Aye, the gaming industry would definitely take a turn for the better if it started releasing more innovative games.
I cannot really blame them for catering to the graphical side of things, though. Video gaming is a hobby, a time killer, a form of stress release but above <i>all</i> else, it is a business. If the public is content to buy the same rehash of an old game with slightly improved graphics, the industry will cater to that majority. Doing it any other way would be ludicrous.
It is not like a small time business (take, for example, a bakery) taking a small risk (in this example, lets say that the owner designs a new type of bread and tries to sell it. If he fails and no one likes the bread, he loses very little money). Video gaming is a multi-million dollar industry, and publishers put millions upon millions of dollars into a single game. Therefore, you cannot really blame them for wanting to play it safe and not take a risk with some innovative game that may or may not make a profit. If they are safely guaranteed a decent profit by creating fifa 2008 with slightly better graphics than fifa 2007, why do anything else?
Every once in a while a game will come out that is completely successful in the "gameplay" category, the "graphics" category and still manages to make a decent amount of money (Half-Life 2 being one). Unfortunately, these games are pretty damned rare, especially when put side by side with the amount of innovative games that have failed. The big companies are going to be playing it safe for a long time, and I cannot blame them. Until a large part of the market want games that trade graphical quality for better and more innovative gameplay (And it is often a tradeoff. Developers only have a finite amount of money, and they need to create a game that will sell in the publishers selected market or risk being shut down.) then we will see the same trend in games. The graphical grade will go up, while decent innovative games will still be fairly rare.
Me? I have no complaints with the way that the system is at the moment.
<!--QuoteBegin-TheMuffinMan+Apr 5 2005, 11:49 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TheMuffinMan @ Apr 5 2005, 11:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Aye, the gaming industry would definitely take a turn for the better if it started releasing more innovative games. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> At least we've got Nintendo (Pikmin, DS, etc)
Another aspect of the cost of better graphics is the hardware. I'm suprised nobody mentioned the video card race between Nvidia and Raedon. Maybe I just missed it...
To be honest I think the rise in game prices and pursuit of bigger game engines is being lurched forward not by the game companies, but by the "arms race" between graphics card companies. It has even gotten to the point to where the graphics card companies are now try to get associated with big games and push intentional incompatibility with other games supported by a competing company.
Whatever the case it is true that game prices are rising. This won't affect the wealthy or the kids who have wealthy divorced parents who buy them everything to cater favor. But for the rest of us it is starting to make it where we have to buget ourselves. In order to play these new more expensive games you have also have to start planning to upgrade your computer hardware or buy a new computer all together. And then there is the cost of internet. Many of you kids out there who are in high school or grade school don't understand the costs of living. Internet costs money and I have yet to see a company at least in the city I live in that will provide just internet service. It usually has to come with cable TV or a phone line. All of this adds up to being a big expense and unless you are the type of person who loves being in debt you start to cut back on expenses.
The author of this thread makes a good point I agree with: cutting edge graphics technology doesn't mean it will be more fun. Nothing is more annoying than having a game you can't play well because your system is struggling to handle the load. And many games built on old engines designs like the old CS, NS, and TFC are still fun to play with people despite not being cutting edge. You don't have to have a game that looks like it was made with Lightwave for it to be fun.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nothing is more annoying than having a game you can't play well because your system is struggling to handle the load.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> QFT.
I'll bet that most of the people here arguing the case for graphics have a system at least twice, if not 3 times as powerfull as mine (based on processor clockrate). I can't afford to keep upgrading all the time so that I can play pretty games like HL2, which from what I can tell aren't really any more fun then HL1 anyway. But most of the PC game companies are headed that way. Hell that last time I was planing to upgrade (but didn't because the money was needed elsewhere), the system I designed then has already been surpassed by quite a bit. The console upgrade cycle is bad enough (what is it, 3, 4 years?), and PCs outpace it 2 or 3 fold. Its rediculous.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Apr 3 2005, 06:13 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Apr 3 2005, 06:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Not to mention that as far as fighting games go, 2D for some reason remains VASTLY superior to 3D. The only 3D fighter I really liked was Psychic Force. Well guess what? It may have been 3D graphics, but you still only fought in two dimensions. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Have you tried Soul Calibur? Maybe Tekken 5? I'd say they have a more complex system of game mechanics and moves than say, any of the Capcom games.
It's not about complexity, it's about playability. If you want millions of different moves, then Tekken or DoA is the game for you. But I don't want to play "memorize the moves," I want a fighting game, one in which I take relatively few moves and combine them in creative ways to create an endless variety of playing style. And as such, a contemporary 2D fighter like Guilty Gear, which uses 2D graphics but at the same time takes advantage of the capabilities of modern hardware to pull off some very impressive eyecandy, is the game for me. Can't speak about Soul Calibur though.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Apr 6 2005, 07:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Apr 6 2005, 07:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's not about complexity, it's about playability. If you want millions of different moves, then Tekken or DoA is the game for you. But I don't want to play "memorize the moves," I want a fighting game, one in which I take relatively few moves and combine them in creative ways to create an endless variety of playing style. And as such, a contemporary 2D fighter like Guilty Gear, which uses 2D graphics but at the same time takes advantage of the capabilities of modern hardware to pull off some very impressive eyecandy, is the game for me. Can't speak about Soul Calibur though. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think this is an example of combo based fighting systems. It doesn't matter whether they are 2D or 3D. Soul Calibur's 3D game elements don't add very much, besides a way to dodge, which is something that can be done in a 2D sprite based game.
