quote: Original post by beantas
Would you like games to be drawn in ascii-art forever?

Hey, that''s not fair, Nethack''s moved on -

quote: Original post by Sandman 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.

Of course the game is the whole package. It doesn''t just include underlying game mechanics, it includes things like graphics, sound, plot line, art, etc. From what you''re saying, we could all be just imagining that we''re in another world killing monsters, stealing cars, building cities, etc. and that we don''t need computer\video games or even minatures\game pieces and dice\cards. Sure, I guess these things aren''t necessary, especially if you have a good imagination, but they definitely give us more tangible, physical elements to relate to, which in turn makes things more realistic and emmersive, which makes the game better.

quote: Original post by Sandman
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.
This analogy doesn''t work, because the weaker computer can''t take full advantage of the 48" screen. A bad game can take advantage of very good graphics, in some cases so much that it offsets some of the flaws in the gameplay.

first off, graphics is only important as far as presentation goes, it can be simple BUT it MUST be polished. immersion has more to do with sound than with visuals.


""Another cliche: "Technology is bad for gameplay." People seem to equate technology to just prettier visuals. Or that somehow technology is to blame for bad gameplay.""

you are horribly wrong here fellow, technology has done nothing to gameplay, when compared to how rapid it is improving, perhaps the only contributions to gameplay technological progress had to offer are the jump to 3d, the analog stick, and dual analog gameplay... it's weird that no game has satisfied me when it comes to interactivity with the game's environment, only goldeneye came close...



((work for the world like you will never die, and work for the hereafter like you will die tomorrow)) - Prophet Mohammed.

[edited by - jackyll on November 7, 2002 9:05:22 PM]

Ok now i''m gonna but it (sorry guys)
i) Graphics are inportant but not essential i mean c''mon have you seen GTA that was using like Duke Nukem 3D 1994 graphics but it was an addictive game

ii) Half Life was kinda innovative it was the first FPS to really watch my eye it had many things other FPS''s didnt at the time but like someone has said the scientists are hidden switches i agree but hey talking to a old scientist and trying to fight the urge not to kill him is much better then just pressing E near a button

iii) I totally don''t agree. Yeah the enviroment is the same but then again you can say that about RTS''s like Red Alert, A&E, TA, Machines........etc. Plots make FPS''s different i mean in half life your a scientist who''s trying to escape where as in Kingpin you''re a thug who wants pay-back. Plots arent the only thing which make FPS''s different many have new features like with Kingpin you could recuit ppl and in NOLF you had kool spy gadgets to play with. There''s far too much to explain on this statement but I totally disagree with it they only LOOK the same in part.

I hope i made (or i probably repeated) a point here

------------------------------
"I''''m Myself Nothing More" - Kolin32K

The ONLY way a game can be immersive is if it connects with the players imagination...just as it is for books and films.

Some people have more active imaginations and don''t require as much visual/audio input to be drawn into a game...others have a more reserved imagination as such requireing more fully robust visual/audio stimulis to become immersed...and many people are between these two extreams.

I am an adult with a fairly active imagination...I can get drawn into graphicly primitive games faster then the more current near "photo" real stuff.

As an example...take a traditional console style 2D RPG (Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior)...when characters talk to NPCs and such, they typicaly have a small pop-up text dialog box to display what is being said (and perhapse a portrat of the speaking character)...from just this little bit of information, my imagination kicks in filling in the "gaps"...I can imagine the way the characters voice sounds, thier facial expressions, even various camera angles or view points that could be used if this conversation takes place in a movie...it gives my imagination a work-out, and I enjoy that...

However in modern games with voice acting and even character facial animations complete with specific camera angles and so forth...I typicaly find this increadably frustraiting...my imagination kicks in putting little details into the scene, but then the sound of the voice, or animation/camera angles (even the details on the characters) contradict what I imagine the way such a conversation between such characters should be like.

Which is why I find FPS like Duke 3D and Doom so much more immersive then most of the 3D FPS made sense then...I don''t need a fully 3D game enviroment, with fully 3D texturemapped, pixel shaded perfect polygon characters...to me, all that detail gets in the way

quote: Original post by MSW
As an example...take a traditional console style 2D RPG (Final Fantasy, Dragon Warrior)...when characters talk to NPCs and such, they typicaly have a small pop-up text dialog box to display what is being said (and perhapse a portrat of the speaking character)...from just this little bit of information, my imagination kicks in filling in the "gaps"...I can imagine the way the characters voice sounds, thier facial expressions, even various camera angles or view points that could be used if this conversation takes place in a movie...it gives my imagination a work-out, and I enjoy that...

