Gameplay Over Graphics...Honestly?

[Greatatlantic]

I think my interest in RPGs stems naturally from my interest science fiction and fantasy literature. On a fundamental, non-defining level, RPGS give people with active imaginations a creative world to use that imagination. And thats the tradgedy when RPGs rely on age old convetions of the past (i.e. Tolkienasque fantasy) instead of attempting to create an inspired world of their own. Or reduce gameplay to simple hack and slash action sequences, such that the player can never experience that alternate reality. Reading allows us to hear somebody else's fantasy, CRPGs should allow gamers to create their own. Hmmm... I'm starting to get enough material for my Manifesto.

Anyways, I'll repeat it again, graphics don't matter anymore than pretty shrubery outside of a bank. It might be a way to create a good first impression, but I find I can quickly get used to even the most dated of graphics once I start playing, just played some original Civilization the other day.

What really matters to me is a game's name recognition. I almost found myself buying X-men Rise of Apocalypse simply from hearing the commercial so many times. So, if you really want to sell a game, you need to advertise, get the word out. Indie developers can't compete in making graphics like the big publishers, or in marketing power. So, they need to sell their games by offering something unique to a niche audience. Fate succeeded by successfuly immitating Diablo at a bargain price. Out of the Park Baseball succeeds by offering managerial control of a baseball team in a customized league. Offering a feature or experience that the bigboys won't touch is the key for indie developers to succeed. Now, if the game's name was Hamburger Adventure... that might get me to look twice.

 

[EvoG]

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.

I suppose, but most of the time, you can't gauge this unless music is purposely released or is evident in a trailer.

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.

Deus Ex series discounted new games. They released at market value. I'm referring to games that release NEW at budget prices. And I DID say that of course there are gems, but like any gem, you have to dig through the dirt.

Ever played Nethack or ADOM? What about Civilization? There are plenty of games with bad graphics and stellar gameplay.

As I said...there are gems no doubt. They are not the standard. There are not "plenty of games" like these, and thats a part of my point.



Cheers

 

[EvoG]

I think my interest in RPGs stems naturally from my interest science fiction and fantasy literature. On a fundamental, non-defining level, RPGS give people with active imaginations a creative world to use that imagination. And thats the tradgedy when RPGs rely on age old convetions of the past (i.e. Tolkienasque fantasy) instead of attempting to create an inspired world of their own. Or reduce gameplay to simple hack and slash action sequences, such that the player can never experience that alternate reality. Reading allows us to hear somebody else's fantasy, CRPGs should allow gamers to create their own. Hmmm... I'm starting to get enough material for my Manifesto.

Anyways, I'll repeat it again, graphics don't matter anymore than pretty shrubery outside of a bank. It might be a way to create a good first impression, but I find I can quickly get used to even the most dated of graphics once I start playing, just played some original Civilization the other day.

What really matters to me is a game's name recognition. I almost found myself buying X-men Rise of Apocalypse simply from hearing the commercial so many times. So, if you really want to sell a game, you need to advertise, get the word out. Indie developers can't compete in making graphics like the big publishers, or in marketing power. So, they need to sell their games by offering something unique to a niche audience. Fate succeeded by successfuly immitating Diablo at a bargain price. Out of the Park Baseball succeeds by offering managerial control of a baseball team in a customized league. Offering a feature or experience that the bigboys won't touch is the key for indie developers to succeed. Now, if the game's name was Hamburger Adventure... that might get me to look twice.

I'm not responding 'specifically' to you GreatAtlantic, :D but I just wanted to clarify that I'm not interested in discussing if anyone 'prefers' graphics over gameplay, but rather, how influenced are you, even subconciously, when you see pretty graphics? Crappy graphics?

