Gameplay Over Graphics...Honestly?

[EvoG]

Reading the title, your first immediate answer is "absolutely", but...


...how much of this is hindsight?


Now I'm not referring to the simple fact that this is true. Of course gameplay is the most important factor. But what exactly aids you in your game buying decisions?

• Are there certain features you look for?
  
• Are you suspicious of games with incredible graphics?
  
• Are you leery of the production quality of the gameplay, of a game that has "terrible" graphics?

What is the measure to this? Any and all tout that gameplay is more important, but how do we know they're truly great games? Graphics help gauge production quality, so its an easier leap to accepting that professionals made the game, therefore there's a greater chance that this involved professional designers. Now understand what this means...not that the better graphics mean the game WILL have substance, only that it was clearly done with some level of professional quality. Its a rare game thats given critical acclaim that had less than stellar graphics but phenominal gameplay.

Its alongside the same concept of price. When you're shopping, and you come across that wall of $10 'software', such as in Best Buy, you know what to expect from them. There is perceived value in a product that costs more. Its marketing 101. Over-pricing a product can and does spur the perception this product is exceptional...I mean how else can they ask so much!?

Poor graphics immediately indicates poor quality. This of course isn't always the case, but there are far more shitty indie or casual games than there are good. These are small affairs, where the developers wear many hats, most of which they aren't even remotely qualified for. Most developers worth anything take up space at a studio, never contributing to an indie product. So what you're left with are the entrepreneurs that have the amibition, the ideas, but less the talent.

So, is this merely an indication that gamers such as ourselves are simply not interested in 'hearing' about the graphics in the bulleted feature list? I think so. We only care about gameplay features and get an idea immediately about the graphics from screens, so why DO we need to also read about it? Well there's a good chance that product doesn't have anything else to say about itself. Fine.

How many times have you passed on an ugly game though, perhaps by chance later to find out it was pretty good or even excellent? What was it that encouraged you to play? Whatever the case, you still judged it initially by its looks, perhaps assuming that if it looks trashy, how could any real attention to quality be paid to the gameplay.

Point is we try too hard to dismiss graphics as being significant, when really this is completely untrue. Great graphics most certainly will attract any and all, but that many times it seems that is all there is to the product. On the flip side, poor graphics actually hurts a product from 'gaining' the attention of any and all gamers to get them to give the game a shot. Its human nature to be attracted to what is appealing and of perceived value. Great if you're one of those that support an indie product and dont use graphics as your litmus test, but there are very few people with THAT open a mind.

Is there a fine line? Is there a balance? Are there graphics that are "good enough" or do they HAVE to be of the two extremes (shitty vs. unbelieveable)?


Cheers

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

I love gameplay over graphics, but I do love great graphics. But, graphics are NEVER an issue that comes to play when I consider purchasing a game.

Well, okay, maybe if the game used like ASCII graphics I would have to give it some thought.

 

[EvoG]

Okay, elaborate. If not graphics, what then? Be specific. Take me through an Otaku game-purchasing experience. :D

 

[Dreagon]

Lets put it this way. I would cheerfully pay full price (heck, even twice full price) for a remake of Daggerfall that only had graphics as good as the original Unreal.

 

[Imbecile]

I tend to find that graphics aid gameplay. If you cant accurately show shadows then you wont be able to sneak between them etc..

In addition to this gaming is, to some extent, about immersion. And a better looking game, all other things being equal, will be more immersive and suck us into the game world more.

I'm no graphics whore (and still occasionally play Nethack and a few old Amiga games ), but its notable that even people here would like old games with newer graphics. I'm looking forward to the latest project gotham on the Xbox360, but I'm not kidding myself that its not effectively PGR2 in a shiny new skin. I must be buying it for the graphics - however if the gameplay was awful I wouldnt give it a second glance.

The fact is they are both important, perhaps not equally, and different people will prioritise them slightly differently. However as you say its not as clear cut as graphics being unimportant, and gameplay being king - and hope that you wouldnt find too many people saying that is the case.

