Bright Shadow
-
Posts
1183 -
Joined
-
Quote:Alright. Get back to me when you've reached a viable conclusion. Drop a note in my grave if I'm dead by then.Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
How is the debate pointless? Just because you said so?
I'm not presenting my own opinion. I'm presenting the opinion of people who have spent their lives researching these things and have written books on the topic. I'm presenting the opinion of people who call themselves game development professionals.Quote:Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
By your own reckinong, your opinion here is as pompous as everyone else's.
Again. See the quotation marks? Those are not my words. Those are the words of people who MAKE video games.Quote:Originally Posted by Coyote_Seven
As for videogames being an artform: Videogames haven't even existed for a century. It took a long time for cinema to be considered an art form, and that's a lot closer to theater than videogames ever were; unless someone's trying to make "Hamlet" or "The Importance of being Earnest" into some epic scale RPG that I'm not aware of.
It's very much debateable whether or not videogames are an artform, so please don't speak in such absolutes. They may very well be eventually, but I'm not convinced that they are now. Certainly most games out there right now would not count, and they are not recognized as such by any art academy or instition that I know of (is there an equivalent of the Oscar or Tony award for them? I'd certainly like to know!).
Regardless, do you even know the definition of "art form"?
Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
When you draw something, it is considered art. It has no function. It doesn't matter if it pretty or not. That is why it is called art; because it is open to subjective criticism. Some people like it, some people don't.Quote:Main Entry: art form
Function: noun
Date: 1868
1 : a form or medium of expression recognized as fine art <sees dance as both an art form and an entertainment>
2 a : an unconventional form or medium in which impulses regarded as artistic may be expressed <describe pinball as a great American art form — Tom Buckley> b : an undertaking or activity enhanced by a high level of skill or refinement <easy conversation—an art form in peril of being lost to contemporary schedules — Joanna Pruess>
A novel, a play, a piece of music, and a painting are all considered art.
A video game is simply nothing but an interactive movie. That is why the development of a game is called "Game Design". There is no one right way of designing a game. Hence why it is an art form. It is, in a vague sense, a method of self expression. And 'self' in this context refers to a vast group of people that actually does include the players of the game as well.
But going heavily off-topic here. However, I like to point out that I'm not speaking in absolutes. I just have sources behind my arguments, which no longer makes them 'pure opinions'.
I'm not saying the opinion presented in my sources are absolute. I'm not saying there are never any exceptions.
What I am saying is that, generally, for a game to be successful, it needs a balance of gameplay and graphics. Sure, we have the "classics" that don't follow that rule. But are you really gonna sit here and say CoH will be a classic game like Super Mario or Starcraft?
But even if I am wrong, this debate is pointless. Why? Because game developers have realized that constantly debating whether or not gameplay is more important than the visual presentation of a video game is a fruitless discussion. Why? Because, as you've seen in the past few pages of this thread, it has no conclusion. It's based on opinions, and we all know my opinion, or even yours, has very little to do with the success of City of Heroes as a video game in a competitive market, and a very, VERY vast majority of City of Heroes subscribers would pay for a graphics upgrade to CoH. And that, is what a team of game developers is concerned about.
And for that very reason, I think they've made a very right choice. -
Quote:You're not in the minority.Originally Posted by Perfect_Pain
So then I am in the minority here thinking that CoX gameplay is above average on the fun scale... and fixing the graphics like they are doing is only going to be the - a la mode - to my gaming experience here?
I believe we are all aware of how desperatly we need new game content in the game. So thats like a - given -...
As a student in the field of Game Development, I've said it over and over again in this thread. But, as expected, everyone's opinions seems to make any research, actual statistics, and professional advice obsolete. Here it is again:
Graphics goes hand-in-hand with gameplay and content.
Simply debating which one is more important for the well-being of a game is a pointless, meaningless discussion.
Since it seems that the "Pfft! Graphics are not important!" people are completely ignoring facts and observations from people who work in the field, here is the quote from one of my earlier posts on this subject:
The following is taken from the book Game Design and Development, written by Ernest Adams and Andrew Rollings. It is a university text book being taught in the field of Software Engineering and Game Design:
"Video games are an art form, so aesthetics are a part of their design..."
"...a game with clumsy animation, a muddy soundtrack, trite dialog, or sloppy artwork will disappoint players even if its gameplay is good."
"An ugly or awkward video game is a bad one, no matter how innovative its design or impressive its technology. Part of your job [as a game developer] is to give your players aesthetic pleasure."
A little further on:
"We [game developers] believe the graphics versus gameplay debate is no longer a meaningful one. The truth is that graphics and gameplay must work together to produce the total play experience. The graphics create the setting, which both sells the game and involves the player in the game's fantasy. The gameplay provides the challenge and things for the player to do. Both are essential to the player's enjoyment of the game."
Are we REALLY gonna continue this pointless debate?