No one is immune to it, despite what many claim. I think that focusing too little on even reasonable graphics hurts a product. Its almost as if they're wearing a badge saying "we dont need no stinking graphics". A REASONABLE level of quality can go a long way to general market perception. Its not to say every game must be of a mass commercial mindset, but rather approach the entirety of what a game is as a whole on the quality...the presentation. People too eagerly dismiss graphics when, as was argued briefly in another post, these are VIDEOgames...a visual medium.

Anyway one argument that is surfacing that I recall from my DaC days is the "time spent on graphics vs. time spent on gameplay". First off there are dedicated designers; the people doing the art are there to the art and thats it. The designers time throughout the entire 18 mos dev cycle is to work on gameplay. Could more designers be brought aboard? Sure. Sometimes too many chefs...you know the rest. Point is that its not as if the art dept is also the design dept, and they're spending 16 of those months on art, and then rushing to do the game in 2. In ideal environments, design is handled by several people simultaneously and nothing "suffers for art". Sure examples can be had, but dont forget the BEST games have had EVERY piece of the development puzzle in place.

 

[Higher Game]

Well, frankly, people want to buy the gems out there. They'll occasionally buy good looking dirt, but for the most part, good games do well. Thousands of games, ugly and shiny, are made every year, and most gamers only buy a dozen or so, at most. It's a tough business.

Besides, graphics whores aren't loyal. They buy what looks good; that's all. Gameplay gamers will latch on to a great series and keep buying it as long as it experiments with new ideas, even if the series has the same basic formula. Game series should be consistent.

 

[EvoG]

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

For their time? Hardly. The graphics were to spec and 'at the time' I thought they were excellent. The new Pirates looks great. CS using the HL engine looked great.

To help you out though, I'll toss in System Shock 2. For its time the graphics were poor, but its one of my top 5 games ever, with gameplay in volumes.

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

Obviously opinion here, but HL2 was FAR from a shitty game...and if you want to exclude personal opinion, just look at the acclaim it has received. This is arguably one of the best games ever made, from every aspect of graphics, gameplay, technology and overall complete presentation. Ending was 'meh', but otherwise it was an incredible experience.

BF2 is a very deep and satisfying team game, so not sure why this is here.

BFV was trash, and for the most part a speed bump between BF1942 and BF2. Odd choice for you to add, as I didn't see it significant graphically either.

Oblivion? Now you're wagon jumping. In all fairness, no one has any clue how this game is going to hold up, history be damned. To demonstrate non-bias, I hated Morrowind, so I speak entirely from a objective stance.


Cheers

 

[EvoG]

Besides, graphics whores aren't loyal. They buy what looks good; that's all. Gameplay gamers will latch on to a great series and keep buying it as long as it experiments with new ideas, even if the series has the same basic formula. Game series should be consistent.

This I completely agree with.

Just remember, that whats being talked about is not 'defending' great graphics for the sake of great graphics, but rather than fine line of demonstrating complete production quality throughout. That graphics go hand in hand, and DO influence that first decision to check out a game, as thats the first impression of its content. I already said many of you will argue that YOU specifically dont do that, but there aren't enough of you yet to make indie developement more attractive as it is with indie film.

 

[Higher Game]

Art is so important to gameplay, the art depantment should have good communication with the game designers. There are countless FPS games that have shiny graphics in corridors, but the engine limitations require a copious amount of fog in outside areas. This isn't atmospheric fog; it's there to cover up poor engine design. Games like these shouldn't even try to make big, outside levels; the designers need to tell the artists that doing that is a waste of time, since no one likes running through fog. Make corridors and caves instead.

HL2 isn't as good as the first one. I don't see where the hype comes from. I don't like the linear levels and the reduced field of view. The vehicles were also silly. I enjoyed the gravity gun, but overall, the first game was better.

Cheap films can become mainstream. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, and The Blair Witch Project were all cheap movies that hit the big time and made lots of money for very little initially invested.

