Soapbox - Graphics vs Gameplay

[Supreme Cmdr]

discuss!

[JAY]

Some years ago you couldn’t have a decent looking game engine without a decent game wrapped around it. You could though have a good playing game being fun and involved yet look like something from under your show. Most games I feel relied on the player’s imagination, as like when one reads a book. A book can be involving yet doesn’t have a single glossy picture in it.

But times have changed together with technology, you may have been lucky to carry this off once upon a time, but I feel the day a game is released without using today’s hardware in one shape or form are seriously numbered.

But why have one or the other. ? The best eye candy games being the 1st person type have the graphics, they push the latest graphics card to the limits and remain to provide pleasure from start to finish.

Then you have the Strategy/War games that have come along way from being simple shapes on a hexagon screen board. Now we have Age of Empires or CivIII for example all being the highest class of strategic game play yet provide graphics to go ohhhh and ahhhh at. They may not look out of this world yet we don’t expect to part with money only to look at little blips and blobs either.

Its not enough to pass a game off without using the £300 pound 3d cards special features and API`s to produce nothing but 32bit 4 billion polygon games with lens flare. Game players from shoot-em-ups to RPG`s want the graphics want 3d excellence and still want a dam good game with it.

These days with what most game players have in there machines, they want a game that is going to entertain and be able to show off to there friends.

Call us greedy, or perhaps just call us human. We the game public I feel want the best of both worlds, the great game play and the great graphics.

[Schmendrick]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ooJAYoo:

But times have changed together with technology, you may have been lucky to carry this off once upon a time, but I feel the day a game is released without using today’s hardware in one shape or form are seriously numbered.

---

Actually it looks like the days are numbered for developers and publishers who shovel out crap wrapped in pretty graphics. Unfortunately they'll probably drag most of the good developers with them and all we'll get is a steady diet of anime-infested pseudo-artsy console garbage from Japan.

The larger publishers have enough cash to keep going a lot longer than the developers. But by screwing over developers with shitty deals and forcing them to release stuff unfinished, they're shooting themselves in the foot. It looks like soon, all they'll have is their in-house products to keep 'em going. I don't know if many of them can stay solvent that way. Perhaps it's just wishfull thinking on my part.

Graphics processing has come a long way in the past few years. This has taken the focus off of gameplay. But soon, it's going to reach a point where the graphics can't get any better. New graphics processors will only be minor incramental improvements over the previous generation. Even today, with a high end card, you can render scenes in real time that would only be minorly improved if you were to ray-trace every frame. Very soon, graphics will all be of sufficient quality that any improvements won't be immediately detectable by the average joe. When that happens, gameplay will once again be the yardstick of the industry.

At least, that's what I'm hoping will happen. Six months ago I purchased a cheap hard drive so I could install DOS 5.0 on it an play some games that were actually fun.

[Sean Mudge]

I have returned a lot of pretty games, I have never returned a good game.

It's all about gameplay. Then again I guess you already know how I feel.

Cheers Gentleman

[Sadistic]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ooJAYoo:

Now we have Age of Empires or CivIII for example all being the highest class of strategic game play yet provide graphics to go ohhhh and ahhhh at.

---

This is true. There are plenty of very involving, fun games that have great graphics, and don't take a super-computer to run, like AOE2 and D2, and War3 coming out soon. Again, they are not nearly as complex as BCM, but just as graphics aren't everything, complexity isn't everything either. There's a lot of good games that aren't very complex, but are still really really fun. Like Super Smash Bros. Melee on the Gamecube. Very very uncomplex, but has really nice graphics, and is very very fun. BCM is the undisputed champion of complexity, but, in a way, it is almost too complex. It completely makes you feel like you are flying a huge ship through space, which for the most part, isn't all that exciting, unless you attack a star station and get a whole ton of ships coming to kill you. Most of the time during BCM you are just sitting waiting for mining drones to collect their minerals, and when not doing that, pretty much all there is to do is attack starstations. You can land on planets, but there's really not much to do on planets. It takes forever to get around a planet, so it's not really worth your while. If planets were as full of hussle and bussle as they really would be, then it would be worth your while. Maybe its just me, but, there's really not all that much to do. When multiplayer comes out, it'll be alot funner, because you can find places on planets to have like races, and sniping battles and stuff, but right now, there's not much to do, and I haven't been playing BCM at all because of this. Also, my comp is crappy and ctd's every 20-30 mins anyways, which is very discouraging, but I just don't feel like playing it. If some of you could give me some ideas of stuff to do to make it more fun, please tell me.

[Gallion]

Oban summed it up pretty good.

Gameplay vs Graphics - no brainer; Gameplay wins hands down.

TTFN

[EAGLE]

Yup i second that.

Most of us have great background wallpaper. They look awsome and nice to look at, but do we play with them a lot? Not really there is nothing play with.

Gameplay will always win over graphics, some ppl like simple games that good look and dont require brain, thats what PS2 and Xbox are for.

[ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: EAGLE ]

[Cmdr Nova]

quote:

---

Originally posted by EAGLE:

.....Gameplay will always win over graphics, some ppl like simple games that good look and dont require brain, thats what PS2 and Xbox are for.