This is true in a lot of games (especially console RPGs) simply because as the graphics get more real, the gameplay doesn''t. Final Fantasy still has the same basic gameplay as the original NES version, but the graphics have been improved immensely. The problem is, a lot of things (especially random battles) break the immersiveness that the graphics give you. In the old NES\SNES FF games, everything was kind of abstract and iconic and you could fill in the gaps with things like random battles and the world map. It becomes really hard to do that in FF8 or FF10, because you expect those games to behave a little bit more realisticly.

quote:
Which is why I find FPS like Duke 3D and Doom so much more immersive then most of the 3D FPS made sense then...I don''t need a fully 3D game enviroment, with fully 3D texturemapped, pixel shaded perfect polygon characters...to me, all that detail gets in the way

I disagree with this. FPS games, and any other genre that tries to make you feel like you actually "inside the game" benefit greatly from graphics. Doom and Duke Nukem 3D are both very fun games, but they aren''t necessarily any better than newer games with better graphics. They do have different gameplay styles then what you usually see in modern fps games, but Serious Sam plays a lot like Doom (with modern graphics) and DNF (if it ever comes out) will probably play a lot like DN3D.

quote:
I disagree with this. FPS games, and any other genre that tries to make you feel like you actually "inside the game" benefit greatly from graphics.

And I disagree with that

The more detail added, makes it harder fo me to get that feeling of being "inside the game"...for me text games like the old Infocom ones are some of the most immersive around...I love to use my imagination (especialy as I get older and older) and pride myself on not being a "ordinary" old fart in this reguard...

Yeah, Serious Sam had Doom like gameplay...but I found (and still find) Doom much more immersive...I felt much more "inside that game" then any other FPS ever made...to me, everything felt so real and alive in that game...and only Duke 3D has come close to matching it as far as FPS are concerned...but thats me...my opinion.

What works for "most people" doesn't work for me...as, thankfully, I'm not part of that "most people" crowd :D


[edited by - MSW on November 8, 2002 3:03:54 AM]

quote: Original post by Impossible
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.

Greetings all,

Very interesting topic, but sort of, got away from the beginning..
Each post is true in some exact situation. It can depends from games experience, age, culture background (PC or Consoles), position in gamdev business.
As manager and PC gamer with 15 years exp. I think that we cannot substract one side of game and tell: "That (graphics/story/gameplay what makes this game great!" It''s all goes in complex. That been said here. But I want to dig into this definitions more deeply and try to prove that gameplay stay''s aside, but makes the GAME, all other featurs just support it :

1) Graphics: Tons of great technical graphics features can make game attractive for the short period. But it has nothing to do with game, what''s more important - it''s game ART. If game art do not fits story and gameplay... It can demolish general impression of the game. McGee Alice or Unreal had perfect artwork, completely fitting story and does !not affecting gameplay!.
Tetris is one of the best game ever! It does need graphics to support gameplay. I''ts very sucessfull without it And... please remind me... what was the storyline?

2) Storyline: story should support gameplay. It should help player build natural reaction on gameflow, clearify the goals of game, stage, checkpoint. It only helps You to get inside, feel urself indside the game. But Game with only storyline - compination of moovie and remote control...
We are not talkin about Asian market... For them storyline is extremely important... Thay can read tons of text or watch hours of cutscenes with sexual pleasure...
Have You seen Residen Evel on GameBoy? It''s only text... And it''s popular.

3) Gameplay: It''s the heart of the game. It cannot survive long enough without graphics/sound/story, but can kill the game. When I''m sayin "gameplay" I mean some gameplay elements... Key elements, which making one games popular and kills others... GTA - possibility of stealing the car. Mafia - car chases with shooting out of the car window, CS - real weapons... and so on...
If this feature exists, if designer found something new and innovating, than sucess totally depends on acessories: graphics/story/sound (atmosphere).

I hope, I made myself clear.. sorry for my English

And back to the topic beginning:
Gamers doesn''t have steriotypes about graphics or gameplay. They have steriotypes, about the games!
RTS - C&C, Starcraft and Warcraft...
S.Player FPS - Half Life
M.P. FPS - Unreal or CS
Quest - It''s dead (or at leat age of 40
Race - NFS

Question is how to brake them? Completely innovative game without 5000000 marketing budget, which will not fit gamers steriotypes will be rejected by customers. That''s a great problem!

Thank''s for attention.
Nik

quote: Original post by Isaev
[1) Graphics: Tons of great technical graphics features can make game attractive for the short period. But it has nothing to do with game, what''s more important - it''s game ART. If game art do not fits story and gameplay... It can demolish general impression of the game. McGee Alice or Unreal had perfect artwork, completely fitting story and does !not affecting gameplay!.

When we say graphics we mean artwork as well as the technical features and rendering capabilities of the game engine. The engine enables the artwork, but a good engine with bad artwork will still result in a bad looking game.

Engine or features are secondary.
If I don''t made myself clear.