People are misintrepreting this as gameplay vs. graphics, it isn''t. Gameplay is still the most important thing and a game with shitty graphics can still be tons of fun. Beantas was just saying that graphics are important and should not be dismissed. People tend to say things like "they spent all their time on graphics, and didn''t focus on gameplay" which is true in some cases, but I for one would rather play a good game with good graphics than a good game with bad graphics. That said, some games benefit more from graphics than others. UT2K3 or Doom III just wouldn''t be the same without their great graphics (especially Doom III), but you can only do so much with an abstract game like tetris.

quote: Original post by Impossible
UT2K3 or Doom III just wouldn''t be the same without their great graphics (especially Doom III), but you can only do so much with an abstract game like tetris.

If UT2k3 had Quake 1 graphics, how would it be any different as far as the game is concerned? And the fact that you think Doom 3 is relying entirely on its graphics is a nicely packaged insult to it''s game-ness.

My point still stands. There are games that are made as games, and there are software products that are intended to entertain, but fail miserably at being a game.

quote: Original post by scaught
If UT2k3 had Quake 1 graphics, how would it be any different as far as the game is concerned?

You mentioned that you get as immersed in Nethack as you do in Final Fantasy. Well that's great for you. But you are not part of the norm. Yes, some other people might agree with you. But the general opinion is that better graphics can immerse you better and that can make for a better game.

In fact, I bet that many people who claim to feel the same way as you are actually deluding themselves, either to prove a point or because they want to believe it. Would you like games to be drawn in ascii-art forever?

[edited by - beantas on November 6, 2002 12:08:56 AM]

quote: Original post by beantas
You mentioned that you get as immersed in Nethack as you do in Final Fantasy. Well that's great for you. But you are not part of the norm. Yes, some other people might agree with you. But the general opinion is that better graphics can immerse you better.

In fact, I bet that many people who claim to feel the same way as you are actually deluding themselves, either to prove a point or because they want to believe it. Would you like games to be drawn in ascii-art forever?

why do you keep claiming to be part of the norm or the general audience? everythign you say is right. personally i think thats rather arrogant and offers nothing to a debate. the only reason that ut2k3 has good graphics is cause without them then it wouldn't sell cause of all the rest of the games have a higher level of graphcis and people tend to judge a book by their cover.
if ut2k3 were released in an age where 3d hardware acceleration didn't exist and it was running on a quake1 engine, it would still be the same game with the same gameplay and the same level of immersion and sell just as well as it were in this age.

space quest 1 immersed me into the game world probably more then any first person shooter ever did. its not the graphics that creates the immersion. a novel doesn't even have graphics in it and they immerse me into a world much more then any game could ever do.



"The human mind is limited only by the bounds which we impose upon ourselves." -iNfuSeD

[edited by - iNfuSeD on November 6, 2002 12:15:30 AM]

About UT2K3, the actual gameplay would be different simply because a lot of the levels (especially the larger outdoor type ones) just couldn''t be done with Q1 technology. Also you can argue that people would like something like Q1 or Unreal 1 more if they had graphics like UT2K3 at the time they were released (along with a decent framerate of course.)

There''s no crime in liking pretty graphics and enjoying them, that''s all we''re saying. I honestly have no idea why people are so anti-graphics, there''s nothing that says good graphics distract from gameplay. It''s kind of like saying all attractive girls have no personalities, or all movies with special effects have no plot. It''s a cliche that a lot of people (as you can see from this post) believe in.

Other cliches:

-2D is more fun than 3D.
-Old games are better than current games.

I think both of these stem from a combination of nostalgia and selective memories. Sure there are tons of great games from the NES\SNES era and tons of great old PC games, but there are a lot of really, really bad ones, games so bad that the modern 3D equivalents wouldn''t even be made in this era. Also I think some of it has to do with people playing those games when they were young. A lot of younger kids (10-12 I guess) wouldn''t get into older games, simply because it''s a style of game they aren''t used to.

I have to agree with Impossible here. Graphics matter. I remeber thinking how great those games on the C-64 were. When I got a C-64 emulator and actually played a few of those games that were sooo cool back in the day I really wondered how I was able to stand playing those games. Similar with stuff like DuneII. Heck, that game was the reason I bought my first PC! I wouldn''t play it anymore these days because I have seen what is possible. You can''t honestly tell me that Age of Mythology, say, would still be the same game if done in 2D at 320x240x8 graphics? You could have much of the same gameplay but it would feel entirely different.

Yes, books can be immersive but I think that is an unfair comparison because games aren''t books and books aren''t games. They are substantially different.

quote: Original post by iNfuSeD
why do you keep claiming to be part of the norm or the general audience? everythign you say is right. personally i think thats rather arrogant and offers nothing to a debate. the only reason that ut2k3 has good graphics is cause without them then it wouldn't sell cause of all the rest of the games have a higher level of graphcis and people tend to judge a book by their cover.