 

[ExMonk]

Anyway one argument that is surfacing that I recall from my DaC days is the "time spent on graphics vs. time spent on gameplay". First off there are dedicated designers; the people doing the art are there to the art and thats it. The designers time throughout the entire 18 mos dev cycle is to work on gameplay. Could more designers be brought aboard? Sure. Sometimes too many chefs...you know the rest. Point is that its not as if the art dept is also the design dept, and they're spending 16 of those months on art, and then rushing to do the game in 2. In ideal environments, design is handled by several people simultaneously and nothing "suffers for art". Sure examples can be had, but dont forget the BEST games have had EVERY piece of the development puzzle in place.

Agreed. It's interesting that when the question is asked, "What RPG's with great graphics have had poor gameplay?" very few examples are offered, and even these are debatable. (sorry VD :wink: ). Morrowind is the one example that many here lift up as the shining example of great graphics and terrible gameplay that has some merit. But I still found myself playing it for nearly a year, off an on. You are right to suggest that the time spent on graphics vs. time on spent on gameplay is a false assumption. When a rpg comes out that has great graphics and poor gameplay, it doesn't necessarily follow that too little time was spent on gameplay. It is much more likely that the designers concept of what makes good gameplay was lacking from the beginning.

I will say this, at the risk of certain people here getting big heads. I think all rpg designers should be required to spend some time here at the College of rpgcodex to be schooled in the elements of good gameplay. Buried beneath the acerbic wit, is a treasure trove of information on that subject.

 

[aboyd]

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.

I'm gonna agree with VD and say that for me, shiny graphics makes me think "gameplay was sacrificed." I know you've tried to make a compelling argument to think otherwise, but I didn't get the impression that this was a debate. It seemed that you more just wanted to hear what people thought, regardless of whether their thinking fell in line with yours or not. You know, sort like research for your own products.

So, OK. Here's how I think, as an RPG fan. I think that what a developer puts out there reflects what they value in a game. If a developer puts out beautiful screenshots and says, "we'll talk about gameplay later" then I form the opinion that their first priority is pretty screenshots. And I don't play games for pretty screenshots. I currently get this feeling from Oblivion. The game looks pretty, but the developers & PR guys say very little about combat, dialogue, story, and NPCs (well, lots and lots about radiant AI -- but I'm not sure that is going to give NPCs compelling backstories, motivations, and intrigue). So I've concluded that they don't have much to offer there.

In the case of Oblivion, I've made that conclusion even after the developers themselves have nearly asked me not to conclude that. In interviews and forum posts I've heard disclaimers such as "graphics are what we're allowed to release now, but trust us, we'll have great gameplay." I just think that's bullshit. I think they'd show off gameplay if it were worth showing off.

This is also why I have hope for The Witcher, Dragon Age, and maybe even NWN 2. In all three cases, the things they talk about are things I like, although NWN2 is weakest in that regard. The Witcher preview video shows off not the pretty graphics (although they're fine) but a quest with multiple paths to solve it (including an evil path), decent dialogue options, and interesting NPC interactions. It may turn out that The Witcher sucks. However, their "best foot forward" -- the thing they talk about the most -- is the stuff I like. So I give them more credit. I think Dragon Age surprised more than a few Codex members here, because their PR hype is all about playable origin stories and learning from interesting features in other games such as Arcanum.

So for me it's just organic. I think what the developer puts forward is what the developer has focused on. And if l33t screenshots are what they offer, then I conclude that's where they put their time. It has been fairly safe to think this way, and it has saved me some money.

-Tony

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I'll happily buy a game I've never heard of before on graphics (for example, European Air War because I "needed a combat air game"). I'll then proceed to blast it in every internet forum I can should it turn out to be crap though (Air War was pretty good though - Doom 3 however is an example of crap).

Alternatively, I have bought games specifically because of their expected gameplay or others have said they'd be good - despite graphics. Most times I hunt games down on word of mouth. Just having a quick look at my collection Silent Storm, Commandos, Rise of Nations, Sacred, Aliens vs Predator 2 and Fallout were all bought purely on word of mouth. I went in to the store specifically looking for those titles. X-Com I bought because I played the demo on a cover CD once.

