Graphics Do Not Gameplay Make? 26
Thanks to Boomtown.net for their article discussing the importance of higher-quality graphics in making good games. While the article comes to fairly mundane conclusions: ("..it's not just the graphics that are important... if there isn't good game design present, there isn't a good game"), it makes some good points about better graphical technology affecting gameplay ("With Alone in the Dark, 3D was used for an entirely different purpose. A fully polygon rendered environment allowed the developers to move the point of view around, to view the same scene from many different angles, resulting in some memorably shocking moments.") There's also links back to the first article in this series, discussing how bad level design affects gameplay.
The consumer dictates (Score:3, Interesting)
We need good looking games, or the games are written off by the public as not good enough. Liscences go along with this to an extent. (If its not a liscence its a sequel)
New titles, and ugly games dont sell. If the people in the street *bought* more non-sequels and non-liscenced games, and perhaps some of the uglier games we could do what we wanted when we make games!
I think (unfortunetly) the games industry has gotten to a point where you have to live up the standards, and not just anything will sell.
Work on a good looking game, mimicing something else, add a feature, then if that goes okay, make a sequel and start adding more of your own "original" ideas. (at which point you become one of those sequel and non-original types)
Graphics==Absolutely Necessary...sometimes (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely stunning visual art is absolutely necessary. For the new version of Tetris coming out soon.
That was only a fictional scenario, but I'd like you to consider that for a while. I have played the new game Tetris Worlds. It was graphically very appealing. However, I am at a point where I find some graphics take away from a game. Tetris Worlds was not a bad game, but a lot of the graphics were overkill. The same could be said for any other game where graphics are embellishments rather than true improvements to the game experience. Who would want to play Tetris while the field rotates and blinks and flashes?
The fact is that graphics are very important to a smooth-looking and appealing game. However, they should be used in moderation, to prevent taking away from the game. Unfortunately, with the expectations that gamers of today have come to expect, it will be more and more difficult to make a good, simple game with good, simple graphics. Time to find a job at EnixSquare...
Graphics Facilitate Gameplay (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok ok, there is a bit more than that. Our eyes are they primary sense we use when playing games. Good graphics actually become part of the gameplay.
A vivid display, the ability to pick out details, combined with a smooth frame-rate, makes games control a whole lot smoother. How a game controls is essentially the most important factor in how fun a game is. How a games graphics performs are an important factor in that.
3D graphics facilitate new gameplay ideas. The switchover was a good thing..(although overdone..we need more 2D titles..Viewtiful Joe should be great 'tho). Although to be honest, I think we are at the peak right now for graphics. We really do not need any better graphics. (Although more power in machines would be nice for more complex gameplay structures)
Re:Seem's kinda obvious... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Where is the inspiration? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, there are a few publishers in the US willing to do offbeat games, but for some reason, Japan seems to have more of them. Games are too expensive to make these days, so not too many publishers will take risks.
How it drives sales (Score:3, Interesting)
I've noticed that most games that come out have a ton of screen shots on the box, and almost all of them have a flip out front now. The publishing companies are typically to blame, demanding that a game is finished in a tiny amount of time. They see something that is flashy, and they will be impressed. The basic sale is showing the impressive graphics off, hoping that people buy based on that alone. As an example, you have Unreal 2, Doom clones, Quake clones, etc.
The games that pop out with new engines and stuff usually do not have the greatest design. Those typically come a generation later. I admit that I plunked down the money for Unreal 2. I justify it by saying that I am supporting future awesome engine development. :^P The game, however, was fairly boring.
I hope number 3 is "smooth gameplay, no bugs." I've got a relatively powerful system (Athlon XP 2400 / Radeon 8500), and Morrowind still is choppy at times. Neverwinter Nights wasn't stable until two months after I purchased the game, I began to call it "Nevergettoplay Nights." At least Unreal 2 wasn't choppy, although it did cause hangs every now and then.
Number 4 for "great games" should be extensibility. Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake 3, Half Life, NWN... Great games because I could change the models, levels, and sounds. I could create all new games, if I wanted to.
Re:Where is the inspiration? (Score:4, Interesting)
These days games are almost exclusively written the other way around: people think of the "skin" first (i.e. what it looks like, what it plays like) and then re-use an existing (possibly commercial) engine.
The first approach allows for innovation and inspiration; the second approach leads to an endless string of me-too titles. Before I'm accused of having rose-tinted glasses, I also believe the amount of trashy games is constant throughout the space-time continuum...
As a form of proof I offer this [indiegamejam.com] link; these games were written around an engine rather than the other way around, and while they are by no means finished products, you can see inspiration shine through.