I'm sorry that I came off as arrogant. I'm not trying to do so. But I guess I'm not interested in designing games for a tiny niche of gamers and I don't think many others are. Game design is essentially all opinion and there will always be _someone_ who disagrees with something. My goal as a game designer is to create games which will reach a relatively significant amount of people. And I was arguing that his opinion is not shared by a significant amount of people.

quote:
if ut2k3 were released in an age where 3d hardware acceleration didn't exist and it was running on a quake1 engine, it would still be the same game with the same gameplay and the same level of immersion and sell just as well as it were in this age.

It's easier to say that when you are "running on a quake1 engine" because it would still look relatively realistic. What if you made a bigger jump backwards in graphics? What if UT2K3 had Atari 2600-style graphics with non-animated blocks And flat unshaded terrain? Would it still be as immersive as the current one even if it had the same gameplay intact?

And take Nethack for example. It has great gameplay and happens to have crude graphics. If you took it and kept the gameplay intact but implemented it with the Doom3 engine, would it be more immersive? My argument is yes. Yes its gameplay is already immersive and it doesn't need better graphics to be an immersive game. But adding better graphics can make it even more immersive.

quote:
its not the graphics that creates the immersion.

Better graphics can be more immersive because you will relate better to the gameworld if, visually, it more closely resembles the world you live in. If you see a rock in the game which looks just like the one outside your door, wouldn't it have an impact on how you perceive the game universe? The monsters in Nethack are scary because of the gameplay. Couldn't they be scarier if they more closely resemble the monsters that scared you in films? It makes the gameworld more believable and makes it seem like it is truly a world inside the game.

Yes it's not right to compare novels to games because they are different things. But since you already brought it up, here's an analogy. In novels, many times you want a character to feel realistic, to have actions which make sense in the real world. A character who does things for no apparent reason and has no real motivation can ruin a good book because it ruins the immersiveness of a book. That isn't to say this is a requirement for a good book but it is one way to get a person inside the world in the book.

quote:
space quest 1 immersed me into the game world probably more then any first person shooter ever did.

I think that's an unfair comparison because we're supposed to be arguing that graphics alone can make a game more immersive. You are comparing two games with differing levels of graphics and differing gameplay, two separate variables. If they remade SQ1 with better graphics would it be more immersive? Or if they ported it to an Atari 2600, would it be less immersive?


[edited by - beantas on November 7, 2002 10:59:27 AM]

1) The relationship between graphics and their effect on the enjoyment of a game are entirely dependant on the type of gameplay implemented. For instance, many people find pong to be quite fun (I sure do), part of its greatness is its simple, yet addictive, nature. just two paddles and a ball (If you don''t think pong is fun, you''ve never whatched or participated in a game between two master players, or just don''t think pong is fun, which I would find odd...). Now, lets say we took pong, and added fancy lighting, bitchen textures and bump mapping, and whatever other eye-candy you might like. Does it alter the enjoyability of the game? No. No emersion is nessessary because of the games simple nature, its gameplay elements are based solely on bouncing a ball around a screen, it doesn''t really matter that the ball is actually square. Many puzzle games are like this, tetris anyone?

There are, however, many more instances when emersive visuals are nessessary to make the game fun. Take System Shock 2 for instance. All the artwork in that game is designed to emerse you in a world where you are cut off from all of the rest of humanity and being taunted by HAL''s younger, eviler, sister. If the game had been done in, say, a top down 2d view filled with block-like representations of everything, the game would lose much of its appeal due to lack of emersion.

I guess what I''m trying to say is that a games eye-candy should be a measured nessesity based on its ''type'' of gameplay.


2) Couldn''t agree more with the original poster on the half-life innovation issue

3) Couldn''t agree more here either. For a long time, however, FPSs were far too similar and the cliche was true. And, out of curiosity, who could possible not notice the differences between Civ2 and Civ3? Its quite obvious that one is quite possibly the greatest game of all time, and the other only attempts to capitalize off being related to what is quite possiblty the greatest game of all time.

Oh, BTW, I can''t spell immersion. But hey, nobody is perfect.

It all comes down to what you consider makes a ''game''.

I see the ''game'' as being the underlying mechanism of the game, the ruleset etc. Graphics are irrelevent - the game can be fun with minimal graphics. Making the graphics better does not make the game more fun , but it certainly does make it more appealing. Note the difference between ''fun'' and ''appealing''.

You define the ''game'' as the complete package. Obviously graphics are important, since they are important to the appeal of the package as a whole.

Its a bit like comparing computers. Lets suppose one computer has more than enough memory and CPU power to easily run your favourite OS, and any software you like, but only has a 14" monitor and can''t display anything over 800x600, whereas the other computer is barely powerful enough to run windows 3.1, let alone other apps on top of that, but comes with a gorgeous 48" plasma screen. Which ''computer'' is better?

The one with the big screen is great for 5 minutes of showing off to your mates, but you aren''t going to get much useful work done with it. The other one may not look as impressive, but at least you''ll be able to do something useful with it.