The division isn't between 2D and 3D, it's between games like Soul Calibur and games like Super Smash Brothers.
To like Half Life 2 for its graphics, and not it's physics system is shallow IMO. Half Life 2 no longer involved ONLY the player and the enemies... but the environment also!
Hell... before Half life 2 came out i was playing CS:Source. AND I HATE COUNTERSTRIKE. All i did was shoot the objects around me and giggled with joy as they bounced and rolled and shattered with remarkable realism.
You can't have a game without graphics... (wait... you can! ZORK GOGOGO!) but it should never be a deciding factor on how good a game is. Why do you think people still play Half Life and it's mods? Gameplay.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Apr 5 2005, 08:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Apr 5 2005, 08:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-x5+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (x5)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nothing is more annoying than having a game you can't play well because your system is struggling to handle the load.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> QFT.
I'll bet that most of the people here arguing the case for graphics have a system at least twice, if not 3 times as powerfull as mine (based on processor clockrate). I can't afford to keep upgrading all the time so that I can play pretty games like HL2, which from what I can tell aren't really any more fun then HL1 anyway. But most of the PC game companies are headed that way. Hell that last time I was planing to upgrade (but didn't because the money was needed elsewhere), the system I designed then has already been surpassed by quite a bit. The console upgrade cycle is bad enough (what is it, 3, 4 years?), and PCs outpace it 2 or 3 fold. Its rediculous. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> QFT?
Anyways, that's my point. I know some of you could get you mommy or daddy to buy you a new alienware computer every month and a nice new plasma TV. (which btw, when plasmas break which they do a rather high rate they usually cannot be repaired) But for the average hardworking person or *ahem* college student, we just can't afford it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Trevelyan+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trevelyan)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To like Half Life 2 for its graphics, and not it's physics system is shallow IMO. Half Life 2 no longer involved ONLY the player and the enemies... but the environment also!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, you speak untruths about what I'm trying to say here. I've been saying for a long time now that Doom 3 has the best graphics engine but Half-Life 2 has a <i>revolutionary</i> (yes, analyze the impact it will have had in 2010) physics engine. One of my favorite demos is the one with the barrels that when the support is shot out the barrels drop down like a cachink machine.
The way i see it, the better the graphics become, the crapper RTS's like ***Total annihilation*** will become, due to the complexity of coding and skinning and modelling the units will become. One prime example of this is perimeter, which did have lots of units and great graphics and gameplay, had crap ai, and none of the units had moving animations, Even the people style robot things,. they all hovered.
There also might be a plot to get money out of people by the Video game industry. K, first make a great game that runs on any pc, and mak it the best game ever invented. Call it half life. 2. Tell every one theres gonna be a sequel, but don't say what specs its gonna need. 3. make the sequel usingspecs as high as you can, but not to high as to discourage people. 4. Put the game on the market, and rake in the profits, while the manufactorers of computer parts get a load of money from people buying a new pc, or upgrading an old one.
<!--QuoteBegin-Trevelyan+Apr 7 2005, 07:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trevelyan @ Apr 7 2005, 07:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To like Half Life 2 for its graphics, and not it's physics system is shallow IMO. Half Life 2 no longer involved ONLY the player and the enemies... but the environment also! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think that we misunderstood each other there. I know that the physics often had a rather large effect on the gameplay, but i still classed them under 'graphics' because i loved how smoothly it was done more so than the actual idea itself.
A few weeks ago I was enjoying good rounds of abandonware that I never knew existed. Also revisiting some old games
obviously, the graphical qualities of all of them are laughable today. Yet I very much enjoyed many of them. Oddly enough, I'm thinking that for at least one of the games, which was a primitive 1st person perspective game, if the graphics were updated I wouldn't enjoy it as much
Well, seeing as how sight is our primary source of information, it's natural for people wanting a good game. Also good sound is nice. I love awesome grahpics, I can't stand a game without awesome graphics. The same goes for sound.
Which is why Duke Nukem 3D, Doom (one), The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Chrono Trigger, FFVII, etc. all stuck in my memory, because their graphics are awesome. However, not only did they look good when they came out, they still look good now - The look of the shotgun in Duke3D, the sound a dying zombie in Doom, watching a spell in Chrono Trigger, etc... is still impressive.
It's not just nostalgia, either - I've recentley played freeware PC games called Dogma, N, Akuji the Demon... These games look and sound great, but they all have relatively dated grahpical/sound tech.