Bad graphics (and by bad, I mean really god-fuckedyourmotherbackwards-greenblobs-isthatabadguy-fucking awful) will stop me from buying a game - unless I hear exceptional things about the gameplay.

Longterm, if I've bought a game on graphics and the gameplay was bad (Doom 3), I usually don't buy from the same company again until I read reviews and unless the reviews are startling or the game sounds intriguing, I won't buy (Quake 4).

I have also seen games that have good graphics and not bought - done a bit of internet research and if what I turn up is good, will go back to buy it. Truth be told, I'll rarely buy a game I haven't heard mentioned before - either on a forum by someone I know or in a review.

 

[OverrideB1]

Graphics are just part of the equation for me when I buy a game. I'm currently playing Mount & Blade and the graphics in that aren't particularly stunning or cutting edge. However, what the game lacks in graphics whoreness, it more than makes up for in terms of tactical combat: so the full version is looming on the horizon for me.

Guild Wars is a game chock full of graphic whoreness - very pretty, pretty. Unfortunately, the gameplay is repetitious and boring. Once you've gone through the game with 2 characters, you've pretty much seen all the game has to offer. Even the much vaunted late-summer add on was just more of the same with different critters to whale upon. I haven't played GW now for over 2 months and, free online or no free online, I'm unlikely to play it unless I'm real bored.

Fable is another example - although Fable was flawed from the very get go - of graphics over gameplay. There are so many things wrong with that game that listing them would be an essay in and of itself.

Morrowind, for its many faults, is a pretty good game and the bog-standard graphics were (at the time) pretty cutting edge. That was backed up by some solid gameplay and considerably more "depth" than you get in many modern "role"-playing games. Oblivion, on the other hand, seems to have swung far more the other way - graphics whoredom over gameplay. Although I (rather obviously) haven't played it, from what I've heard and seen, it is a far shallower game than Morrowind and a puddle compared to Daggerfall.

So, basically, I'm only peripherally attracted by graphics. Sure, if a game looks good on screen it doesn't hurt it any and I'm more likely to be attracted by decent screenshots to a game than crappy ones when I'm researching a game to buy. But it is gameplay that attracts me more.

 

[Imbecile]

I'm not disputing that this is the way that some people feel, but it seems a little weird to be suspicious of games with decent graphics.

I guess its generally agreed that decent graphics are a good thing, but not when they compromise the gameplay. I suppose it depends on how you think that developers create games. If you think that they deliberately focus on graphics over gameplay then you are right to be suspicious. But generally this would be a pretty short termist strategy. Graphics might suck you in but the word of mouth, and reviews aren't going to be great, and follow up sales wont be helped.

When I buy games I go on:

1. Word of Mouth (from people I trust)
2. Overall reviews
3. Have I liked any prequels
4. Do I like the game concept
5. Does it look purty

I'm fairly cautious about buying games, as I'm tight as a badgers arse, and they arent cheap in the UK. I can be intrigued by either graphics OR gameplay, but before I buy the game I'll make sure that the gameplay itself is solid.


Oh, and @ Evog. Hopefully my 360'll arrive on the 2nd December - I might catch you online then for some PGR3 action. My gamertag is Imbecile

 

[HardCode]

Obviously opinion here, but HL2 was FAR from a shitty game...and if you want to exclude personal opinion, just look at the acclaim it has received.

Once you play through HL2, there is no replay value. That makes it a shitty game. I could have bought 3 to 5 DVD movies that had re-watch value instead. I know there are mods, but that doesn't count, as we are talking "from the studio" here.

BF2 is a very deep and satisfying team game, so not sure why this is here.