 

[Greatatlantic]

The number one thing for me is name recognition, neither graphics nor gameplay. When I'm shopping and if I see a title I remember hearing good things about, or if its a sequel to game I enjoyed, I'm likely to buy it. Especially if its cheaper. I do a lot of research now adays before I buy a game, reading reviews and whatnot, but its cost and name recognition is still the biggest criteria. I may be tempted to buy a more expensive graphics card on the assumption higher costs=better quality, but not games. I just understand what goes into pricing to know it isn't quality.

Graphics tend not to enter the equation for me. I do realize its a much more easily measured parameter then gameplay, but I really don't care. Nice Graphics are just something to make a good game better, but neither make it or break it for me.

 

[EvoG]

I tend to find that graphics aid gameplay. If you cant accurately show shadows then you wont be able to sneak between them etc..

In addition to this gaming is, to some extent, about immersion. And a better looking game, all other things being equal, will be more immersive and suck us into the game world more.

I'm no graphics whore (and still occasionally play Nethack and a few old Amiga games ), but its notable that even people here would like old games with newer graphics. I'm looking forward to the latest project gotham on the Xbox360, but I'm not kidding myself that its not effectively PGR2 in a shiny new skin. I must be buying it for the graphics - however if the gameplay was awful I wouldnt give it a second glance.

The fact is they are both important, perhaps not equally, and different people will prioritise them slightly differently. However as you say its not as clear cut as graphics being unimportant, and gameplay being king - and hope that you wouldnt find too many people saying that is the case.

This is my stance as well. If graphics can be better without sacrificing the gameplay, then there's no reason to arbitrarily do a mediocre job. Your shadows comment was spot on...I'm a HUGE proponent of lighting for mood and contrast, and in your case, when modeled with gameplay in mind. I could do with the poly counts of yesteryear for highend radiosity lighting.

I'm saying this with as little bias as I can, but animation in games is also just terrible, and again, I'd trade my 6000 poly characters for 1000 poly, but substantially more fluid motion and quantity. One huge element for me in HL2 oddly enough are these two things. Animation can not be underestimated in its ability to allow the player to connect with the characters, and the story a good emote can convey.

Oh, and I got my copy of PGR3 yesterday, so if you're wanting to race, I'm evog as well on Live. :D Just to note, I know they did a bit more with the kudos system (amount of things you can now be credited for). So there's that for gameplay. The tracks as you know are now based around the entire four cities, with random track generation ability, so THAT really rocks. And ultimately, being able to drive in those detailed cockpits is going to add immeasurably to immersion (and I'm arguing aid driving as you'll have a visual representation of weight transfer that is only available otherwise with chase cams).

Cheers

 

[ExMonk]

I think what we're really comparing here is "presentation" and "gameplay," graphics being merely one component of presentation. I couldn't agree more with your comment about animation. That kills the immersion for me. So does poorly implemented pathfinding. Even if NPC's had the 6000 polys AND had fluid and lifelike animation BUT were constantly getting stuck in or behind objects in the game, that greatly detracts from the experience.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Now I'm not referring to the simple fact that this is true. Of course gameplay is the most important factor. But what exactly aids you in your game buying decisions?

Ages ago I would evaluate a game box looking for hidden clues like "A-ha! The combat screen show tactical options!", etc. These days I buy new games after reading and comparing different reviews and opinions.

Are there certain features you look for?

Yep. In an RPG I look for strong dialogues, choices, good character system, tactical combat, interesting setting, etc. Takes 4-5 screens to form an opinion overall.

Are you suspicious of games with incredible graphics?

Yep. A good looking game these days is like a cheerleader - pretty but dumb and shallow. Of course, every rule has exceptions, but those are rare.

Are you leery of the production quality of the gameplay, of a game that has "terrible" graphics?

No. It's more like "Ok, so they fucked up the graphics completely. I wonder what they compensated that with?" That, of course, doesn't mean that every shitty looking game is loaded with depth and awesomeness, so buyers discretion is advised.

Any and all tout that gameplay is more important, but how do we know they're truly great games?

Same applies. How do we know the game truly has great graphics? It's not uncommon to see awesome selected screens taken on one of the NASA computers and then doctored in Photoshop, and then get a game that runs and looks like shit on an above average box with a decent card.

Over-pricing a product can and does spur the perception this product is exceptional...I mean how else can they ask so much!?