Though I'm also a sucker for the Unreal Engine 3 vids and Source games... They just look sweet. Source especially feels immersive... One of the mods I'm watching, <a href='http://www.neotokyohq.com/' target='_blank'>NeoTokyo</a> looks to have a very interesting art direction.
So basically, graphics <i>do</i> make a game just as much as gameplay does. It's just that by grahpics I mean art, obviously a solitare clone with normal and displacement mapping isn't going to win any awards...
On this note 2D games should be coming out and looking awesome... Isn't there enough memory now to hold frames at cartoon-level?
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
Graphics can make a fairly big difference in just how much fun a game is... Take (I can't remember anyone saying this, which surprised me) the GTA series.
GTA1. Fun to play, had a quirky sense of humour, but (by today's standards at least) boring graphics. Popularity of the game was probably more based on the controversy ("OMGZ YOU CAN KILL POLICE THIS WILL TURN OUR CHILDREN INTO PSYCHO KILLERZ!!!!!1ONE") but still a popular game.
GTA2. Pretty much the same as GTA1, only with a gang-influence system and prettier graphics (ish).
Ignoring GTA:London, go on to GTA3. Amazing game, I don't know one person who doesn't like it. But really, what's so different? You steal cars, run people over, shoot people, blow up people and generally act like a complete **** to the digital world you're in, all the while giggling manically as you drive on a sidewalk throwing people in the air. Which is exactly the same thing as what I did in GTA1, only now I had a third dimension. So what's different, really? Better graphics engine and kickass voice acting, as well as the brilliant radio stations. All things which have <i>nothing to do with the gameplay</i>, but still make the game far more fun.
Then GTA:VC. Again, slight increase in graphics, the ability to go into buildings and some licensed music. But exactly the same gameplay. The only major difference is the inclusion of Motorbikes (and that oft-played game of "see how far i can make him fly by ramming this car at full speed").
So all four games (i'm deliberately not including GTA:SA because I haven't played it and i'm not gonna make some statements about it and be proved wrong) have pretty much the same core gameplay (you're a criminal, steal cars and kill people) yet GTA3 and GTA:VC (in my opinion and the opinion of many others) are far more enjoyable than GTA1 and GTA2, simply because they have better graphics, cut scenes and funny radio stations (well I only listened to the funny ones anyway, get off my back <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->), combined with some talented voice acting, all making the world more submersive while adding nothing to the actual gameplay value of the game.
The same goes for Half Life 2. You run around blowing stuff up as an incredibly unlikely one man army. But the realness of the world is what makes the game fun. You can actually see (and hear) the despair and general wildness of the people in the train station right at the beginning of the film, you can see it in their eyes. <b>In their eyes</b>. Can you even imagine using such a phrase to describe a game 10 years ago, that you could see the madness of a character in the way they moved their eyes around, the way they fidgeted in their seats (not in FMV or a cut scene, but while you're actually there)?
And Dr.Breen, a fantastic character. I actually felt myself being persuaded by him during the game, and began to question if he was actually the one doing right and if I was the bad guy, just because he looked (and sounded) believable. You can bet your **** that I wouldn't start questioning my actions if he'd have been a square face with some eyes painted on it.
Anyway, I enjoy a game based on how much fun I have playing it, obviously. Jumper just frustrated me, and while this will probably annoy some people, making progressively harder courses to jump through isn't my ideal game. Sure it's addictive, but most games are (to me at least).
I've probably made at least 10000 errors in this post and probably annoyed some people too, as I usually do. But I've tried to put accross my thoughts on gaming. Gameplay itself is important, but for me (yes, just ME, i'm not trying to claim i'm the universal center of gaming and everyone should agree with me) to enjoy a game, I want to be immersed into the game's world. Whether it's something as simple as having the "Predator" font thing to represent health and energy in AvP1+2 rather than having human numbers, or something as complicated as having someone's eyes follow me as I walk around, or to fidget with their guns and knowing that they'd be doing that even if I wasn't looking at them, immersion is important, and I just can't be easily immersed into a game with characters that are made up of 10 pixels.
actually, GTA's switch to 3D had massive impact on its playability. A lot of people, including myself, are frustrated with the 2D GTA's controls. Yes, I know you can eventually get used to it, but its an extremely unintuitive setup. A game, where most of it consists of you driving, will NOT be fun if you cant control your vehicle.
<!--QuoteBegin-X Stickman+Apr 18 2005, 06:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (X Stickman @ Apr 18 2005, 06:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The same goes for Half Life 2. You run around blowing stuff up as an incredibly unlikely one man army. But the realness of the world is what makes the game fun. You can actually see (and hear) the despair and general wildness of the people in the train station right at the beginning of the film, you can see it in their eyes. <b>In their eyes</b>. Can you even imagine using such a phrase to describe a game 10 years ago, that you could see the madness of a character in the way they moved their eyes around, the way they fidgeted in their seats (not in FMV or a cut scene, but while you're actually there)? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Medal of Honor : Allied Assault, Omaha Beach. That level was amazing, but by far the best part in it was starting off in the boat. You could visibly tell that all the other soldiers were scared, especially in their eyes. This was probably the best experience i have had in any game ever (The Stalingrad level in COD came close, though).