Should have been named, and is referred to by gamers, as BETAfield 2. Another DICE/EA rush job that is buggy as hell, unbalanced, and runs horribly on-line for many players. Sounds like a shitty game to me.

Oblivion? Now you're wagon jumping. In all fairness, no one has any clue how this game is going to hold up, history be damned. To demonstrate non-bias, I hated Morrowind, so I speak entirely from a objective stance.

If I hear that Dunkin Donuts is going to put a 14K gold coating on their donut and remove the Boston Cream filling, I don't have to see it or eat it to know it will be shit. So much CORE gameplay was stripped from Oblivion that was present in MW, I can't be anything other than shit. Less weapons, less skills, less factions, more hand-holding ... all wrapped up in nice uber-1337 graphics. I believe that Oblivion qualifies from the evidence.

 

[Roqua]

Graphics dont mean shit to me. But, most of my favorite games have realy, really annoying UI. Like Buck Rogers. It takes about 18 years to equip a party. I would love to see a new Buck Rogers with the same graphics, but much better functionality in the UI. I want it to have the same graphics because if it had the same graphics I know the resources would be put into the things that I like, like gameplay.

Gra[hics do not aid game play in any way shape or form. You speak of emmersion. How is that possible in any game when even if the graphics are life like the rest of it is so amazingly so unbelievable that any sort of logical mind will reject it. If you can become emmersed in silly land, you are retarded, no matter what the graphics are like.

I despise games that emphasize graphics. Every iota of graphics is wasted time, resources, money, etc in gameplay.

Every game has a budget and a time table. A pool of resources. A pie I guess. I want the graphics to be a little sliver of the pie, and gameplay, functionality to be the rest of it.

Graphics are for bitches, queers, and pedaphiles. Having said that, fuck you you graphic whore slut bitches. Suck my hairy balls.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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.

What does that really mean? I've seen shitty games made by teh professionals: Deus Ex 2 and Dungeon Lords. Is Todd Howard a professional in his field and what field would that be? Was MCA a professional when he made PST?

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".

Budgets aren't unlimited. Most of the features and elements that have been removed from Oblivion were removed because they didn't have enough time or money to implement them.

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?

http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... 13&start=0

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

Well, what do you need to make a good shooter? Lotsa nice graphics, good area design, 2-3 paragraphs of a story, 8 weapons, 15-20 enemies, and some AI to go with it. Now, for a decent RPG, as we understand the term here, you need ... fuck, that would be a long list, and I'm pretty sure you know what's in it. Suffice to say it's 10 times more work at least, and you aint never gonna get even half as much money as you get from a decent shooter.

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?

Perhaps, but then again, it's good enough as is, polishing takes time, and the game is selling nicely as it is. Can't beat good word of mouth.

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.

Why would that be a jab? Anyone who's trying to make a game gets a bonus in my book. I was just curious what the status is, etc. I wasn't aware that PP is gone. Why, if you don't mind me asking? And what are you working on right now?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Morrowind is the one example that many here lift up as the shining example of great graphics and terrible gameplay that has some merit. But I still found myself playing it for nearly a year, off an on.

So? There is a guy here who thinks that Dungeon Lords is one of the best RPGs ever made (probably DW Bradley himself). Just because you enjoyed the game doesn't mean the gameplay didn't suffer from the focus on graphics.

It is much more likely that the designers concept of what makes good gameplay was lacking from the beginning.

Is that some kinda secret that only a handful of chosen ones knows of? No. It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that good story = good, choices = good, different gameplay styles = good, tactics = good, etc. Creators of MW and OB had DF to look at - a shiny fucking example of good FP RPG design. All they needed was to play the fucking game and take some notes.

 

[Twinfalls]

Creators of MW and OB had DF to look at - a shiny fucking example of good FP RPG design. All they needed was to play the fucking game and take some notes.

 

[Sarvis]

All they needed was to play the fucking game and take some notes.

Yeah, because the developers should obviously want to create the exact same game, instead of some silly product of their own creation!

