Good graphics in a crpg

[One Wolf]

rpgs are sweet because they offer elements that no other genre does. pick your race. pick your class. pick your abilities. pick your skills. pick your advancement. pick your path. every game class likes good graphics, but so the fuck what when you start compromising the things that make rpgs.....rpgs.

 

[Revasser]

rpgs are sweet because they offer elements that no other genre does. pick your race. pick your class. pick your abilities. pick your skills. pick your advancement. pick your path. every game class likes good graphics, but so the fuck what when you start compromising the things that make rpgs.....rpgs.

Indeed. I don't think anyone actually dislikes looking at purdy graphics, but some of us take issue with the purdy graphics when they become one of the major foci of an RPG at the expense of what actually makes an RPG and RPG. I pick up a roleplaying game to roleplay, nice graphics are low on the list of things I consider when I decide which RPG I'm going to buy/play.

 

[truekaiser]

See, now I disagree with the contention that immersion inhibits role-playing. I think that immersion can HELP role-playing, because it allows you to concentrate on your character, and not on the imagining how the world is around you.

In a P&P RPG, it's not the players, but the GM who describes the world to you. Yeah, the players can imagine how the details look, but it's the GM who paints the broad strokes. In a cRPG, the computer can do that -- and, as they say, a picture paints a thousand words. And it's really a matter of technical limitations that have prevented a purely visual and audible CRPG from attaining what is possible given a really good GM. But that doesn't mean it's impossible to attain -- indeed, I think it's a goal worth striving for.

good graphics hurt the immersion factor if the rest of the underlaying struture is not at the same quality.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Maybe it's just because I'm not into roguelikes, but I just can't do ASCII ones. Too much to remember with regards to what each symbol means. I can deal with stick figures, but not letters.

I don't think immersion hurts role-playing, but I don't think graphics are necessary for immersion. For example, there was a group that did live-action role playing for Call of Cthulhu. They used to have a site up at www.cthulhulives.org, but while I was writing this post and getting the link I could only find a google cache that you'll have to highlight to read because it has a white background and yellow text. Anyway, one of the things they did involved a sensory deprivation helmet. It had a narration in it that describes what is going on and tells you what to do. I downloaded them and listened to them, and I can't think of anything I've experienced more immersive, and I didn't even have on the actual helmet or any interaction! You can find the description here. If you can't find the MP3, I'd be willing to try and send them to you guys, although I've never done anything like that before and don't exactly know how to go about it. If I can't, then sucks to be you guys because they are really cool.

 

[Human Shield]

I think interface and design trumps brute force.

People get more scared playing Thief 1 and System Shock 2 then Doom 3.

A unique design in graphics and also importantly sound, trumps super advanced generic design.

When a game gives enough details to form a consistent world in the mind of players then can take the players anywhere. This is also true in movies and books. Consistency is of prime importance, things that break suspension of disbelief or world consistency upsets the player even if it has the greatest graphics ever.

People can get into books and PnP games. It comes from a consistent world being pieced together by the mind.

People get by in the real world by learning the rules and being able to guess outcomes. If a fictional world is able to set up rules that can be learned, anything you do that is coherent with the rules or reasonably explained immerses the user.

But most games have a "OMG plot twist", where there wasn't forewarning clues (or the clues were so obvious no one should be shocked), and the twist breaks rules without reason.

In NWN you know that one rude guy is going to do something bad, and you end up fighting old lizard people while traveling through time and dimensions in between fighting wolfs. People complained.

In MW you have a prophecy that the player is told and you go around trying again and again to fulfill 100% of it. Not much of a "prophecy" when you are just taking orders directly from the prophecy givers of what to do next, and you kill anyone who gets in your way. If each step was logically explained to solve a problem and you later find out the prophecy is everything you have just done, it would be a more powerful plot point. So people complained. You can also be the head of multiple guilds, etc...

Everywhere in books, TV, movies, comics, games. In all storytelling, breaking the internal rules, not explaining them enough, or having stupid ones upsets the user.

RPGs have more pressure to get it right, because creating a world is what the game is about. Interface and consistent design is more important, and will still please people years later while fancy graphics get outdated.

 

[android]

For me the most immersive game was Planescape: Torment. It had nice graphics, but what got me sucked in was the story and setting, which relied on the player reading a huge amount of text. It was like a very good book. Now with the trend of making games more accessible everything has to be spoken and I fear something like PS:T won't happen again...

 

[Section8]

Glad to see a good many people share my view that competent art direction and unique style triumphs over technical elements. I don't think anyone would argue that John Carmack has put together some mightily impressive engines, or that Kenneth Scott is a brilliant artist, but when they're pulling together to make something as wholly generic as Doom 3, no amount of technical skill can make up for it.

At the other end of the spectrum, Thief and System Shock 2 lack the showing technical expertise, but along with incredible sound design, succeed in a creating a far superior gaming experience.

Morrowind gets praise from me for having a remarkably different setting, consistent art direction, and a great deal of effort toward creating a "plausible" game world, complete with all the boring elements like table settings and whatnot. Of course, once you're over exploring said game world, there's not much else to do.