<!--QuoteBegin-Faskalia+Mar 20 2005, 07:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Faskalia @ Mar 20 2005, 07:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Remember the days, where the many pc games were about
120 Deutsche Mark 40 Brithish Pounds 60 American Dollars
They became cheaper during the last 2 decades.
If you want expamples i might take my time to scan a really old pc-magazine with price tables <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
some examples
year 1990 (prizes in DM) Kings Quest 4 130 (amiga) Guns or Butter 120 (ibm) Heros Quest 120 (amiga) Police Quest 2 130 (amiga) Larry 3 120 Mark (amiga) Conquest of Camelot 135 (ibm) A 10 Tank Killer 120 (ibm) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I still have A10... hehehe
Wait a minute, people here are talking about the facial expressions in MoH. My ideas in this thread had been based upon the assumption that we were only discussing relatively new and modern games, nothing with graphics so old that it <b>affected gameplay</b>. You cannot hope to deny that GTA2 and 3 have fundamentally different gameplay thanks to the new graphics engine. When GTA1, it was simply impossible to do. Advancing technology let them make a fully 3D GTA. But the advancement of games based on tech is not what I am discussing; I am talking about the level of graphics from HL to HL2, or maybe from Quake III to HL2. Some of the things cited here are fundamental increases in graphics tech that allowed new ways to <b>affect gameplay and atmosphere</b>. But that's still not what I'm talking about. If two games came out, one with the graphics of Quake III and the other with the graphics of HL2, there would be little difference to me. But comparing the graphics and gameplay of a 2D game with those of a 3D game is ridiculous, as the former was obviously made with more technological restraints in mind. For the sake of the thread, will people think of this? I know it kind of invalidates the argument for graphics unless you really are just in it to look at shiny objects. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-X Stickman+Apr 18 2005, 03:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (X Stickman @ Apr 18 2005, 03:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Graphics can make a fairly big difference in just how much fun a game is... Take (I can't remember anyone saying this, which surprised me) the GTA series.
GTA1. Fun to play, had a quirky sense of humour, but (by today's standards at least) boring graphics. Popularity of the game was probably more based on the controversy ("OMGZ YOU CAN KILL POLICE THIS WILL TURN OUR CHILDREN INTO PSYCHO KILLERZ!!!!!1ONE") but still a popular game.
GTA2. Pretty much the same as GTA1, only with a gang-influence system and prettier graphics (ish).
Ignoring GTA:London, go on to GTA3. Amazing game, I don't know one person who doesn't like it. But really, what's so different? You steal cars, run people over, shoot people, blow up people and generally act like a complete **** to the digital world you're in, all the while giggling manically as you drive on a sidewalk throwing people in the air. Which is exactly the same thing as what I did in GTA1, only now I had a third dimension. So what's different, really? Better graphics engine and kickass voice acting, as well as the brilliant radio stations. All things which have <i>nothing to do with the gameplay</i>, but still make the game far more fun.
Then GTA:VC. Again, slight increase in graphics, the ability to go into buildings and some licensed music. But exactly the same gameplay. The only major difference is the inclusion of Motorbikes (and that oft-played game of "see how far i can make him fly by ramming this car at full speed").
So all four games (i'm deliberately not including GTA:SA because I haven't played it and i'm not gonna make some statements about it and be proved wrong) have pretty much the same core gameplay (you're a criminal, steal cars and kill people) yet GTA3 and GTA:VC (in my opinion and the opinion of many others) are far more enjoyable than GTA1 and GTA2, simply because they have better graphics, cut scenes and funny radio stations (well I only listened to the funny ones anyway, get off my back <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->), combined with some talented voice acting, all making the world more submersive while adding nothing to the actual gameplay value of the game.
The same goes for Half Life 2. You run around blowing stuff up as an incredibly unlikely one man army. But the realness of the world is what makes the game fun. You can actually see (and hear) the despair and general wildness of the people in the train station right at the beginning of the film, you can see it in their eyes. <b>In their eyes</b>. Can you even imagine using such a phrase to describe a game 10 years ago, that you could see the madness of a character in the way they moved their eyes around, the way they fidgeted in their seats (not in FMV or a cut scene, but while you're actually there)?
And Dr.Breen, a fantastic character. I actually felt myself being persuaded by him during the game, and began to question if he was actually the one doing right and if I was the bad guy, just because he looked (and sounded) believable. You can bet your **** that I wouldn't start questioning my actions if he'd have been a square face with some eyes painted on it.
Anyway, I enjoy a game based on how much fun I have playing it, obviously. Jumper just frustrated me, and while this will probably annoy some people, making progressively harder courses to jump through isn't my ideal game. Sure it's addictive, but most games are (to me at least).