If you are like 12 or retarded. Yes, there was a short period of time when I bought a few products thinking that high price somehow implies high quality. It doesn't take long to learn that lesson.

Most developers worth anything take up space at a studio, never contributing to an indie product. So what you're left with are the entrepreneurs that have the amibition, the ideas, but less the talent.

It may change soon. It will take one successful indie project to show developers "worth anything" where the money is. No, I don't mean my game. Look at Mount & Blade. 10,000 copies sold and the game isn't even done yet.

Bottom line, Fallout was a great game with great graphics. So was Daggerfall. There is nothing wrong with graphics, they add a fucking lot to gameplay, but they are not gameplay.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

• Are there certain features you look for?

• 
  
  In any genre I expect a satisfying level of whatever I like to see more in it or whatever makes the genre, ie, in a CRPG I expect a satisfying levels of roleplaying and replayability, in an action game I expect enough action and adrenaline to make the ride more enjoyable, etc.
  
  When it comes to CRPGs in particular, while elements such as character creation and advancement, turn-based combat, a satisfying and versatile skill system, and enough roleplaying to last for many hours of fun and different character replays are on the top of my list, I can get by with games that only sport some of these in different degrees. That's why I can play and appreciate games like Fallout, Planescape: Torment, Wizardry 8, Baldur's Gate, Deus Ex, Ultima VII, and Daggerfall (among others) even when they have several different defining elements.
  
  
  

  [*]Are you suspicious of games with incredible graphics?

  
  I'm more suspicious of gamers and game reviewers who only talk about incredible graphics. I don't have anything against incredible graphics, but there better be something else to the game, otherwise I won't bother giving it a second look. I tried the Doom 3 demo and that's all I ever had of Doom 3. Quake IV, I can't even see myself picking it up. I look at all the antecipation and claims of revolutionary gaming when people talk about Gears of War (damnit, mofo's stole my name for that Mech game I was designing!) when it's not even released. Of course, if a game can provide both great gameplay and graphics then there is no reason why it shouldn't be made or appreciated... But more and more I find there's an inability to combine both successfully.
  
  
  

  [*]Are you leery of the production quality of the gameplay, of a game that has "terrible" graphics?

Nope. There are many games that fail to live up to the expectations of current trends and mindsets regarding graphical technology but graphics, good or bad, tell me little about the game itself. Because of that, a lower production quality when it comes to graphics is not something that drives me away.

 

[EvoG]

I think what we're really comparing here is "presentation" and "gameplay," graphics being merely one component of presentation. I couldn't agree more with your comment about animation. That kills the immersion for me. So does poorly implemented pathfinding. Even if NPC's had the 6000 polys AND had fluid and lifelike animation BUT were constantly getting stuck in or behind objects in the game, that greatly detracts from the experience.

Well with that, yea, you're getting into that level of verisimilitude that comes with realisitic models and textures...behaviour. As soon as the game starts to blur the lines of 'reality' visually, you start to see deficiencies in areas now, that were otherwise masked by the overall presentation.

Thing is, AI is more towards gameplay than graphics. Fine, but with that, are you sacrificing you AI for graphics, or do you sacrifice some graphics for complicated AI. My point of bringing this up this thread is the value of getting the customer to the game, and if terrible graphics detract from the sales of a game with otherwise great gameplay. See I'm arguing that while its a bold statement for us to say its gameplay over graphics, we are still attracted to those beautiful graphics...that its actually an extra effort on the part of the developer to get the players to the games with less than stellar graphics to give their games with substance a chance. That substance alone will not help anyone if there isn't at least SOME packaging to catch the eye.

I agree with presentation(graphics), and thats a perfectly fine term, but I feel that "presentation" is a combination of graphics AND gameplay rather than gameplay VS. presentation. You only get the visual component of presentation from screens in magazines, websites or the back of the box.

 

[EvoG]

No. It's more like "Ok, so they fucked up the graphics completely. I wonder what they compensated that with?" That, of course, doesn't mean that every shitty looking game is loaded with depth and awesomeness, so buyers discretion is advised.