If you think the graphics of a particular game are lacking, or if it's content and gameplay is lacking, then that's your opinion and it is as worthless as mine. But do not claim that the same should be true for everyone else. And because of that, do not criticize a COMPLETELY OPTIONAL FEATURE in an upcoming expansion SOLELY BASED ON YOUR OPINION. -
Quote:...yah, at this point it's a discussion of opinions.Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
Damn straight! They could have used that dev time to code in Madman Omar's House of Mimics!
-
Quote:And if they asked for a fraction of the game's original cost to give you an upgraded version of that very game with a bunch of new features, and most importantly, a 2D graphics upgrade (using pictures instead of ASCII characters), you would believe they're ripping you off and "half assing" an upgrade as someone mentioned?Originally Posted by Tyger42
Which game would that be?
Here's an example of the graphics from a game I still play off and on these days after being introduced to it 15 years ago:
-
Quote:But the mitten hands are so adorable! Like cute little plushies! xDOriginally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Personally, I HATE the mittens, but having seen Arachnos Soldier hands, I'm not all that impressed with them, either. Having fingers is one thing, and I've argued for it, but without animating them in a meaningful way, they don't look good. In fact, one of THE key problems I had with the Champions Online visual style was the fingers. Not that they HAD them, but that their hands didn't make good fists with them. They'd leave room between the fingers in a grab and not close the hand properly. With our mittens, you just fold them and you get a balled-up fist.
Fingers are one of the hardest parts of the human body to get right visually, and a lot of both game designers and artists have utterly failed at it. Fingers and toes just never seem to come out right, for some reason, toes especially since most artists just avoid having to show them. A game with good finger animation can look incredible, but a game with BAD finger animation can actually look terrible even if the graphics are otherwise good.
I'm not sure if I'd insist on separate, separately animated fingers, but there is ONE thing I'd really like to see - fingers with indented gaps between them. Right now, fingers are represented by black lines drawn on the texture of the mittens, which are otherwise smooth top and bottom. What I want to see is for the gaps between the fingers to be represented not by a black line, but by a gap in the mesh where the gaps between the fingers should be, with possibly separate finger tips. A lot like how the Monster gloves are, in fact.
That, and I'd like to see bare feet that look like human feet, not like something on borrow from Tomb Raider 2.
Regarding the feet though, yes. The human feet look terrible in this game. -
Quote:That's subjective. You'd be surprised to know how many people find the details very necessary, me being one of them. However, I just think mitten hands look better for the game's art style. It's a very important detail to me.Originally Posted by Tyger42
Well, good, because that's what I'm gonna tell you. No need to draw this into an argument. The details are nice, but not necessary.
-
...you guys are still debating this.
Wow. -
Quote:Exactly. And I never said otherwise.Originally Posted by Dolphin
Hallo. I think what was meant, that there be more content in the version of lots of maps as opposed to endless stories.
And I agree. If the gameplay of missions isn't improved upon, the initial graphics ooh and ahh moment will fade, leaving the same arguments over maps.
Translation: The old maps are predictable and boring, and that's not talking about the tilesets. The maps that are available have been played so often, that people can predict where things will be from only looking at one or two things from the beginning.
Gameplay is just as important as graphics. Story is a different thing, but for an MMORPG, story is also just as important as those too.
The arguments that claim "Graphics should have lowest priority", or "Content over visuals, or "Pffft! They haven't fixed PvP and are instead adding reflections? **** that!" are simply short-sighted arguments with no real reasoning behind them.
Bottom line is, graphics go hand-in-hand with gameplay, content, and story. Just like how acting, visual effects, and story go hand-in-hand for movies.
There are exceptions to every rules when it comes to game design. None of these are set in stone. A game can have terrible graphics and fun gameplay (no, games like Starcraft and Counterstrike 1.6 are not examples of that. We're talking games released and maintained in THIS day and age that have less focus on graphics. Starcraft and CS 1.6 were pretty awesome for their time as far graphics went). And some players tend to choose other aspects of the game over graphics.
But the general rule and the convention in designing video games is that graphics are JUST as important as any other fundamental aspect of a video game. You know, because it's called a VIDEO game.
The following is taken from the book Game Design and Development, written by Ernest Adams and Andrew Rollings. It is a university text book being taught in the field of Software Engineering and Game Design:
"Video games are an art form, so aesthetics are a part of their design..."
"...a game with clumsy animation, a muddy soundtrack, trite dialog, or sloppy artwork will disappoint players even if its gameplay is good."
"An ugly or awkward video game is a bad one, no matter how innovative its design or impressive its technology. Part of your job [as a game developer] is to give your players aesthetic pleasure."
A little further on:
"We [game developers] believe the graphics versus gameplay debate is no longer a meaningful one. The truth is that graphics and gameplay must work together to produce the total play experience. The graphics create the setting, which both sells the game and involves the player in the game's fantasy. The gameplay provides the challenge and things for the player to do. Both are essential to the player's enjoyment of the game."