I've probably made at least 10000 errors in this post and probably annoyed some people too, as I usually do. But I've tried to put accross my thoughts on gaming. Gameplay itself is important, but for me (yes, just ME, i'm not trying to claim i'm the universal center of gaming and everyone should agree with me) to enjoy a game, I want to be immersed into the game's world. Whether it's something as simple as having the "Predator" font thing to represent health and energy in AvP1+2 rather than having human numbers, or something as complicated as having someone's eyes follow me as I walk around, or to fidget with their guns and knowing that they'd be doing that even if I wasn't looking at them, immersion is important, and I just can't be easily immersed into a game with characters that are made up of 10 pixels. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> GTA 2 to 3 was more of an engine change than just a graphical upgrade. It's not that it had the prettiest graphics, it's just the perspective changed. What I mean about graphics harming the industry is adding more and more polygons to characters, which means more time and money focused on that, rather than the overall gameplay. Costs are so high, even the Odd World creator has called it quits. The developer never does get to create their vision of the game as the publisher takes a hefty portion of profits. As fir those who don't know, developers are the people who code and make the game, sort of like Flayra and co. here, while publishers are people who agree to manufacture the disks, cases, to put the content on.
On a final note, I'll have to disagree with your focus on graphics. I'd rather have a game that plays great, but with poor graphics, say poker or chess, than have a "pretty" game, where the only enjoyable thing to do is stare. There has to be a difference between games and digital art. It's not just about what you see, it's about what you do as well. Graphics itself is not a bad thing. The problem is when it is considered more important than actual gameplay and people base their actions on this misled philosophy.
This may be related to this subject: <a href='http://www.gametab.com/news/254801/' target='_blank'>http://www.gametab.com/news/254801/</a>
GrendelAll that is fear...Join Date: 2002-07-19Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
<!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+Apr 18 2005, 10:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ Apr 18 2005, 10:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wait a minute, people here are talking about the facial expressions in MoH. My ideas in this thread had been based upon the assumption that we were only discussing relatively new and modern games, nothing with graphics so old that it <b>affected gameplay</b>. You cannot hope to deny that GTA2 and 3 have fundamentally different gameplay thanks to the new graphics engine. When GTA1, it was simply impossible to do. Advancing technology let them make a fully 3D GTA. But the advancement of games based on tech is not what I am discussing; I am talking about the level of graphics from HL to HL2, or maybe from Quake III to HL2. Some of the things cited here are fundamental increases in graphics tech that allowed new ways to <b>affect gameplay and atmosphere</b>. But that's still not what I'm talking about. If two games came out, one with the graphics of Quake III and the other with the graphics of HL2, there would be little difference to me. But comparing the graphics and gameplay of a 2D game with those of a 3D game is ridiculous, as the former was obviously made with more technological restraints in mind. For the sake of the thread, will people think of this? I know it kind of invalidates the argument for graphics unless you really are just in it to look at shiny objects. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
*This post may not make any sense at all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You can do anything you want in a computer game, provided you are willing to compromise with graphics. Elite is a good example of that. It's a full 3D game in a practically infinite universe.
The technology existed to do the original GTA in 3D. It would have probably had significantly less textures and much less complex architecture than the later games, but it could have been done. They chose to put it in 2D.
Comments
I cannot really blame them for catering to the graphical side of things, though. Video gaming is a hobby, a time killer, a form of stress release but above <i>all</i> else, it is a business. If the public is content to buy the same rehash of an old game with slightly improved graphics, the industry will cater to that majority. Doing it any other way would be ludicrous.
It is not like a small time business (take, for example, a bakery) taking a small risk (in this example, lets say that the owner designs a new type of bread and tries to sell it. If he fails and no one likes the bread, he loses very little money). Video gaming is a multi-million dollar industry, and publishers put millions upon millions of dollars into a single game. Therefore, you cannot really blame them for wanting to play it safe and not take a risk with some innovative game that may or may not make a profit. If they are safely guaranteed a decent profit by creating fifa 2008 with slightly better graphics than fifa 2007, why do anything else?
Every once in a while a game will come out that is completely successful in the "gameplay" category, the "graphics" category and still manages to make a decent amount of money (Half-Life 2 being one). Unfortunately, these games are pretty damned rare, especially when put side by side with the amount of innovative games that have failed. The big companies are going to be playing it safe for a long time, and I cannot blame them. Until a large part of the market want games that trade graphical quality for better and more innovative gameplay (And it is often a tradeoff. Developers only have a finite amount of money, and they need to create a game that will sell in the publishers selected market or risk being shut down.) then we will see the same trend in games. The graphical grade will go up, while decent innovative games will still be fairly rare.
Me? I have no complaints with the way that the system is at the moment.
At least we've got Nintendo (Pikmin, DS, etc)
To be honest I think the rise in game prices and pursuit of bigger game engines is being lurched forward not by the game companies, but by the "arms race" between graphics card companies. It has even gotten to the point to where the graphics card companies are now try to get associated with big games and push intentional incompatibility with other games supported by a competing company.
Whatever the case it is true that game prices are rising. This won't affect the wealthy or the kids who have wealthy divorced parents who buy them everything to cater favor. But for the rest of us it is starting to make it where we have to buget ourselves. In order to play these new more expensive games you have also have to start planning to upgrade your computer hardware or buy a new computer all together. And then there is the cost of internet. Many of you kids out there who are in high school or grade school don't understand the costs of living. Internet costs money and I have yet to see a company at least in the city I live in that will provide just internet service. It usually has to come with cable TV or a phone line. All of this adds up to being a big expense and unless you are the type of person who loves being in debt you start to cut back on expenses.
The author of this thread makes a good point I agree with: cutting edge graphics technology doesn't mean it will be more fun. Nothing is more annoying than having a game you can't play well because your system is struggling to handle the load. And many games built on old engines designs like the old CS, NS, and TFC are still fun to play with people despite not being cutting edge. You don't have to have a game that looks like it was made with Lightwave for it to be fun.
QFT.
I'll bet that most of the people here arguing the case for graphics have a system at least twice, if not 3 times as powerfull as mine (based on processor clockrate). I can't afford to keep upgrading all the time so that I can play pretty games like HL2, which from what I can tell aren't really any more fun then HL1 anyway. But most of the PC game companies are headed that way. Hell that last time I was planing to upgrade (but didn't because the money was needed elsewhere), the system I designed then has already been surpassed by quite a bit. The console upgrade cycle is bad enough (what is it, 3, 4 years?), and PCs outpace it 2 or 3 fold. Its rediculous.
Have you tried Soul Calibur? Maybe Tekken 5? I'd say they have a more complex system of game mechanics and moves than say, any of the Capcom games.
Can't speak about Soul Calibur though.
Can't speak about Soul Calibur though. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is an example of combo based fighting systems. It doesn't matter whether they are 2D or 3D. Soul Calibur's 3D game elements don't add very much, besides a way to dodge, which is something that can be done in a 2D sprite based game.
The division isn't between 2D and 3D, it's between games like Soul Calibur and games like Super Smash Brothers.
Hell... before Half life 2 came out i was playing CS:Source. AND I HATE COUNTERSTRIKE. All i did was shoot the objects around me and giggled with joy as they bounced and rolled and shattered with remarkable realism.
You can't have a game without graphics... (wait... you can! ZORK GOGOGO!) but it should never be a deciding factor on how good a game is. Why do you think people still play Half Life and it's mods? Gameplay.
QFT.
I'll bet that most of the people here arguing the case for graphics have a system at least twice, if not 3 times as powerfull as mine (based on processor clockrate). I can't afford to keep upgrading all the time so that I can play pretty games like HL2, which from what I can tell aren't really any more fun then HL1 anyway. But most of the PC game companies are headed that way. Hell that last time I was planing to upgrade (but didn't because the money was needed elsewhere), the system I designed then has already been surpassed by quite a bit. The console upgrade cycle is bad enough (what is it, 3, 4 years?), and PCs outpace it 2 or 3 fold. Its rediculous. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> QFT?
Anyways, that's my point. I know some of you could get you mommy or daddy to buy you a new alienware computer every month and a nice new plasma TV. (which btw, when plasmas break which they do a rather high rate they usually cannot be repaired) But for the average hardworking person or *ahem* college student, we just can't afford it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Trevelyan+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Trevelyan)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To like Half Life 2 for its graphics, and not it's physics system is shallow IMO. Half Life 2 no longer involved ONLY the player and the enemies... but the environment also!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, you speak untruths about what I'm trying to say here. I've been saying for a long time now that Doom 3 has the best graphics engine but Half-Life 2 has a <i>revolutionary</i> (yes, analyze the impact it will have had in 2010) physics engine.
One of my favorite demos is the one with the barrels that when the support is shot out the barrels drop down like a cachink machine.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoted For Truth.
There also might be a plot to get money out of people by the Video game industry.
K, first make a great game that runs on any pc, and mak it the best game ever invented. Call it half life.
2. Tell every one theres gonna be a sequel, but don't say what specs its gonna need.
3. make the sequel usingspecs as high as you can, but not to high as to discourage people.
4. Put the game on the market, and rake in the profits, while the manufactorers of computer parts get a load of money from people buying a new pc, or upgrading an old one.
Thats all theory though
<!--emo&::nerdy::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/nerd-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='nerd-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think that we misunderstood each other there. I know that the physics often had a rather large effect on the gameplay, but i still classed them under 'graphics' because i loved how smoothly it was done more so than the actual idea itself.
obviously, the graphical qualities of all of them are laughable today. Yet I very much enjoyed many of them. Oddly enough, I'm thinking that for at least one of the games, which was a primitive 1st person perspective game, if the graphics were updated I wouldn't enjoy it as much
Which is why Duke Nukem 3D, Doom (one), The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Chrono Trigger, FFVII, etc. all stuck in my memory, because their graphics are awesome. However, not only did they look good when they came out, they still look good now - The look of the shotgun in Duke3D, the sound a dying zombie in Doom, watching a spell in Chrono Trigger, etc... is still impressive.