Hell, why didn't they all just play Fallout and take some notes instead? That way the game could have been exactly like Fallout!

Oh wait, you'd love that...

 

[Vault Dweller]

I meant overall game design, not making an exactly the same game. Damn, you are slow.

 

[OverrideB1]

Creators of MW and OB had DF to look at - a shiny fucking example of good FP RPG design. All they needed was to play the fucking game and take some notes.

Never were truer words spoken. Well, okay, written - but you know what I mean

 

[Sarvis]

I meant overall game design, not making an exactly the same game. Damn, you are slow.

Already reduced to insults I see...


So how much of the game design do they copy then? They made their own gameplay system, and that's where they fucked up. Nothing will change that, unless they copy some other games gameplay system... and then what the hell is the point? Just buy the other company's engine and slap a new story into it!

Isn't the problem with hollywood that they are now reduced to derivative schlock? Why do you want games to do the same thing?

 

[Drakron]

Well years ago I was shopping around I seen a "EA classics" box of Wing Commanderrivatter (that was after WC IV was released) so I was overjoyed with finding it.

I played it and even if we already moved from 2d sprites to 3d graphics it was a game I very much enjoyed.

Today ... I dont know, I remenber that TIE Figher is a great game as long its the improved graphics version of a re-release (the last release that used X-Wing vs TIE Fighter models and textures) so the question is how funtional the graphics are ... I mean I cannot play the original floppy version since the models are so basic and lack any decent textures but I can the final version that even lacking the "X-Wing Alliance" graphics do the job.

 

[kingcomrade]

You don't think HL2 has replay value? Why not? It's not nearly as scripted as Doom 3 is. It's pretty fun to just play. Hell, I've been playing the same 66 levels of the first 2 dooms put together for the past, what, ten years? It doesn't matter if you know what is going to happen next, what makes an FPS fun is whether shooting the guns and seeing the environment is enjoyable. That's why graphics matter in FPS games, as does gameplay. I wouldn't replay Doom 2 so much if the double barreled shotgun wasn't such a joy to fire. That's one of the things that I like about HL2, and about Quake 4, and why I don't replay Doom 3 or the original Half Life.

 

[Drakron]

You know why HL make history?

It actually had a story.

The main complain I hear about HL2 is that is a path on the rails and look at Halo (at original one) were the maps were open enough for the player to decide were he wanted to go, he was not forced down the same path.

A game that became the example of that is Far Cry since most maps allowed several diferent routes to the objectives on the map ... I remenber instead of taking a path I picked up a buggy and gone by a back road.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I meant overall game design, not making an exactly the same game. Damn, you are slow.

Already reduced to insults I see...

What did you expect? You either know damn well what I meant, and then you are trolling, or you really think that when people refer to well done games they want exactly the same game, and in this case, you are slow. It's not an insult, it's a fact. You have a habit of taking things too literally and expect people to explain you every point in an essay-like format. It would be easier if you just think a little bit instead.

So how much of the game design do they copy then?

Fucking all of it. Character system with advantages/disadvantages and alternative builds (climbing vs levitation, medical vs healing spells, etc). Good dungeon design: areas to climb, pits to jump over, sunken areas, etc, to give workouts to those skills and reward players for choosing them. More skills, not less. More guilds. Random quests that were better than that hand-crafted shit in MW. Non-linearity. Quests that could be rejected. Etc.

Isn't the problem with hollywood that they are now reduced to derivative schlock? Why do you want games to do the same thing?

I don't. I want game developers and movie directors to look at great games/movies, understand what made them great and make more great games using that newly found understanding, not just make crap and hope that someone stupid enough will buy it/watch it anyway.

I want games of 2005 to be better than games of 1995 simply because we have better software and hardware. I think it's sad that it's unlikely that a game like Darklands, for example, will be made again. Not a copy of Darklands, but a game that is as deep and thought-through.