Hi, I was just thinking, after seeing the Doom 3 video with the GeForce 3, is this really where we want games to go? Is the idea of games to be as realistic as possible, or to be as fun and as playable as possible? Can they both happen at the same time? I think that the idea of games was originally just to be fun, i.e. point-and-click shooting, working out puzzles, etc.. but nowadays it seems to be realism. I think that the closer games get to real-life, the less fun they would be? Just a thought.. BTW, this is my first post of this sort :D

I think we all noticed the fact that graphics are moving up to a new level every year. The thing that worries me is that one day using 2d in your game will be a sin. I love good graphics dont get me wrong but it seems that a lot of companies are worried more about graphics then they are in the game. You can easily have good graphics and good gameplay it just matters how much time they spend on gameplay. So all I am trying to say is I hope companies start understanding that its ok to make nice graphics but make the gameplay to back it up too.

It''s hard to predict whether or not 2d games are eventually going to become taboo, i mean games have been 2d right from the start. Surely 3d games are going to get better and better graphics with newer technology and better programming techniques, but I believe that 2d games will still have a big gap to fill.

The gamers'' hunger for photo-realistic graphics will die off once they can''t get anymore realistic, and the focus will end up somewhere else; such as input methods and different ways of emerging the player in the game.

Many programmers still have a passion for developing 2d games such as RPGs and Strategy games. If you can get the graphics to blend nicely and look effective, you don''t loading 3d graphics.
Because 2d is still stuck in so many programmers'' systems, it would be safe to assume that 2d will be around for a long time to come...

Shade
~What the light can''t see

An escellent subject for a first post.

One of the major reasons for the attention to graphics is obviously the "Wow!" factor. If a demo looks great, there is a good chance the game will sell millions of copies, even if the gameplay stinks. (Sadly, this is often the case.)

The legitimate reason for attention to graphics is that it helps to create an immersive world. This is the idea of "suspension of disbelief." This is the idea that in order to create a truly great game experience, the game should be completely believeable. If the player gets so involved in the game world that he forgets that he is playing a game, this has been accomplished. A convincing game world helps to make a game enjoyable and memorable - two important goals of good game design.

But as you point out, all this attention to detail is not without its drawbacks. One of these is that the technical expertise required to produce one of these graphics-intensive games requires a great deal of time, equipment, expense, and technical expertise. While resources like Gamedev can be of assistance, it is still difficult for an indicidual to come up with something that can rival these multimillion dollar projects. It used to be that a decent game could be produced at home in a couple of hours. (I think that that is still possible, by the way. But unfortunately, projects like this aren''t going to sell very well.)

I would like to point out that many of the best games come out towards the end of a game console''s lifespan. Certainly, the fact that the progtammers have learned the intimate details of the system doesn''t hurt. But there is a tremendous difference between game programming and game design.

I think that one of the major reasons great games tend to come at the end of a console''s lifespan is that less of the developer''s time is being devoted to exploring improvements to the graphics engines. They already know how to do amazing things with the console, and concentrate on gameplay.

Once you have reached a graphics performance plateau, you naturally spend more time improving those things which can still be improved. Look at the success of the Gameboy. This is a platform which has outlasted many systems with far better capabilities. Is this all just a result of the system''s mobility? I don''t believe that. I think that since there isn''t all that much room for improvement in graphics, developers have concentrated on more important aspects of game design.

A great graphics engine can be one of the best tricks in a programmer''s bos of tricks. But there is a big difference between programming and game design. The job of the designer is to create the design. Let the programmer implement that design in the best way he can, but don''t consider graphics an element of game design. It''s not. And games which try to substitute graphics for design may sell, but they''re nothing to be proud of. And although a company may turn a profit that way, it can never gain a truly great reputation, nor create great art.

~Jonathon

Also, I think that 2D games are superior, graphically and artistically, to 3D.

For some genres, like First-Person Shooters, the 3D engine is the best choice (although old-school, Anime bitmaps could be applied if the engine were efficient enough.)

But nothing comes close to the artwork of a 2D game. Sure, 3D artists can do amazing things, and are very talented professionals. But their goal is to immitate reality, whereas 2D artists seek to create it.

Of course, this is a matter of taste. I would rather showcase 2D artwork because it is more to my liking.

~Jonathon

I like Rpgs to be 2d something like Lunar and Dragon Quest I thought those two games were very colorful and made me like the graphics more. But like you said its a matter of opinion.

Damn, and I was thinking of making a 3D RPG

ANDREW RUSSELL STUDIOS
Visit Tiberia: it''s bigger, it''s badder, it''s pouyer...

I had a nice reply typed up but i accidentally hit back on my browswer and when i hit forward, it was gone. So now i hope ur as miserable as me

PS. i was going on about how some genres like RPG should stay the hell away from 3D while flight simulators and fps and stuff require it

Whether a game uses any particular technology depends on the needs of the game design. To say that any genre of game "requires" a given technology is rather narrow-minded.

I agree with the original post that the current trend towards photo-realism in games is not a good thing. But, again, it depends on the goals of the game.


DavidRM
Samu Games

quote: Original post by DavidRM

Whether a game uses any particular technology depends on the needs of the game design. To say that any genre of game "requires" a given technology is rather narrow-minded.

I agree with the original post that the current trend towards photo-realism in games is not a good thing. But, again, it depends on the goals of the game.


DavidRM
Samu Games

Thats all u get when i lose my original, much better and much longer reply thanks to stupid browsers, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr