hey,
i know this has more than likely been said a fair amount of times, but why is it that the emphasis is now constantly on graphics in gaming? I mean, an 8 year old kid will prefer something with Incredibly Detailed graphics and UNreal Engine 3 as standard than a old skool point n click. It seems that 'the torch has been passed on', and kids don't have time for RON or Zak McCracken any more. Now it's CounterStrike, GTA San Andreas and HalfLife2. Well, i'm not licked. In fact, i'm going to download 20 point and clicks right now. Who's with me?
Graphics are expected to be good in games nowadays. What on earth makes this a bad thing? Are you saying you'd rather games today had total disregard for good looking visuals? You're jumping around in your argument. Are you bashing the First Person Shooter genre, hating pleasing graphics, or just trying to cause another pointless argument?
I see no point to this. And how does 'Technology VS. Tradition' apply here?
i'm not saying that games that can have great graphics sohuldn't, what i'm saying is that lately, commercial games have had fantastic graphics but poor gameplay. I am also saying that kids nowadays go for visuals not gameplay.
Well, make it Graphics vs. Gameplay then.
But apart from FPS and racing genres, I find modern games having very good gameplay, and the standards have skyrocketed indeed.
Though it is true that some recent adventure games (Post Mortem, Moment of Silence, Syberia, Midnight Nowhere) have sacrificed gameplay for the graphic quality, apparently. Just a thought.
Er... What it really comes down to is graphics sell games. When you watch a trailer or a commercial you don't see the game play or story in much detail.
I have never played a game were I thought "hmmm. The good graphics make the gameplay poor" and its not like they spend more time on graphics than anything else in theory, because they have different departments to work on different (afaik)
I'll go for graphics, because I think the gameplay should be nice in these games anyway.
In professional games, I expect graphics to be nice, since the companies have a million software choices for this nowadays.
Of course I like a nice gameplay, as well, but graphics is what you see on the box before you buy. Graphics make me say " I want to be in there" and hope that it will be worth it puzzle wise. If not, I get some nice screensavers and background for my desktop...! ;)
I try a demo because of the graphics, I buy/download a game because of the gameplay, unless of course the graphics are so awesome that I want to play anyway.
I'm not sure if I 've ever seen a game with splendid graphics which doesn't have a decent, if not good, gameplay..
It may be partially a matter of perceptioin. When you play a game, you tend to compare its various elements to each other. So gameplay may look worse, relatively to the graphics, if the graphics are better. I'd use the example of The Watchmaker whose production value was one of the worst I've ever seen in a commercial game. Poor graphics, and one of the most awful voiceovers I've ever heard. Yet, many people said that the gameplay was great. I thought so, too. However, disregarding production and focusing only on gameplay, it was several levels below that of Syberia 2, where I complained of gameplay, because I didn't feel that it was on par with the graphics and voiceovers.
Good graphics and good gameplay don't have to enemies. The two can co-exist. Good graphics can really add to the atmosphere and enjoyment of a game.
Special effects do the same for a movie.
The whole point is, don't let the graphics take priority over the gameplay.
QuoteIn fact, i'm going to download 20 point and clicks right now. Who's with me?
I'm with you! In fact I'm gonna see your 20 and raise them another 100! Woohoo! Let's download point and clicks!!!
I don't mind if a game has less than steller graphics, as long as it is at least on the level of Nintendo/Many AGS games. Usually games with graphics on lower levels than that have huge problems with interface (usually lacking much of one), or have bad controls, etc... If you're going to have simplistic/crappy graphics, at least give me a system I can use.
As for games these days, I've checked, and the PC market seems in a slump. When was the last good RPG? And everything going the 1st person/3rd person 3d route can get annoying if everyone's doing it. I miss the hand drawn stuff, because 3d has yet to achieve that look and feel in most cases. Much like CG, most of it has a similiar look no matter how different the games are.
The times I've gone to gaming stores lately, have met with dissapointment. Very little do I find interesting anymore. I'll play 1st person shooters (not on consoles, though, as they have the worst controlls, period), but I get bored with them after awhile. I'd take a good RPG any day over a good first person shooter, as good RPGs immerse in ways shooters can only dream of.
Best formula: Functional graphics, superb gameplay.
cf: Uplink.
I dislike RPGs. I prefer to be more involved in the game, and they don't hold me attention long enough for me to get into any real storyline. As for Uplink.... good for a day, maybe a week. Then its rather boring.
Uumm, a 'good' RPG is involving, far more so than any other kind of game can be. You cusomize your own character! How much more involved can you get? And there are far more elements involved. Good RPGs are also some of the most open ended gaming you can experience, plus, you usually get to experience the story at your leisure, and explore.
Good RPGs, as in Fallout 1 and 2, Balder's Gate 1 and 2, Arcanum (though it takes some doing getting into it, but once you do, it is among the best). Even Deus Ex, which has RPG elements, though is an action game as well.
Now, when I say a good RPG, I don't mean console RPGs. Most console RPGs are stripped down RPGs, with combat systems that all seem to be similiar to one another.
Once upon a time kids were brought up on books, relationships & outdoor adventure. Nowadays it's tv, hiding behind a screen & shoot 'em ups*. Go figure :(
* Ok ok, this doesn't apply to everyone
Quote from: m0ds on Mon 08/08/2005 19:36:51
Once upon a time kids were brought up on books, relationships & outdoor adventure. Nowadays it's tv, hiding behind a screen & shoot 'em ups*. Go figure :(
If both apply, does the person need assistance or holidays??
:-\
I think the real dilemma is "good" graphics VS "cutting-edge" graphics. You can't say Monkey Island or Loom or King's Quest 5 have "bad" graphics. They just lack 3d textures, polygons and other modern day bric-a-brak. They old classics might look dated, but within the boundaries set by the resolution and computer capabilities, they are top-notch. So then you have to ask, would you rather have a game with "good" graphics and excellent gameplay, or a game with "cutting edge" graphics and so-so gameplay. Or furthermore, would you buy a more affordable game (maybe in the $10 price range) with "good" graphics and good gameplay over a super-expensive game that has "cutting edge" graphics and good gameplay. Personally, I would rather spend my money on shorter, more retro looking games made by proven game designers than on fewer expensive games made by unknowns.
This is where people could be slightly successful in releasing AGS games commercially. If indie designers build up positive reputations, and regularly release games that have great gameplay, I think there could be a growing audience that would pay for them.
Most of you seem to be forgetting that, until the mid-90's or so, adventure games *were* on the absolute cutting edge of gaming technology with their sophisticated artwork, animation and speech. The graphical innovations of games like Full Throttle were major selling points, and visually most other games made in 1990 paled (and still pale) in comparison to the likes of Loom and Monkey Island.
The number of intentionally 'traditional' games have always been relatively few, and technological innovation has been a key factor in game design for as long as video games have existed. That's been true in the adventure genre as in almost every other.
I've really come to hate the way games have been rated by the 3D engines they run on in recent years. It seems that in the developers' quest for ultimate realism, they've overlooked the appeal of hand-drawn graphics. Yes, some games would only work well in realistic 3D, such as Half-Life 2, which I enjoy very much. But 3D adventure games in particular seem to feel much colder than their 2D counterparts, and I also require much more motivation to actually be bothered to clear out the several gigabytes of harddisk space, install the game with the latest Direct X and video drivers, and load it up and learn how to use the complicated controls. Or I could load up a 2D game and get stuck in within minutes.
Take Beneath a Steel Sky, a game that has continued to inspire me since the day I loaded up the Amiga demo. While the graphics are only in 320x240, I would prefer that so much more than the latest 3D. I really loved the backgrounds, and at times prefer 320x240 to any other resolution.