---

Um.... .....I'm buying a PS2 just so I can get FF10. RPG's have tons of gameplay.

Even though FF10 has really good graphics, gameplay still wins hands down. Don't care about graphics, if there ain't a good story, or if the gameplay just sucks. (I just played and finished Chrono Trigger and FF4 for the very first time, a couple weeks ago..... Just as good as any or the new ultra spiffy 3d RPGs.)

[ 12-09-2001: Message edited by: Cmdr Nova ]

[Guest]

I must say, I do believe that Oban summed it up for me as well. No wonder SC used it for his soapbox, well written, well thought out, and very well put. GOOD JOB Oban!! I agree 100%!!!

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Graphics processing has come a long way in the past few years. This has taken the focus off of gameplay. But soon, it's going to reach a point where the graphics can't get any better. New graphics processors will only be minor incramental improvements over the previous generation. Even today, with a high end card, you can render scenes in real time that would only be minorly improved if you were to ray-trace every frame. Very soon, graphics will all be of sufficient quality that any improvements won't be immediately detectable by the average joe.

---

Ahh yes, the Law of Diminishing Returns. It's gonna bite hard.

[JAY]

I agree about good games having good game play, but what makes good game play? Its not so much Graphics vs. Game play, as one is lost without the other. The graphics have to be to some degree good else the game will fail to pass off what it’s trying to portray to the player. The graphics have a hand in making game play what it is.

We play games as an escape to another realm, another reality. It’s about game immersion. Without descent visual cues, then it will fail to draw us in.

Our imagination can only be stretched so far, we need to see and hear what’s in front of us to fully believe the world with which the game has thrown us into.

[Commander Jamont]

right on !

nuff said

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ooJAYoo:

, but what makes good game play? Its not so much Graphics vs. Game play, as one is lost without the other. The graphics have to be to some degree good else the game will fail to pass off what it

---

Absolutely. And thats the point I was making. BCM's graphics do the job it was supposed to do (assuming you have a good video card) and yet, some forget that and try to compare it to games that couldn't even handle 10% of its processing.

[Barrongm]

To me it is about the game play. I go through games like no bodys bussiness. Most games dont last a day play time untill they go to that great cd grave yard in the closet. The graphics in BCM are the best I have come accross in any game of it size and caliber. I am obsessed with this game, and all of its present and future features. I have had it in the drive since I got it, and have no intention of removing it any time soon . It has already becomen the most played game of 2001. At least at my house .

[Islander]

I don't understand why all the game reviewers think that this game does not have good graphics. IMHO they need to play for a longer period of time and explore more of the universe.

Sure, there are other games that look prettier but their game universe is so limited/restricted that it becomes tiresome over time (IWAR2 is a good example).

Gameplay is indeed the word for it as BCM allows me to do things I could only dream about in other games.

The game universe for BCM is so expansive that I am thoroughly enjoying just exploring it in order to see what I can see.

Now if I could just stop getting blown up all the time, maybe I could see more of it.

Gamaliel out.

[Guest]

I look at it like this: gameplay is about longevity, if you have fun playing a game, you wil come back to it. Graphics are like a pretty face on a girl, you may like it now, but eventually you'll get used to it. The graphics do play a large factor in the imersion of the player into the game, true. But look at the old OLD dos titles of 20yrs ago. They had minimal graphics at best, but I can guarantee you that there are still a lot of people playing them even today.

Is that to say that the progress we've made in the last 20 yrs in comptuers should be abandoned so we can all go back to playing text based games? NO! I'm just saying that it helps put things in perspective.

Before there were pretty graphics, there was gameplay.

[vogelap]

Here are my thoughts... Graphics AND Gameplay are both REQUIRED by games these days. Gone are the days of 'one-or-the-other'.

I feel that I am a wise consumer... I understand that gameplay is what makes a game fun and make me want to continue playing it. However, graphics usually contribute a bunch (along with word-of-mouth, reviews, features, and my enjoyment of that particular genre) to why I BUY the game in the first place. It's not the most important thing, but a game with great gameplay AND great graphics gets my $$$ faster than one that's just got one or the other.

I understand that Derek chooses not to use pre-rendered movies or in-engine cutscenes. But I disagree with this decision. I think that cutscenes and movies help immersion and involvement in a game. I respect Derek's decision, however, the games I enjoy most -- the games that stick with me -- are the games that feature both pre-rendered movies and in-engine cutscenes. Think UNDYING, IWAR, IW2, Diablo 2, etc.

In BCM, I REALLY enjoyed watching my crafts do planetfall and my AE transport down to a planet. These graphical touches help flesh out the game and make it more enjoyable. I hope that Derek will continue to add these in-engine cutscenes for other events -- like docking, etc.

In my opinion, BCM does the gameplay piece better than most other games currently in the genre. I would quibble that BCM needs a more compelling, less open-ended campaign applied on top of the existing (and excellent) open-ended game that exists now. However, BCM's graphics, while improved over previous incarnations, still fall below current gaming expectations. I feel that the reviews have been mostly fair in their assessment of this fact.