Besides, who wants to save a world that fucking ugly? :twisted:

 

[MINIGUNWIELDER]

If you have a good imagination, graphics aren't a problem. Not to say that you should just draw up a bunch of shitty MSpaint stuff

AoW1

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

WE are (I hope) playing games for fun, and there are different paths to that end. It is absolutely true that a great RPG does not need graphicas at all. But I very much enjoy being able to See strange new worlds, beautiful vistas in fantastic landscapes etc. I like fantasy art, and a game that lets me see such visions in beautifuyl real time touches something a mere description on a screen can not (a book might to an extent, but I am in a different "mode" when reading. Good graphics pull me in, elate me, and allow me to experience the game in a much more immediate way.
Therefore I am not ashamed to say that graphics are an important feature for me in such games. I like to see them and be wowed by them. I like the exploration aspect especially in the outdoors, and that can only poorly be conveyed by mere description or poor graphics. Good or a bad graphics in a CRPG are to me a bit like the difference between a dungeon master with great storytelling skills and a would-be-cool 13 year old brat.
I don't mind imagination, but frankly I prefer P&P for that, or a good book. Computer games are a visual medium for me, and therefore the graphics are part of the package.

That said, notihing feels as hollow as a game with great visuals but terrible, shallow, restrictive gameplay.

 

[Twinfalls]

At the other end of the spectrum, Thief and System Shock 2 lack the showing technical expertise,

Looking glass had way more technical expertise than ID. System Shock 1 (full 3d) was developed at the same time of Doom 1. Thief 1's graphic engine was plenty good for its day, and its sound design is probably still unmatched today. Shock 2 just used the by-then ages old Dark Engine.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Ultima Underworld was ahead of most FPSs until Quake.

 

[Section8]

Looking glass had way more technical expertise than ID. System Shock 1 (full 3d) was developed at the same time of Doom 1. Thief 1's graphic engine was plenty good for its day, and its sound design is probably still unmatched today. Shock 2 just used the by-then ages old Dark Engine.

Thief and System Shock 2 were developed very close to one another, sharing a lot of resources, but it wasn't so much the programming I was thinking of when I was talking about lacking technical expertise. The meshes and animations in Thief and System Shock are pretty god awful, and the textures are a mixed bag. But that said, they have a consistent art style across the board, which is more important.

 

[Atrokkus]

In RPG, art design is clearly superior to technical achievements.

Even with a pretty damn primitive engine one can make a spectacular, beautiful game. For instance, Infinity engine games: the engine itself is very limiting, but due to the great skill of the art designers and artists, almost all of the IE games (esp. BG2, IWD) have perhaps the most beautiful environment art I have EVER seen in RPGs.

NWN has a pretty good engine (even witcher is using Aurora, albeit greately modified), but environment is ugly, repetitive. Perhaps there were some technical issues that made it almost impossible to make a good terrain, or perhaps it was a sacrifice to the modability, but the fact is that NWN is much uglier than, say, BG2, although the engine of the former is clearly superior and has a great potential.

Diablo 1 is another example. Very old game, technically-limited, but the it was all compensated by the amazing skill of Blizzard artists. The art-design was perfectly suiting for Diablo's grotesque and demonic atmosphere.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

On the other hand, if a game's graphics can pull you into the world to a large enough extent, in other words, if the game is immersive enough so that you feel like you ARE the character you're pushing through that world, I think that can be a great boon to roleplaying as well. You end up using your senses more -- did I just see something beyond that tree? What was that sound behind me? And looking through the character's eyes, you feel "I -AM- this character," as opposed to "I am some omniscient presence dictacting my character's actions through an abstract world that I pretend is realistic."

As long as the experience is compelling, challenging and fun, I think that's pretty cool, too. I love reading, and I also love going to the movies. I love playing pen & paper RPGs, and I also love video games. I don't think that the experience is diminished -- it's simply a different experience that uses different parts of your mind. And both are cool.

Fucking whore.

 

[crufty]

In terms of roleplaying, I think that its the number of options that are available that really define the ability to roleplay. For example, in dungeon crawl, my mummy necromancer enters a room and there's Mr. Orc standing next to a bat skeleton. Am I the wizardly mummy, and zap the orc with a spell? A fighter-mage in the making, and attack it with my dagger? Perhaps discretion is the better part of valor--do I passwall to the stairs? Teleport the orc away? Or raise the bat and command it to attack the orc? The more options, the more rpg like a game becomes.

But if those options aren't in a fun,playable form--then its moot. So graphics do play a part.

Graphics are a realization of the game. Graphics should be clear and consitent. Even ascii graphics can be bad--for example, using "B" to represent snakes and "L" to represent Bats. That said, I think having lush, detailed graphics really does add to the immersivness, you are there feel. The shops in Ultima feel more alive than the shops in Nethack. The taverns in Morrowind feel more barlike than the bars in Bards Tale. The forests of NWN felt more forestlike than the forests of the early Ultimas. That doesn't neccessarily mean that there are more roleplaying options--but it does make me want to play (and thus buy).

 

[Mandake]

On the other hand, if a game's graphics can pull you into the world to a large enough extent, in other words, if the game is immersive enough so that you feel like you ARE the character you're pushing through that world, I think that can be a great boon to roleplaying as well.

It's true. I remember playing Ultima Underworld, and I was really sucked into the world. It was one of the first 3D games too, and the graphics really supported the feeling of the game.

 

[RuySan]

good graphics make a good game even better. If the game isn't good it doesn't matter anyway.