There was a point I made about this though...you ASSUME that because the graphics are shite that they compensated elsewhere? 9.9 times out of 10 the game is just shite period. Thats why I mentioned high production quality in graphics means at least there's a greater chance at there being professional designers as well. Poor graphics though immediately gives the impression the product is poor, not that these guys must have spent their time on other aspects of the game. Not saying this is true of course, but moreso than not.

Same applies. How do we know the game truly has great graphics? It's not uncommon to see awesome selected screens taken on one of the NASA computers and then doctored in Photoshop, and then get a game that runs and looks like shit on an above average box with a decent card.

Yea not really. This doesn't happen as often as people think. Sure Sony is always super guilty of passing off CG as their in-game shit, but rarely do you have completely doctored screens. I can't recall in recent memory a game with exceptional visuals having been doctored, and those are the ones you pay special attention to. Games of the caliber of HL2 or Farcry...and those screens have never been modified. Working with the Unreal 3 engine currently, I can tell you none of the screens released for Gears of War for example have been retouched, and those are spectacular.

If you are like 12 or retarded. Yes, there was a short period of time when I bought a few products thinking that high price somehow implies high quality. It doesn't take long to learn that lesson.

I didn't qualify this statement fully...I should've added, that under-valuing a product is actually detrimental to a game. Selling it for 20 bucks immediately sets the tone that this product is inferior somehow(unless its the xbox Plat Series). Hell 30 bucks and people are like "hmmm, why so cheap?". Has nothing to do with being young or retarded. I'll go into a store to buy a game, and if it were any lower than 40 bucks new, that would set off a bell in my head.

It may change soon. It will take one successful indie project to show developers "worth anything" where the money is. No, I don't mean my game. Look at Mount & Blade. 10,000 copies sold and the game isn't even done yet.

Absolutely. :D

Bottom line, Fallout was a great game with great graphics. So was Daggerfall. There is nothing wrong with graphics, they add a fucking lot to gameplay, but they are not gameplay.

As is agreed.

 

[ExMonk]

VD: In your opinion, what are some rpgs that sacrificed gameplay for graphics? Humor me as a relative newcomer.

 

[kingcomrade]

I think VD meant something along the lines of "quality graphics" rather than hi-tek laser beam polymorphic raytraced water ripple jiggletek<tm> graphics.

Take a look at the older consoles, or some of the newer ones. Advance Wars for GBA's graphics aren't incredibly advanced, but they are highly polished and well-done, and it's one of the most fun turn-based strategy games ever.

Shitty or unpolished graphics, on the other hand, yeah, can usually means a project that didn't have enough resources while being made, or just has poor production values. That's just my experience.

Also, I prefer 2D. I really like 2D and sprites, I don't mind pixels at all, even, though most new games (Diablo 2+Expansion and on, at least) are capable of high enough resolutions where you don't get pixels. On the other hand, I DO get pixels on, say, Quake 4, because I have to turn the graphics down to minimum to get it to run. Of all the consoles out there right now, the Game Boy Advance is my favorite, and I have Genesis and SNES and N64 emulators because those are just my type of game. I play Wario Ware and Advance Wars fairly often, still. I never played my PS2 much, just FF Tactics, a PSX game, and Jak and Daxter.
I suppose I just have trouble trying to play a 3D game on a 2D screen. It's easy enough with a First Person perspective, or an isometric third person, but free-floating cameras are awful. Think: the new Sonic games. Even Mario 64. Great game, but still hard to control (not as bad as most, though).

 

[deus]

I always cared more about art direction rather than the graphics themselves. I thought F.E.A.R. was unimpressive because it looked like FPS Template #4. I don't care how technically impressive the graphics are, it was generic enemies in generic buildings. Tron 2.0 had more or less standard gameplay, but the enviroments made up for it. Even though I tired of the gameplay halfway through, I was still drawn to it because I wanted to see where I would go to next. I didn't finish F.E.A.R. so I don't know if the game becomes the most amazing thing ever in the second half, but there was nothing to carry the game after the gameplay got long in tooth.

 

[kingcomrade]

Exactly what I was think about World of Warcraft. The gameplay gets boring after about level 25-30 of your first character, but the environments are absolutely beautiful and are fun to explore.