It's not just nostalgia, either - I've recentley played freeware PC games called Dogma, N, Akuji the Demon... These games look and sound great, but they all have relatively dated grahpical/sound tech.
Though I'm also a sucker for the Unreal Engine 3 vids and Source games... They just look sweet. Source especially feels immersive... One of the mods I'm watching, <a href='http://www.neotokyohq.com/' target='_blank'>NeoTokyo</a> looks to have a very interesting art direction.
So basically, graphics <i>do</i> make a game just as much as gameplay does. It's just that by grahpics I mean art, obviously a solitare clone with normal and displacement mapping isn't going to win any awards...
On this note 2D games should be coming out and looking awesome... Isn't there enough memory now to hold frames at cartoon-level?
<a href='http://www.thehollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/video_games_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000884458' target='_blank'>http://www.thehollywoodreporter.com/thr/co...t_id=1000884458</a>
GTA1. Fun to play, had a quirky sense of humour, but (by today's standards at least) boring graphics. Popularity of the game was probably more based on the controversy ("OMGZ YOU CAN KILL POLICE THIS WILL TURN OUR CHILDREN INTO PSYCHO KILLERZ!!!!!1ONE") but still a popular game.
GTA2. Pretty much the same as GTA1, only with a gang-influence system and prettier graphics (ish).
Ignoring GTA:London, go on to GTA3. Amazing game, I don't know one person who doesn't like it. But really, what's so different? You steal cars, run people over, shoot people, blow up people and generally act like a complete **** to the digital world you're in, all the while giggling manically as you drive on a sidewalk throwing people in the air.
Which is exactly the same thing as what I did in GTA1, only now I had a third dimension.
So what's different, really? Better graphics engine and kickass voice acting, as well as the brilliant radio stations. All things which have <i>nothing to do with the gameplay</i>, but still make the game far more fun.
Then GTA:VC. Again, slight increase in graphics, the ability to go into buildings and some licensed music. But exactly the same gameplay. The only major difference is the inclusion of Motorbikes (and that oft-played game of "see how far i can make him fly by ramming this car at full speed").
So all four games (i'm deliberately not including GTA:SA because I haven't played it and i'm not gonna make some statements about it and be proved wrong) have pretty much the same core gameplay (you're a criminal, steal cars and kill people) yet GTA3 and GTA:VC (in my opinion and the opinion of many others) are far more enjoyable than GTA1 and GTA2, simply because they have better graphics, cut scenes and funny radio stations (well I only listened to the funny ones anyway, get off my back <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->), combined with some talented voice acting, all making the world more submersive while adding nothing to the actual gameplay value of the game.
The same goes for Half Life 2. You run around blowing stuff up as an incredibly unlikely one man army. But the realness of the world is what makes the game fun. You can actually see (and hear) the despair and general wildness of the people in the train station right at the beginning of the film, you can see it in their eyes. <b>In their eyes</b>. Can you even imagine using such a phrase to describe a game 10 years ago, that you could see the madness of a character in the way they moved their eyes around, the way they fidgeted in their seats (not in FMV or a cut scene, but while you're actually there)?
And Dr.Breen, a fantastic character. I actually felt myself being persuaded by him during the game, and began to question if he was actually the one doing right and if I was the bad guy, just because he looked (and sounded) believable. You can bet your **** that I wouldn't start questioning my actions if he'd have been a square face with some eyes painted on it.
Anyway, I enjoy a game based on how much fun I have playing it, obviously. Jumper just frustrated me, and while this will probably annoy some people, making progressively harder courses to jump through isn't my ideal game. Sure it's addictive, but most games are (to me at least).
I've probably made at least 10000 errors in this post and probably annoyed some people too, as I usually do. But I've tried to put accross my thoughts on gaming. Gameplay itself is important, but for me (yes, just ME, i'm not trying to claim i'm the universal center of gaming and everyone should agree with me) to enjoy a game, I want to be immersed into the game's world. Whether it's something as simple as having the "Predator" font thing to represent health and energy in AvP1+2 rather than having human numbers, or something as complicated as having someone's eyes follow me as I walk around, or to fidget with their guns and knowing that they'd be doing that even if I wasn't looking at them, immersion is important, and I just can't be easily immersed into a game with characters that are made up of 10 pixels.
Medal of Honor : Allied Assault, Omaha Beach. That level was amazing, but by far the best part in it was starting off in the boat. You could visibly tell that all the other soldiers were scared, especially in their eyes. This was probably the best experience i have had in any game ever (The Stalingrad level in COD came close, though).
120 Deutsche Mark
40 Brithish Pounds
60 American Dollars
They became cheaper during the last 2 decades.
If you want expamples i might take my time to scan a really old pc-magazine with price tables <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
some examples
year 1990 (prizes in DM)
Kings Quest 4 130 (amiga)
Guns or Butter 120 (ibm)
Heros Quest 120 (amiga)
Police Quest 2 130 (amiga)
Larry 3 120 Mark (amiga)
Conquest of Camelot 135 (ibm)
A 10 Tank Killer 120 (ibm) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I still have A10... hehehe
HL For the WIN!
