Game Debate: graphics vs. content vs. combat, etc...

[SpellAndShield]

Now I am starting this thread for a particular reason but it has wider applications to be sure. Over at social bioware forums there has been a mass of threads lamenting, whinging about and bashing the 'terrible graphics' of Dragon Age 2, which are "years behind the Witcher 2 et al." Until this was even brought as a topic I did not even notice the 'terrible graphics' of either Dragon Age Origins or the forthcoming Dragon Age 2 and by comparison, yes, the graphics are worse than those of say the Witcher 2 or Skyrim but for some reason that does not bother me; maybe I am strange. I can't wait for my preorder and wanna know something? I don't care a wit whether the graphics are a bit dated. I am PSYCHED about the story and combat, the many different opportunities for different character builds, i.e. specialists vs. generalists, the romances, character interaction and the almost guaranteed replay value...

 

And I am extending this to all games in this case. Yes, graphics are great, the Witcher 2 looks excellent but I cannot be sold on it based on graphics alone. Different games have different styles, Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age are both RPG games but VERY different; one is stream lined and more story based, the other is vast and open ended. They are both great series.

 

Is anyone else tired of hearing 'the graphics in game X are so dated, ergo, it sucks" arguments? I know I sure am, and they are popping up whily nilly over at bioware...

 

Graphics imo do not make or break a game; eye candy is great but brain candy is my meat and drink.

 

Anyway, I am very interested in hearing people's opinions about this and as an example here is a link:

 

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/6099949/1

Edited February 19, 2011 by Stardusk

[RZ1029]

Personally, it never bothered me until I saw how Witcher 2 looked. I think that kind of raised the bar, because if they combined Witcher gameplay AND the improved graphics, it means others can do it too, and just didn't. For me, they need to make the game worth playing. Rarely is that through graphics, though graphics are cool. One of the most amusing games I've ever played was Dwarf Fortress, which has ASCII for pretty much everything. Same with Liberal Crime Squad, also by Bay 12 Games, which has a little more of a UI to it, but is still entirely text-based. However, assuming the quality of gameplay from Witcher 2 holds up to Witcher 1, it'll be somewhat like the RPG version of Call of Duty, kind of setting the bar and standards for other games to try and catch.

 

Graphics are popular because imagination is lacking. For me, I can fill in all the details for you if you want, just give me a story and something fun to work with. And honestly, even having seen the Witcher 2, I'd go back and play Call of Duty 2 if I felt like it. For me graphics isn't a deciding factor, though I know plenty of people who it's the end-all, be-all for them, even if the content blows.

[evertaile]

Good graphics do not equal good game. Having said that, they do show that effort has gone into the appearance and polish. But polish doesn't neccessarily equal substance. Content and story, immersion and believability are important factors to me and these take time to craft, as do wonderfully detailed graphics and visualisations - given deadlines and publisher pressures I can understand that it may be hard to achieve both. Having said that, The Witcher 2 looks pretty damned good and if it plays as solid as the first then it shows that it definately can be done within a strict time limit - but then there's the budget I suppose. Do any of us know what the budget for any af these 3 games actually is?

[SpellAndShield]

Good graphics do not equal good game. Having said that, they do show that effort has gone into the appearance and polish. But polish doesn't neccessarily equal substance. Content and story, immersion and believability are important factors to me and these take time to craft, as do wonderfully detailed graphics and visualisations - given deadlines and publisher pressures I can understand that it may be hard to achieve both. Having said that, The Witcher 2 looks pretty damned good and if it plays as solid as the first then it shows that it definately can be done within a strict time limit - but then there's the budget I suppose. Do any of us know what the budget for any af these 3 games actually is?

 

No idea though I suspect Bioware had the largest budget...

[marharth]

I think you would need a IQ under 80 to want graphics over content...

[evertaile]

I think you would need a IQ under 80 to want graphics over content...

 

Woah! That's slightly derogatory and not entirely true. Certain games actually benefit from a particular intelligent vacancy. Saints Row for example. There are games that offer intellectual fluff as entertainment, and that's fine and genre dependant I suppose - I don't always want to be cranking the grey matter either and then unwinding to a spectacular visual display without having to put in much thought myself is ok.

 

 

 

[Ultimatepurge]

There's many thing you can do with graphics these days. Even if a game has BRILLIANT GRAPHICS from a technical standpoint, it's all useless if the art direction is crap.

Also with slightly less impressive graphics, you get a game that runs really well on a ton of hardware configurations.

 

I do not see a single problem as long as the story is good and the art stays true to the lore.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Ultimatepurge

[evilneko]

Hey, Saints Row's graphics? Not that great. In fact they probably should've been lower quality than they area, seeing as the game's engine can't keep up anyway. :rolleyes: (whoah, did I just say a game would be better with worse graphics?)

 

Anyway, I think you're kinda preaching to the choir here. You'll not get anyone here to say "graphics over gameplay!" -- those type of folks don't come to this forum (and especially this subforum).

 

IMO, the graphics should fit the game at least to a minimum level. Take Space Empires for instance. 4 is an entirely 2D bitmap tile-based job that had practically nothing in the way of eye candy. I've played thousands of turns in play-by-web games that lasted months. 5 is mostly 3D objects on a 2D plane, with orbiting, rotating planets, bright beams of death flying between ships in battle, and a host of other graphical improvements. I've played less than a hundred turns of SE5 since I got it in 2008. It's not even installed on my computer anymore.

[evertaile]

@evilneko

 

Couldn't agree more. In many ways it's an age-old debate that will recur and repeat until the end of time...

 

Moreover though, I think the question that begins such debate lies with the market of a game. Although many BioWare and Bethesda games share a common market that market is actually a cross-over area of 2 distinct divisions within it. Take Oblivion and Neverwinter Nights 2 for example. Despite being somewhat older, Oblivion is visually more impressive - however, in terms of actual role play, the campaign driven progression and character aspect of NWN2 and it's wonderfully diverse levelling, skill tables, stats etc and how they translate into the game do make a more complete role play experience in a more classical RPG sense. There's the division, the traditionalist's market and the more loose commercial RPG market where emphasis doesn't need to press on character but the player, as with Oblvion's take on player freedom and weaker plotlines (although in this case immersion must be met with a greater stake). I can't say with any great certainty, but based on word of mouth, I think it's safe to say that Oblivion was more widely received than NWN2 - mainly in my view because of it's looser gameplay and superior visuals. Having said that, the original Witcher blows both games out of the water in terms of visual STYLE, and gameplay that equates deep role playing.

 

It's interesting that 2 franchises by BioWare and Bethesda should come under fire again. back in the mid nineties Descent To Undermountain (a game virtualy unplayable by today's standards) and the 2 early TES games also often drew comparisons - again, DTU was the more complete RPG with more emphasis on the progression into the gameworld and with deeper RPG elements, but TES games looked a heck of a lot better and were what launched Bethesda out of tacky and fairly shoddy sports Sims into the company that they are today. It's a shame there was no Witcher back then to complete the cycle.

 

DAO is leaps and bounds up the ladder from NWN2 with RPG elements that are lesser but a true evolution of that style and will carry on into DA2 as if the first entry of the franchise was a stepping stone, probably still the traditionalists' choice - and Skyrim will again look better and have a looser commercial appeal, thus be more widely accepted. The Witcher 2 will smoke 'em both because of how it marries both aspects but still only have niché appeal like it's predessecor. A few years will pass and we'll be here again.

Edited February 19, 2011 by evertaile

[Nadimos]

The forums over there in general seem to be filled with a lot of unsubstantial blabla. Ever been to the old republic forums?