 

[Vault Dweller]

No. It's more like "Ok, so they fucked up the graphics completely. I wonder what they compensated that with?" That, of course, doesn't mean that every shitty looking game is loaded with depth and awesomeness, so buyers discretion is advised.

There was a point I made about this though...you ASSUME that because the graphics are shite that they compensated elsewhere?

See the last sentence.

Thats why I mentioned high production quality in graphics means at least there's a greater chance at there being professional designers as well. Poor graphics though immediately gives the impression the product is poor, not that these guys must have spent their time on other aspects of the game.

Maybe that's true for you, but definitely not for me. When I see nice shiny graphics I think that it must have cost them a fortune and taken a few years to make something that pretty, and odds are they ran out of both time and money when it came to gameplay.

Yea not really. This doesn't happen as often as people think. Sure Sony is always super guilty of passing off CG as their in-game shit, but rarely do you have completely doctored screens. I can't recall in recent memory a game with exceptional visuals having been doctored, and those are the ones you pay special attention to.

Oblivion?

Games of the caliber of HL2 or Farcry...and those screens have never been modified. Working with the Unreal 3 engine currently, I can tell you none of the screens released for Gears of War for example have been retouched, and those are spectacular.

It's easier with shooters because graphics are often 3/4 of gameplay there. It's way more complicated with CRPGs.

Selling it for 20 bucks immediately sets the tone that this product is inferior somehow(unless its the xbox Plat Series). Hell 30 bucks and people are like "hmmm, why so cheap?". Has nothing to do with being young or retarded. I'll go into a store to buy a game, and if it were any lower than 40 bucks new, that would set off a bell in my head.

Well, it doesn't set any bells off for me. Far Cry was cheap - 39.99 in Canada vs 59.99. I thought that's a great price for a decent looking game and bought it. Doom 3 was way overpriced and I thought "yeah, right, I can wait 6 months until the price drops" (still haven't bought it). Again, Mount & Blade is selling cheap, cheaper than any other indie game - nobody minds.

Price is the last thing I look at when I buy a game, but that's me.

So, how is Project Phoenix?

 

[Vault Dweller]

VD: In your opinion, what are some rpgs that sacrificed gameplay for graphics? Humor me as a relative newcomer.

Let's not turn that into another Oblivion thread

Anyway: Morrowind, Dungeon Lords, Bloodlines, Ultima 9, even KOTOR where cinematic battles have replaced anything tactical.

 

[crufty]

My thought is that graphics should be well done and fit the gameplay--and match expectation. If a game is going to have graphics, they should be as well done as possible--otherwise, why bother?

For example, I can't really get into the Ultima I-VI games because of the graphics--all I can think is blah blah, play Ultima VII it's prettier. But then, the graphics in Nethack & IVAN don't bother me, as I know there's more to the game.

A recent example of the right balance of gameplay over graphics was rebelstar tatical command on the GBA. The graphics weren't revolutionary--but what was there was well done.

 

[RGE]

I haven't bothered with the SpiderWeb games because of the ugly graphics, but that's more a matter of art direction than 'graphic quality'. The premises also didn't sound very exciting, but mostly it's because of the art direction.

I always read reviews or try a pirated copy to make sure that a game will serve my needs before I buy it, so when the time comes to pay, the only thing a low price tells me is that the game must lack mainstream appeal.

I do look for certain features in games, or rather certain combinations of features. I usually only bother buying a game if it is the best in its genre. NWN is the best (or only?) DM/building/multiplayer CRPG, Diablo 1+2 were the best hack'n slash games when I bought them, and so on. If a new game doesn't have new stuff to offer that's better than what previous games offered I usually stick with those previous games.

Graphics is certainly one thing that can be upgraded for these 'best' games, but since I consider art direction more important than how advanced the graphics are, there's no guarantee that I'll consider new graphics to be improved graphics, though they usually are. For instance, I greatly prefer the graphics in Civ III to those in Civ II. The best thing about the Civ II graphics were that I could modify them on my own.

 

[HardCode]

Its a rare game thats given critical acclaim that had less than stellar graphics but phenominal gameplay.