Reading Derek's soapbox on this topic, especially the section of it that talks about bringing a machine to its knees with too many crafts on screen, my only thought was "OPTIMIZE THE CODE!". Heck, if Freespace 2 can have massive battles without impacting framerate, I'm sure BCM can be tweaked to do the same. Falcon 4 is every bit as complex a game as BCM, and it's got very nice graphics and detail.

BCM is unusual in the 'one-or-the-other' group in that it focuses on GAMEPLAY instead of GRAPHICS. Most 'one-or-the-other' games feature glitzy graphics with razor-thin gameplay.

My fantasy for BCM is a combination of it's OUTSTANDING gameplay (and an added 'story mode' with missions for single player) with the graphical richness of IW2 -- everything that IW2 offers -- from the pre-rendered movies to the in-engine cutscenes. This, in my opinion, would add the glitz to the gameplay that would propel BCM to the top of the heap.

[Thermidor]

"Reading Derek's soapbox on this topic, especially the section of it that talks about bringing a machine to its knees with too many crafts on screen, my only thought was "OPTIMIZE THE CODE!". Heck, if Freespace 2 can have massive battles without impacting framerate, I'm sure BCM can be tweaked to do the same. Falcon 4 is every bit as complex a game as BCM, and it's got very nice graphics and detail."

Ha! Someone is using Falcon 4.0 as an example? Are you not aware that support of Falcon was dropped before it was fully playable due to the fact that it was too complex and the publisher decided it wasn't worth the effort? BCM is doing a lot more behind the scenes than Falcon ever did. Freespace2 doesn't have much going on behind the scenes at all which is why it can look pretty. From what you have stated it's apparent that you haven't even played BCM.

[vogelap]

Thermidor opens mouth, inserts foot:

quote:

---

From what you have stated it's apparent that you haven't even played BCM.

---

Actually, you're completely wrong. I purchased BC3K (1.0!) the day it was released and still have the boxed copy on my shelf. I purchased BC3K (2.x) the day it was released (oh, and if you look at the credits for that game, you'd see my name for working on the manual) and received an autographed boxed copy from Derek for my assistance. I purchased BCM the day it was released and have played the daylights out of it since.

I've logged many HUNDREDS of hours in the BC universe across all the different versions.

My comment about Falcon stands. Falcon is an extremely complex sim, which also managed to have nice graphics. BTW, the patched eFalcon is quite playable and even approaches 'enjoyable'!

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vogelap:

I understand that Derek chooses not to use pre-rendered movies or in-engine cutscenes. But I disagree with this decision.

---

I didn't realize that this discussion had ANYTHING to do with cut-scenes. I must have missed that discussion.

My PC games will NEVER have cut-scenes. Ever.

quote:

---

Reading Derek's soapbox on this topic, especially the section of it that talks about bringing a machine to its knees with too many crafts on screen, my only thought was "OPTIMIZE THE CODE!". Heck, if Freespace 2 can have massive battles without impacting framerate, I'm sure BCM can be tweaked to do the same. Falcon 4 is every bit as complex a game as BCM, and it's got very nice graphics and detail.

---

Are you f!cking kidding me?!?!? You've GOT to be kidding me!! You want to compare Freespace's rendering of a single confined region, and piss-poor NPC AI to BCM's world processing???

Are we having a discussion or is this a piss take?

Just because the game has high-end requirements means it needs to be optimized? What?!?!

I just love it when every gamer with a mouse thinks he knows what programming is all about.

Please stay on topic or don't participate at all.

[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

[Barrongm]

thank god, I hate em

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vogelap:

Thermidor opens mouth, inserts foot:

---

OK. Until you apologize to him via email, and cc me on it, you're no longer allowed to post. And if I don't see the email by midnight, I'm killing your profile.

I've said this before, I don't care WHO you are or how long you've been around, flaming or any such action on THIS board, is NOT allowed.

[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ]

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thermidor:

[QBHa! Someone is using Falcon 4.0 as an example? Are you not aware that support of Falcon was dropped before it was fully playable due to the fact that it was too complex and the publisher decided it wasn't worth the effort? BCM is doing a lot more behind the scenes than Falcon ever did. Freespace2 doesn't have much going on behind the scenes at all which is why it can look pretty. From what you have stated it's apparent that you haven't even played BCM.[/QB]

---

Falcon can't even handle a single scenario (Korea) during a campaign, let alone a massive planet and space world.

I guess he must have missed all those discussions on optimization and tweaks for the Falcom engagement bubble. Much of which were done post-release, by the Falcon community (iBeta, eFalcon etc). Falcon 4. Pah! Drew must not think that there are Falcon 4 drivers around here. Heh, in fact, I was playing it just this Friday with some guys online.

[Supreme Cmdr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barron Morris:

thank god, I hate em

---

If you are talking about the cut-scenes, yes, I hate them too. Every staunch BC member knows my stance on doing cut-scenes in my game. Never gonna do them. Ever.

Besides, those things only work when you have a single-branch, rail-based shooter or game. Try doing a multi-branche game, with a plethora of possible outcomes, and see how many different cut-scenes have to be done for each possible outcome.

[Mindglow]

[/QB]