I think developers have tried to make games more complex and visually impressive, instead ending up with unoriginal games with the added inconveniece of pages of controls and irritating camera angles. Who wouldn't prefer a simpler game with straightforward backgrounds from which you can tell exactly what things are, and a use/look/inventory interface?
And in the persistence of developers to produce more graphicaly impressive games, they've ended up brainwashing the players into thinking that's what they want, and when I see the newest releases in game stores, every single game uses 3D. I would pay a good £20 for Beneath a Steel Sky if it had just been released this month amongst its 3D rivals.
I'm currently playing Beyond Good & Evil. It's not a pure adventure, more an action-adventure and it reminded me of "The Wind Waker" due to it's comical style.
Though it's graphics aren't photo-realistic with a mind-blowing physical engine, the newest shading technologies etc., I've embosomed it already. The characters, environments, levels and music are designed "with love", and you can feel the fire, the designers have put in.
What I wanted to say: I don't need high-quality graphics even nowadays. The Colonel's Bequest is another good example: It has more atmosphere than The Black Mirror (which I decide as very atmospherical), and I still like to play it, though it's rather old and the graphics are -- in comparison with games of the 21st century -- quite simple.
First of all, a game, that wants to carry me along, should show love to characters, setting and detail. If it has good graphics, too, I won't cry.
cheers
nihilyst
Quote...at least on the level of Nintendo/Many AGS games...
Ouch. That was mean...
So a single slash separates AGS game gfx and horrors of 8-bit...?
Many of the AGS games have graphics on par with Nintendo. Some even have worse... but I prefer if the graphics are at least on the level of a standard Nintendo game. Anything less I have a hard time stomaching.
Now, that's not to say there aren't some AGS games that have graphics far outmarking Nintendo... I've seen some pretty nice looking games.
You meant Nintendo GameCube? :=
Quote from: Gilbot V7000a on Fri 12/08/2005 04:33:16
You meant Nintendo GameCube? :=
Uumm, no, I meant classic original Nintendo. I don't associate with modern day consoles. :P ;D
Game & Watch?
I agree with the fact that standards of games have shot up, but company's such as EA have total disregard for actual game-play and are more interested in the money. Obviously a graphically better game will sell better as most customers flip over the case, check out the screenies and read what you can do on it. e.g 1 billion rooms, 20,000 characters, 3d graphocs etc...
If you think about point-and-click adventures, yes they seem to me to be better than most games that are out nowadays, but that's merely my preferance in genre, and they rarely release point and clicks anymore.
What is meant by having graphics 'on par with Nintendo'? I'm assuming you mean systems like the SNES since later consoles like the N64 deal mostly with 3D graphics. I thought that the Nintendo games had very good graphics for their time, and since the technology bar has been raised I find that few AGS games can live up to the new expectations. Do you instead mean the resolution or number of colours, or general clarity? Because otherwise I would've thought that Nintendo would be the outright winner most times, not to affront AGS games or their makers, but because Nintendo has professional artists.
Why are we overanalyzing one little comment? This is a message board, not an adventure game. That said, the minimum graphic level I can usually stomach with is either Nintendoish (the original Nintendo, not SNES, not Game cube, THE CLASSIC ORIGINAL! There is only one original.) or AGS games like Larry Vales. While Larry Vales may not be a masterwork of graphics, they are sufficiant enough. Anything below that quality I have a hard time dealing with.
So, Game&Watch?
Nintendo made playing cards before the Game&Watch. Maybe it is the artwork on them that is implied.
Game & Watch? Uumm, no. The NES, the 8 bit system which at least one person seemed to get I was referring to.
Did the Game&Watch really precede the NES?
psst! Lordhoban ... Gilbot and Shinan are just pulling your leg.
Oh, right. :P
Are we getting back on topic, yet? :=
Well, I've been reading up on Nintendo history... and eventually came across Laserdisc history. Wow, learning is fun. ;) ??? ;D