Great games with not-great graphics for their time:
* Sid Meier's Pirates! (2005 edition)
* Wasteland
* Counter-Strike
* Civ II/III
* SSI's Pool of Radiance and the series
* Age of Empires

Shit games with very good/great graphics:
* Half-Life II
* Battlefield 2
* Battlefield Vietnam
* Oblivion

These aren't all RPGs, but they are some of the biggest titles for their time. It seems game studios must sacrifice one for the other between graphics and gameplay. Probably due to budget ... do they hire the great designers or the great graphic artists. Also, what do they have to sacrifice to make the game run on the system of the day? It's a shame, because there should be no reason why games can't have both.

 

[HardCode]

(Double post)

 

[Higher Game]

Reading the title, your first immediate answer is "absolutely", but...

• Are there certain features you look for?
  
• Are you suspicious of games with incredible graphics?
  
• Are you leery of the production quality of the gameplay, of a game that has "terrible" graphics?

I look for good reviews, first of all. I'm not rich and I don't want to waste my money on bad games. Second of all, time based gameplay and being able to save anywhere are important. I take things slowly. I also enjoy many solutions to a single problem. The game doesn't have to be incredibly open ended like Morrowind. Even if its rather linear, if it's executed well, I like it.

I'm suspicious of a game that hypes a certain aspect of the graphics, like cel-shading, bump mapping, soft shadows, etc. These gimmicky graphics tend to be compensating for something. I don't think graphics impact gameplay at all.

Be mindful that I believe games like Fallout have better graphics than, say, The Fall. Good, detailed 2d art is better than mediocre 3d art. Good graphics, to me, mean good art direction and a sense of aesthetics. The latest engine, thick textures, and accelerated graphics don't matter to me. Of course, games can have both, like Jade Empire, which is excellent in nearly all regards.

What is the measure to this? Any and all tout that gameplay is more important, but how do we know they're truly great games? Graphics help gauge production quality, so its an easier leap to accepting that professionals made the game, therefore there's a greater chance that this involved professional designers. Now understand what this means...not that the better graphics mean the game WILL have substance, only that it was clearly done with some level of professional quality. Its a rare game thats given critical acclaim that had less than stellar graphics but phenominal gameplay.

Actually, I think sound is a much better gauge of game quality, not graphics. Great games with critical acclaim have beautiful music, and often separate soundtracks. Think of how recognizable the music from Zelda, Metroid, Final Fantasy, and Doom is. I cringe thinking of how many games have dozens of people working on graphics and 2 or 3 people with cheap MIDI making the music. Music is far, far more important than graphics, since it controls the emotion of the player.

Its alongside the same concept of price. When you're shopping, and you come across that wall of $10 'software', such as in Best Buy, you know what to expect from them. There is perceived value in a product that costs more. Its marketing 101. Over-pricing a product can and does spur the perception this product is exceptional...I mean how else can they ask so much!?

I bought Deus Ex 1 and 2 at the same time, since I heard the series was great. 1 was $15, and I played it for weeks on end. 2 was $50, and I played it for just over an hour. Price and quality aren't correlated much at all. Cheap games are often gems, like Return to Castle Wolfenstein and Serious Sam. Expensive games aren't worth the risk, I've learned. Games aren't like sports cars. More expensive doesn't communicate quality to most consumers.

Poor graphics immediately indicates poor quality. This of course isn't always the case, but there are far more shitty indie or casual games than there are good. These are small affairs, where the developers wear many hats, most of which they aren't even remotely qualified for. Most developers worth anything take up space at a studio, never contributing to an indie product. So what you're left with are the entrepreneurs that have the amibition, the ideas, but less the talent.

Ever played Nethack or ADOM? What about Civilization? There are plenty of games with bad graphics and stellar gameplay. Sound is more important. Games should either have no sound, and have the player set up his own music, or have excellent music.

So, is this merely an indication that gamers such as ourselves are simply not interested in 'hearing' about the graphics in the bulleted feature list? I think so. We only care about gameplay features and get an idea immediately about the graphics from screens, so why DO we need to also read about it? Well there's a good chance that product doesn't have anything else to say about itself. Fine.

How many times have you passed on an ugly game though, perhaps by chance later to find out it was pretty good or even excellent? What was it that encouraged you to play? Whatever the case, you still judged it initially by its looks, perhaps assuming that if it looks trashy, how could any real attention to quality be paid to the gameplay.

