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

[evilneko]

I donno. SE5 is clearly less enjoyable than SE4 for me, despite its clearly superior graphics and mostly identical core mechanics.

 

Also, I think if Diablo had had Diablo 2's graphics... there might not have been a Diablo 2. Sure, the second's graphics are prettier, but they're just....wrong.

[brokenergy]

@brokenergy

 

::APLAUSE:: take a bow sir, bravo! Well said.

 

Thanks but I'm a chick :biggrin: I like the original (was it 1986?) Mario compared to the later ones. Idk graphics can make the game pretty but to play a game sorely on graphics seems really shallow to me.

 

For example I like Morrowind over Oblivion based part on past experience of the game (my first TES game) and the fact that it had more atmosphere than Oblivion. Sure Oblivion was one of the most graphical games of the year's release and still has a strong following but it lacked the atmosphere that Morrowind had and to me it that's a big failing on the developers part. That's why I like content more than graphics because even the littlest things make a game go a long way (for example open cities).

 

Even if I had to start harping on about graphics some of the most addictive games don't have super flashly graphics (like Minecraft). I think some people are just getting spoiled over this and having top of the range graphics is a must for them.

[evertaile]

All very true, well put.

 

But some game studio's seem to manage ok, where as others do less well, to put it mildly :confused:

 

True, but it's not just about who is developing, what is being developed is also a huge factor. Take a look at the COD games for example and you can draw many comparitive pros and cons between sequals and spinoffs - and not just gameplay, but visual aspects too; whether Treyarc or Infinity Ward, you know what I mean. Larger development houses have their number as a plus, but big releases and highly anticipated games come at a price, less time, more pressure - but equally more investment. Smaller developers tend to have a more intimate workflow and method and outsource many assets to freelancers, also many engine owners will have generic modifiable content/assets - how many times do you think you've heard the 'ping' or seen the same run animation, more times than I think we know. Epic's Unreal Engine is a perfect example of this, even the free Indie version (UDK) has several basic models and you can download fully textured extras and several fully interactive environments to base a simple creation in.

 

 

Also, BioWare has a very clean reputation, one of only few developers able to say that they (in terms of sales) have never released a clanger. This is in my view because of their subsidiary development model, where smaller development groups can use BioWare to gain funding and use their assets, ultimately the smaller developer publishes their game under BioWare's name, but it gets a foot in the door and showcases what they can do and may even get some more immediate funding for future projects. And I don't think BioWare are the only ones to do this.

 

Money doesn't always equal god development either (Fable 3, anyone?!?)...I suppose it's a collation of factors that ultimately determines the end result - money, skill, commercial appeal.

 

@brokenergy

 

::APLAUSE:: take a bow sir, bravo! Well said.

 

Thanks but I'm a chick :biggrin: I like the original (was it 1986?) Mario compared to the later ones. Idk graphics can make the game pretty but to play a game sorely on graphics seems really shallow to me.

 

 

Oops! Forum Gender Ambiguity (FGA) strikes again...I agree with the standpoint that gameplay should go before imagery, as I think is clear enough by now. Sometimes I long for the days of the cartoon-like sprite and the simple 4-8 frame animations. Is realism really all it's cracked up to be when we consider what the drive to it has done to the gaming industry? Just look at my profile and you'll see I have Wonderboy in Monsterworld (the original franchise - not Wii) as my favourite game. I'll not say any more about it, go look it up...great stuff.

 

For example I like Morrowind over Oblivion based part on past experience of the game (my first TES game) and the fact that it had more atmosphere than Oblivion. Sure Oblivion was one of the most graphical games of the year's release and still has a strong following but it lacked the atmosphere that Morrowind had and to me it that's a big failing on the developers part. That's why I like content more than graphics because even the littlest things make a game go a long way (for example open cities).

 

Even if I had to start harping on about graphics some of the most addictive games don't have super flashly graphics (like Minecraft). I think some people are just getting spoiled over this and having top of the range graphics is a must for them.

 

Back to realism -- do we need it? GTA4, carwash! Need I say more? Where is it gong? Back in the days of the MegaDrive, Toe-Jam and Earl was considered good graphics, Sonic 3 was a visual marvel...

 

While I advocate that graphics don't matter, I have to say that in a certain respect they do...just like everybody says that looks don't matter in social or romantic sense. We're drawn to pretty things and turned away by uglier, that's the way it is, it's human vice. Having said that, if games had never entered the foray of realism and 3D, then we would still consider those sprite-like games of the late 80s and early to early mid 90s as great looking graphics - does that mean that beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

Edited February 20, 2011 by evertaile

[evilneko]

Graphics don't have to be 3D to be great, just so long as they fit the game they're used in. I can't imagine, say, Contra as an FPS. It just wouldn't be Contra anymore! Then again, I guess certain people say similar things about the Fallout series.

[Deleted472477User]

I love beautiful graphics as much as anyone. Mind, if the scenery is gorgeous and the people look like freaks dressed in Goodwill rejects, I always have issue with that. I hated the character models in Morrowind. Obblivion did it a bit better.

 

Having said that, I really dislike when the next game in a sequel trades in outstanding content and a great storyline for dumbed-downed pandering to the masses and 'ooh, shiny.' Why is it almost impossible to have both?

 

As an interesting observation, I noticed Morrowind has far more modded content with depth in the form of quests and NPC improvement etc. Not to say Oblivion doesn't have some good ones (Nehrim comes to mind, and a few others) but it tends to lend itself more to cutesy anime conversions, gainaxing boobs, and pretty shiny stuff in general.

