markets here?
I mean clearly Morrowing, NWn these modern title are satisfying some people ourt there, but I also see those like me who see the glaring lack of anything deep and tangibly behind the flashy graphics and want a lot more 'life and depth' to the games.
I just hope the companies are aware of this. As it stands I would have to think long and hard before buying a sequel to either MW or NWN, not that they are BAD games, but really after something like BG II (maybe I am biased, but its honest bias, the best I have played in a very long time even though its old) I just think those games would seem even more empty.
Its not really impossible to achieve depth and plot along with graphics, Deus Ex achieved that to excellent effec5t, and no doubt Deux Ex 2 will push the bar even further
Still BG III would also be high on my wishlist |
|
Thu Nov 21, 2002 7:28 am |
|
|
GhanBuriGhan
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 208
|
quote:
And therein lies the problem, you are judging the quality of a CRPG by the least important properties. Don't get me wrong - not liking the graphics or control scheme are very valid reasons not to enjoy playing a game - but those have little or nothing to do with the overal quality of the CRPG aspects that ARE important. BTW, I didn't much care for the graphics either (I don't recall the control scheme).
Why is that a problem, isnt it like he said a matter of personal preference? Daggerfall is an interesting case in point BTW - when it came out many people found it "no really an RPG" because of the same arguments that are used against games today - flat NPCs and dialogue, weak story, graphics over gameplay - yet there is a surprising amount of people that have it high on their list of best CRPG and play it to this day, just like you may play the ld Ultimas.
I think we may come to some sort of agreement when we accept that people have different coneptions of what the ideal RPG should be - it si obvious that my ideal game woul look different than yours or DevilsBane's.
I think the "Exploration type" of RPG has become better not worse, and that technology has been beneficial for it. If you say (and maybe I am simply not in the position to judge that) that the things you love in RPGs have become worse and do not reach the standards of old, than thats indeed bad.
We just shouldnt stoop to calling one type of game (or gamer) superior to the other.
quote:
No, you cannot say that Ultima I had bad graphics (well, you can say it but you would be very, very wrong). It has nothing to do with taste or perspective. Ultima I had fantastic, state of the art graphics - just as Morrowind does today. One cannot judge 20 year old graphics on the same set of standards as graphics produced today.
An interesting point - the Ultimas always pushed PC technology - many people baught new machines on a regular basis just for these games. Which might indicate that concnetraton on technology and graphis is NOT the culprit for games becoming less deep (if thats true).
The second point I want to make is that you mention "by todays standards" which reflects on my original point, that it is not games having become worse but our standards that have increased - it would seem logical that that has not only happened for Graphics alone.
All of us have played many games, and of course we all compare new games to the best ones we played in all those years - now assuming games have an inherent quality that is independent of the technology they are presented with, it would seem a simple matter of statistics that games that surpass the old ones become more and more rare.
 And OK, I eat my words, it CAN be fun to discuss with you |
|
Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:45 am |
|
|
ButtOfMalmsey
Village Idiot
Joined: 07 May 2002
Posts: 785
Location: Mississippi |
The question is I think a good one, although wrong-headed. Sergei Eisenstein was asked about the extraordinary power of his films. He commented that what the West did not understand about Soviet film makers was that after the Revolution they did not have access to film stock, so what most film makers did was sit around and theorize about how they would make films once they got film stock.
This is why there are so many good RPGs. Some people say that there is no substitute for experience, and certainly it is true that those people who started out making great RPGs back in the day can still make them now. However, there is also no substitute for theories. That's where the innovation comes in.
BTW, I still think that Darklands is the best RPG of all time.
_________________
"It has been a grand journey- well-worth making once."
-Winston Churchill, 1965, on Life
I saw this in a movie about a bus that had to SPEED around a city, keeping its SPEED over fifty, and if its SPEED dropped, it would explode. I think it was called, "The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down."
-Homer Simpson
=Member of the Non-Flamers Guild=
=Member of The Sixth House=
::Captain of the Black Company:: |
|
Thu Nov 21, 2002 7:29 pm |
|
|
Ammon777
Warrior for Heaven
Joined: 20 Apr 2002
Posts: 2011
Location: United States |
quote:
Originally posted by Joey Nipps
quote:
Originally posted by Ammon777
I can say that Ultima 1 was shallow, boring, and had bad graphics just like you can say that Morrowind is empty. It all depends on someone's perspective and tastes.
No, you cannot say that Ultima I had bad graphics (well, you can say it but you would be very, very wrong). It has nothing to do with taste or perspective. Ultima I had fantastic, state of the art graphics - just as Morrowind does today. One cannot judge 20 year old graphics on the same set of standards as graphics produced today.
quote:
I just bought an unopened copy of Daggerfall from EBay, and i played it for a while, and you know, according to my tastes i didnt like it, in fact it was boring, because the graphics and control scheme sucked.
And therein lies the problem, you are judging the quality of a CRPG by the least important properties. Don't get me wrong - not liking the graphics or control scheme are very valid reasons not to enjoy playing a game - but those have little or nothing to do with the overal quality of the CRPG aspects that ARE important. BTW, I didn't much care for the graphics either (I don't recall the control scheme).
This would be like deciding the quality of a novel by the cover art, the page numbering scheme and the texture/coloration of the pages.
I agree and I seem corrected. You are right, Ultima 1 did have superior graphics at the time it came out. |
|
Thu Nov 21, 2002 8:24 pm |
|
|
FireAnt
Noble Knight
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 212
|
I've really enjoyed morrowind but i haven't played many older RPG's can anyone suggest some good ones? Personaly I didn't see the big thing with Balder's gate 1. I haven't played it for a long time and maybe my tastes have changed but I'm enjoying Morrwind more. Is Balder's gate 1 like NWN at all? i enjoy NwN a lot, I found Balders gate a bit too hard, I went down into that mine and wowa those little red guys wore me down.
The creator of this jumpy post -Fireant |
|
Fri Nov 22, 2002 5:34 am |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Fri Apr 12, 2019 3:07 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