I judge graphics by creativity more than shinyness. Fallout has gritty graphics, but seeing the power armor and 50's style made me interested. On the other hand, games can have beautiful graphics that are just a rehash of old ideas. Elder Scrolls, I'm looking right at you.

Point is we try too hard to dismiss graphics as being significant, when really this is completely untrue. Great graphics most certainly will attract any and all, but that many times it seems that is all there is to the product. On the flip side, poor graphics actually hurts a product from 'gaining' the attention of any and all gamers to get them to give the game a shot. Its human nature to be attracted to what is appealing and of perceived value. Great if you're one of those that support an indie product and dont use graphics as your litmus test, but there are very few people with THAT open a mind.

Is there a fine line? Is there a balance? Are there graphics that are "good enough" or do they HAVE to be of the two extremes (shitty vs. unbelieveable)?

Going for graphics means competing with ID, EA, Nintendo, and the other big boys. It's a losing match. Unless you're in one of these groups, aim for gameplay. Gameplay is why Farcry was very well received, while Doom 3 was just another corridor shooter. Doom sold well on the name only, but that's just how life is. Over time, graphics get stale, but good gameplay is always there.

Remember that gamers like to read reviews on games. Good looking games with bad gameplay will get bad reviews, and this scares away the gamers who have limited money to spend. Doom 3 fans with $3000 computers don't care, but they're in the minority. Most gamers do a little research before spending $50+ on games.

 

[Higher Game]

I always cared more about art direction rather than the graphics themselves. I thought F.E.A.R. was unimpressive because it looked like FPS Template #4. I don't care how technically impressive the graphics are, it was generic enemies in generic buildings. Tron 2.0 had more or less standard gameplay, but the enviroments made up for it. Even though I tired of the gameplay halfway through, I was still drawn to it because I wanted to see where I would go to next. I didn't finish F.E.A.R. so I don't know if the game becomes the most amazing thing ever in the second half, but there was nothing to carry the game after the gameplay got long in tooth.

Bingo. It's the art direction and sense of aesthetics that matters, not having the latest shader models and 500k polygon characters. "Graphics", to me, means the latest special effects that require an expensive computer to run. Art direction means imagination, and crafting an immersive world for the player to experience. Sometimes art direction requires good graphics, but these days, computers are fast enough to do everything necessary. Special effects these days are just gravy.

RPGs appeal to people who don't care much for graphics. Shiny graphics are for FPS games that have the same old gameplay, so graphics are the only thing changed between games. RPG gamers are looking for something new in each game: a new story, characters, music, art direction, and atmosphere.

 

[EvoG]

See the last sentence.

Yea just realised that.

Maybe that's true for you, but definitely not for me. When I see nice shiny graphics I think that it must have cost them a fortune and taken a few years to make something that pretty, and odds are they ran out of both time and money when it came to gameplay.

I'm not saying this isnt the case for a LOT of developers, but the odds are that they are investing that kind of money, they're gonna have designers that are probably professionals in their field. The argument is that when they do have the substance, odds are they paid for it...high-end graphics aren't cheap you're right, and that means there's money to spend on pro designers. This isn't about "do they?", but rather "they can".

Oblivion?

What about it? They've of course shown rendered material, but stuff that was in-game wasn't doctored...unless you know something I dont?

It's easier with shooters because graphics are often 3/4 of gameplay there. It's way more complicated with CRPGs.

I'm talking about 'games', not just rpg's, but, whats more complicated with rpgs?

Well, it doesn't set any bells off for me. Far Cry was cheap - 39.99 in Canada vs 59.99. I thought that's a great price for a decent looking game and bought it.

Thats within the normal range...I said 30 or less...budget range.

Again, Mount & Blade is selling cheap, cheaper than any other indie game - nobody minds.

Somebody does, or else perhaps it would get more coverage. This isn't in any way a slight against the game, merely to reinforce my point. What if the game had just a bit more polish...do you think other gamers might be intrigued, increasing traffic and perhaps sales?

So, how is Project Phoenix?

I can't tell if this is a jab or not? Things are going great, only that what WAS PP is long gone with good reason. What we're doing in design is far more polished.



Cheers