*This post may not make any sense at all.
GTA1. Fun to play, had a quirky sense of humour, but (by today's standards at least) boring graphics. Popularity of the game was probably more based on the controversy ("OMGZ YOU CAN KILL POLICE THIS WILL TURN OUR CHILDREN INTO PSYCHO KILLERZ!!!!!1ONE") but still a popular game.
GTA2. Pretty much the same as GTA1, only with a gang-influence system and prettier graphics (ish).
Ignoring GTA:London, go on to GTA3. Amazing game, I don't know one person who doesn't like it. But really, what's so different? You steal cars, run people over, shoot people, blow up people and generally act like a complete **** to the digital world you're in, all the while giggling manically as you drive on a sidewalk throwing people in the air.
Which is exactly the same thing as what I did in GTA1, only now I had a third dimension.
So what's different, really? Better graphics engine and kickass voice acting, as well as the brilliant radio stations. All things which have <i>nothing to do with the gameplay</i>, but still make the game far more fun.
Then GTA:VC. Again, slight increase in graphics, the ability to go into buildings and some licensed music. But exactly the same gameplay. The only major difference is the inclusion of Motorbikes (and that oft-played game of "see how far i can make him fly by ramming this car at full speed").
So all four games (i'm deliberately not including GTA:SA because I haven't played it and i'm not gonna make some statements about it and be proved wrong) have pretty much the same core gameplay (you're a criminal, steal cars and kill people) yet GTA3 and GTA:VC (in my opinion and the opinion of many others) are far more enjoyable than GTA1 and GTA2, simply because they have better graphics, cut scenes and funny radio stations (well I only listened to the funny ones anyway, get off my back <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->), combined with some talented voice acting, all making the world more submersive while adding nothing to the actual gameplay value of the game.
The same goes for Half Life 2. You run around blowing stuff up as an incredibly unlikely one man army. But the realness of the world is what makes the game fun. You can actually see (and hear) the despair and general wildness of the people in the train station right at the beginning of the film, you can see it in their eyes. <b>In their eyes</b>. Can you even imagine using such a phrase to describe a game 10 years ago, that you could see the madness of a character in the way they moved their eyes around, the way they fidgeted in their seats (not in FMV or a cut scene, but while you're actually there)?
And Dr.Breen, a fantastic character. I actually felt myself being persuaded by him during the game, and began to question if he was actually the one doing right and if I was the bad guy, just because he looked (and sounded) believable. You can bet your **** that I wouldn't start questioning my actions if he'd have been a square face with some eyes painted on it.
Anyway, I enjoy a game based on how much fun I have playing it, obviously. Jumper just frustrated me, and while this will probably annoy some people, making progressively harder courses to jump through isn't my ideal game. Sure it's addictive, but most games are (to me at least).
I've probably made at least 10000 errors in this post and probably annoyed some people too, as I usually do. But I've tried to put accross my thoughts on gaming. Gameplay itself is important, but for me (yes, just ME, i'm not trying to claim i'm the universal center of gaming and everyone should agree with me) to enjoy a game, I want to be immersed into the game's world. Whether it's something as simple as having the "Predator" font thing to represent health and energy in AvP1+2 rather than having human numbers, or something as complicated as having someone's eyes follow me as I walk around, or to fidget with their guns and knowing that they'd be doing that even if I wasn't looking at them, immersion is important, and I just can't be easily immersed into a game with characters that are made up of 10 pixels. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
GTA 2 to 3 was more of an engine change than just a graphical upgrade. It's not that it had the prettiest graphics, it's just the perspective changed. What I mean about graphics harming the industry is adding more and more polygons to characters, which means more time and money focused on that, rather than the overall gameplay. Costs are so high, even the Odd World creator has called it quits. The developer never does get to create their vision of the game as the publisher takes a hefty portion of profits. As fir those who don't know, developers are the people who code and make the game, sort of like Flayra and co. here, while publishers are people who agree to manufacture the disks, cases, to put the content on.
On a final note, I'll have to disagree with your focus on graphics. I'd rather have a game that plays great, but with poor graphics, say poker or chess, than have a "pretty" game, where the only enjoyable thing to do is stare. There has to be a difference between games and digital art. It's not just about what you see, it's about what you do as well. Graphics itself is not a bad thing. The problem is when it is considered more important than actual gameplay and people base their actions on this misled philosophy.
This may be related to this subject: <a href='http://www.gametab.com/news/254801/' target='_blank'>http://www.gametab.com/news/254801/</a>
*This post may not make any sense at all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can do anything you want in a computer game, provided you are willing to compromise with graphics. Elite is a good example of that. It's a full 3D game in a practically infinite universe.
The technology existed to do the original GTA in 3D. It would have probably had significantly less textures and much less complex architecture than the later games, but it could have been done. They chose to put it in 2D.