 

Is this because of the improved graphics and modding engines, the content, or attracting a different audeince? I don't know, but really, why is it so hard to have an outstanding storyline AND an attractive game?

[HeyYou]

I love beautiful graphics as much as anyone. Mind, if the scenery is gorgeous and the people look like freaks dressed in Goodwill rejects, I always have issue with that. I hated the character models in Morrowind. Obblivion did it a bit better.

 

Having said that, I really dislike when the next game in a sequel trades in outstanding content and a great storyline for dumbed-downed pandering to the masses and 'ooh, shiny.' Why is it almost impossible to have both?

 

As an interesting observation, I noticed Morrowind has far more modded content with depth in the form of quests and NPC improvement etc. Not to say Oblivion doesn't have some good ones (Nehrim comes to mind, and a few others) but it tends to lend itself more to cutesy anime conversions, gainaxing boobs, and pretty shiny stuff in general.

 

Is this because of the improved graphics and modding engines, the content, or attracting a different audeince? I don't know, but really, why is it so hard to have an outstanding storyline AND an attractive game?

 

Oblivion had better graphics, sure, but, in my opinion, Morrowind was a MUCH better game.

[Deleted472477User]

Oblivion had better graphics, sure, but, in my opinion, Morrowind was a MUCH better game.

 

 

I agree. Oblivionisn't a terrible game. I do enjoy it. It just seems like everything not related to Havok, graphics or the AI was sort of phoned in.

[Ghogiel]

Can I ask why people pay for high end gaming machines? The vast majority of games are ports that can be played on console settings quite easily with a mid range PC, for people who don't think eye candy is important we do spend an awful lot of money to get as much of it as possible. Graphics are far more important to people than they let on, AA, AF, high resolutions, fancy shaders and DX11 don't improve gameplay but we must think they are important or we wouldn't be paying out hundreds extra to have them. I'm not suggesting they are more important than gameplay, I am suggesting those who think they don't matter are kidding themselves.

Console settings aren't very good on some engines. It really depends on the engine as they vary greatly.

 

CE2 for example looks crap at medium. So you need x4 3.2s/i5 and 5850/460 gpu or better. Yes to the point of greatly impacting play, unless you like seeing the terrain actually morph about constantly because of the dynamic landscape LOD.. and the textures are all blury. Unless you have or get a smaller monitor to play on it just looks bad or won't be playable fps.

 

People can pay less than 250quid, cpu, mobo, gfx, ram set up and will play games like F3 at max at 1080. So you don't need high end gear for most things. Hell I remember Pentium 1 systems costing like 800-1000 quid. So really PCs are as cheap as they have even been.

 

If you game in multi monitor or 120hz screens for 3d, then expect to be sli-ing and getting gpus that have 2GB ram or it won't be working well for demading games like Crysis or Metro. That is currently where the uber high end gear is shining.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Ghogiel

[JimboUK]

Can I ask why people pay for high end gaming machines? The vast majority of games are ports that can be played on console settings quite easily with a mid range PC, for people who don't think eye candy is important we do spend an awful lot of money to get as much of it as possible. Graphics are far more important to people than they let on, AA, AF, high resolutions, fancy shaders and DX11 don't improve gameplay but we must think they are important or we wouldn't be paying out hundreds extra to have them. I'm not suggesting they are more important than gameplay, I am suggesting those who think they don't matter are kidding themselves.

Console settings aren't very good on some engines. It really depends on the engine as they vary greatly.

 

CE2 for example looks crap at medium. So you need x4 3.2s/i5 and 5850/460 gpu or better. Yes to the point of greatly impacting play, unless you like seeing the terrain actually morph about constantly because of the dynamic landscape LOD.. and the textures are all blury. Unless you have or get a smaller monitor to play on it just looks bad or won't be playable fps.

 

People can pay less than 250quid, cpu, mobo, gfx, ram set up and will play games like F3 at max at 1080. So you don't need high end gear for most things. Hell I remember Pentium 1 systems costing like 800-1000 quid. So really PCs are as cheap as they have even been.

 

If you game in multi monitor or 120hz screens for 3d, then expect to be sli-ing and getting gpus that have 2GB ram or it won't be working well for demading games like Crysis or Metro. That is currently where the uber high end gear is shining.

 

These games will still work with lower settings on a mid range system, why not use those settings and spend the hundreds saved on something else?

[marharth]

I love beautiful graphics as much as anyone. Mind, if the scenery is gorgeous and the people look like freaks dressed in Goodwill rejects, I always havehttp://www.thenexusforums.com/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=47&t=303493&qpid=3236279 issue with that. I hated the character models in Morrowind. Obblivion did it a bit better.

 

Having said that, I really dislike when the next game in a sequel trades in outstanding content and a great storyline for dumbed-downed pandering to the masses and 'ooh, shiny.' Why is it almost impossible to have both?

 

As an interesting observation, I noticed Morrowind has far more modded content with depth in the form of quests and NPC improvement etc. Not to say Oblivion doesn't have some good ones (Nehrim comes to mind, and a few others) but it tends to lend itself more to cutesy anime conversions, gainaxing boobs, and pretty shiny stuff in general.

 

Is this because of the improved graphics and modding engines, the content, or attracting a different audeince? I don't know, but really, why is it so hard to have an outstanding storyline AND an attractive game?

 

Oblivion had better graphics, sure, but, in my opinion, Morrowind was a MUCH better game.

I like Oblivions gameplay much better then Morrowind.

 

However, Morrowind has better guilds, better quests, better travel systems, better pretty much everything...

 

Morrowind would be so much better then Oblivion if it had the same gameplay as Oblivion IMO.