Gameplay vs. Graphics

[Ameena]

ADMIN NOTE: This was split from the Skyrim topic.

Meh, who cares about graphics? This is the DM forum, dammit .

[linflas]

yeah but it's Gambit.. and me

[Rasmus]

Meh, who cares about graphics? This is the DM forum, dammit .

Personally I think DM has WAY to high resolution!


Anyone can see that this is a yawning mummy! So why overdo it..

[beowuuf]

LOL, perfect! Who needs a 16 colour palette!

[Jan]

Anyone can see that this is a yawning mummy!

I don't. I think it's a prisoner who escaped and has been smashed by a car and now he's lying on asphalt (so it's a top-down view).

[Ameena]

Presumably he also had a gun go off right through his face or something as well .

[Paul Stevens]

Anyone can see that this is a yawning mummy!

You know what.....? That is very much better than
the 'm' that represents a yawning mummy in any of
the 'Rogue-Like' games. And those games were tons
of fun. I really think that more effort should be spent
on the game and less on the graphics. That mummy
would be just fine in an interesting game. IMHO.

Imagine the frame rates we could achieve!

[Jan]

I really think that more effort should be spent
on the game and less on the graphics.

Absolutely. I've been saying it for ages (and the game developers won't listen ). Unfortunately, the current trend is exactly the opposite and I don't see a chance for a change - and I also don't think it will come from the various Indie communities, Flash games or Smart-phone games, although I very much admire many of these designers and their games (especially in the various independent Indie communities).

And... uhhh... I don't want to sound too pedantic, in the original Rogue, "M" was for a Medusa, not for a mummy. Pretty nasty things, these medusas, by the way. Their stare is even stronger than that of my math teacher at high school.

[Ameena]

Yeah, bring on the gameplay, sod the graphics - I can't help but mention Minecraft again here .

[Gambit37]

There's no reason why games can't have deep gameplay *and* great graphics.

[linflas]

more than that, *I* cannot play a game that does not suit my visual preferences, even if many people tell me it has a wonderful gameplay/scenario. For example, I stopped playing WoW after 15 minutes, Morrowind after less than 1 hour, I will *never* download Planescape Torment or Minecraft ! Same for comics ..

[Ameena]

How...odd...

[Gambit37]

I don't think it's odd. Linflas is an artist and has his own artistic tastes. If a game does not meet his expectations on a visual level it's not going to appeal to him. I'm similar and totally understand it. World of Warcraft (and other games done in that cartoony style) don't appeal to me at all. If I'm engaged in a 3D world, it generally has to be more realistic for me to want to spend time there. Spore was an exception, but that was mainly for the Creature Creator -- I found the game itself quite dull.

We've got to a stage where technology allows us to make games that are realistic, emotional, artistic endeavours in their own right. It's now too simplistic to generalise that "gameplay is *always* more important than graphics" because different games set out to do different things. Take Uncharted 3 for example: it's a railroad game with little innovation and unsophisticated gameplay. Yet it's winning high score reviews all over the place for its slick movie-like story-telling and stylish visual design. It suits a certain type of gamer, the same way Minecraft suits Ameena and Rogue suits Paul S. I read your Minecraft stories Ameena and I just couldn't imagine playing it, it sounded really dull, plus I was turned off by the graphics.

As for me, I'm currently re-playing Dead Island ("realistic" 3D, and despite the bugs, I still find it fun) and a simple point-and-click game called Drawn: Trail of Shadows which is a very simple puzzle/adventure but has beautiful hand painted environments. I'm playing it more to see the visuals, than for the game itself. I mentioned Limbo recently which is a puzzle platformer with some nice physics and great sound design, and gorgeous stark and moody black-and-white visuals. It would be nothing special without these visuals and sound design.

None of this is odd -- it's just what makes us different, and it's what makes being a gamer at present really interesting as there's so much different stuff to suit everyone.

PS, for an interesting and intelligent review of Uncharted 3, check out Eurogamer -- they manage to rate it highly and praise it, while simultaneously slagging off the weak gameplay that's contrived to fit the movie-like presentation.

[Jan]

There's no reason why games can't have deep gameplay *and* great graphics.

It very much depends on how you define "great". There can be very nice and tasteful graphics which is simple and low-res (like in DM or many old adventure games) and you can have modern expensive super-dooper 3D graphics that is just ugly. I usually prefer hand-drawn graphics and tend to avoid anything that is computer generated.

Anyway, my point was that current designers tend to concentrate too much (if not only) on technically perfect graphics and don't devote their time to other aspects of the game. The result is that most of the games are a nice-looking crap.

[Gambit37]

I think the Half Life 2 series is a good example of an engaging and emotional story supported by great graphics and a solid gameplay. And even today, it still stands up even though the graphics are dated by current standards -- thats' because the internal game world and the emotional involvement of the player in the story far surpasses what the graphics can achieve in isolation. It's greater than the sum of its parts -- which is how great games should be.

I agree that there are many games where realistic graphics have been over developed and the gameplay plays second fiddle. But it's not a *given* and some of the comments seem to suggest that "super realistic graphics = a crap game" which is just not true and an overly simple generalisation.

[oh_brother]

Got to (moderately) agree with Gambit here, no reason you cannot have both. And even though I can ignore bad graphics if I have to, good graphics only add to a game.

Still, gameplay is far more important IMO, as shown by the fact that I still love old-school DM dungeons, and that I think Rasmus's mummy is amazing!

[Paul Stevens]

The result is that most of the games are a nice-looking crap.

I think you can substitute 'movies' for 'games' and
still have a true statement.

But, like food, architecture, and sex.....our
preferences vary wildly.

[Jan]

I think you can substitute 'movies' for 'games' and
still have a true statement.

Exactly. Woody Allen once said that the current appalling state of Hollywood production is caused by the fact that nowadays, nobody wants to produce (finance) a movie that will cost millions of dollars and make tens of millions of dollars - the producers are keen to finance movies that cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and want to make hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. IMHO, the same applies to modern games. As a result, the game producers concentrate on very mainstream things (i.e. stupid, for "wide" audience), graphically / technically perfect, without much innovation (i.e. risk) that are dull and most of them look like different levels of the same game. On the other side of the spectrum, you have various low-budget Indie games, sometimes with great ideas / innovations / enthusiasm / story-telling and fun, but without sufficient finances and skills the results are often unprofessional and don't move the gaming industry forwards. The "third" way between these two approaches has been lost and should be re-opened *somehow*.

But, like food, architecture, and sex.....our
preferences vary wildly.

That's certainly true. But as I tried to say, the trend towards high-budget games and risk-avoidance go against this and mean that most of the professional games are aimed at sort of mainstream or "average" demand.