Over the years, due to expectations and competitiveness of gaming industries, the definition of "bad" and "good" graphics happens to change to change frequently. And often times, they change with technological improvements. -
Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUSHOriginally Posted by _gohan661_
Its not the graphics that make the game its the game that makes the game!
"A MUSH (sometimes said to be an abbreviation for Multi-User Shared Hack, Habitat, Holodeck, or Hallucination, though these are backronyms) is a text-based online social medium to which multiple users are connected at the same time."
Notice how they don't call it a game.
Wanna play Awesome CoH on MSN?
-
Quote:I'm actually one of those "veterans". If GR wasn't gonna come out with a graphics upgrade, I was planning to drop the ship. I haven't paid so much money on a new computer system to play CoH on it with age-old graphics.Originally Posted by Failsight
Not necessarily so: there are probably some number of current subscribers who, with time, will leave this game because the graphics haven't been updated. Thus, updating graphics isn't only about new subscribers, but also to keep current subscribers interested.
However, in order to keep as many current subscribers happy as possible, the Ultra Mode is only built on top of the current engine, such that minimum requirements don't change (at least significantlyhard drive space usage may go up some, though I expect minimally as the same textures are being used, so only some amount of code is being added).
I'm really wondering how "five year veteran" has become equated with "five year old computer." I mean, has nobody upgraded their computer since buying CoH?!
I'll be happy to turn on Ultra Mode! Saying it's not for "us" is simply incorrect. It will provide a refreshed gaming experience for those of us who can use it. Ultra Mode is for everyone...who can use it.
I can't freakin' believe we're even arguing whether or not a graphics upgrade was needed in CoH: GR.
And I really hate how people throw the term "veteran" around so easily. No, just because you have 20 shiny golden badges representing how much money NCSoft has taken from your pockets, it doesn't make it "us" and "them". It doesn't separate you from any crowd. Stop putting yourself and other "veterans" in your magic circle. And by 'you' I'm referring to the person who brought of the original argument. -
Quote:Wooo! Go Intel 945 GMA! xDOriginally Posted by Gibbering Loony
Wrong! I play comfortably on my laptop with only 10fps, 15 if I'm lucky. and it works just fine for me.
-
Quote:I honestly think the mitten hands are VERY suitable for CoH's art style. I actually don't like the fingers on VEAT characters in their Arachnos outfits.Originally Posted by Lord Mayhem
The faces don't bother me - I think they're fine (I still prefer many of the old faces over the new ones tbh). The hands, they bother me slightly - not enough to be a major issue, but I would like to see separate fingers, as long as they weren't as freaky as the fingers on most CO avatars I saw during beta (and on my own characters).
And yes, Arcanaville just said what I've been trying to say for long! *sprinkles them with positive rep* -
Quote:Am I really the only person who likes the old faces and mitten hands?! xDOriginally Posted by Failsight
Oh, and faces have been crappy until recently, so gamers tend to not notice them as much as real faces.
-
Quote:Originally Posted by Nethergoat
Uh, no.
If it were a tool I could do something useful with it, like open a bottle.
I appreciate them until the point where they become wallpaper, which is, in my experience, after a couple of hours of play.
Remember the first time you wandered into Oranbega? How freaking cool it was after hour upon hour spent running missions in offices, warehouses & generic caves?
How long did it take for "hey cool!" to turn into "OMG not this nightmare again!"
Graphics are like that. They give an initial hit of enjoyment, but if what you're doing isn't entertaining they can't make entertaining.So you would actually prefer if every single mission in CoH used the generic office map, but each and every single mission in CoH was written by some really over-the-top team of professional writers, and we double the number of missions?Quote:Originally Posted by Nethergoat
And, for probably the 5th time, I understand the market forces that make giving GR a graphic makeover a smart marketing decision. What I'm saying is that I personally would rather they expend those resources on actual gameplay, instead of a pretty candy coating.
Edit: And I'm not saying you're not entitled to your opinion. Your opinion is just as valuable as mine (it's worth nothing). I'm just pointing out that your analogy that graphics to a game is like a book cover to a novel is completely and utterly wrong in every way. It's not just PARTIALLY wrong. -
Quote:Yep. You see City of Heroes as a tool. Not a game. Either that, or you simply do not enjoy aesthetics at all as a contributing factor to your entertainment.Originally Posted by Nethergoat
It would affect my gameplay not one tiny iota if my characters woke up one day with five fully articulated fingers and an expressive, mobile face.
Maybe if they were releasing CoH in 2009 it would be a valid thing to whine about, but the game came out in 2004.
It looks great for an old gal.
/edit
and I would love to +rep whoever added the hilarious Preemptive Whining tag, if I only knew who it was!
Is that is true, we're not talking about the same thing. Case closed.
-
Quote:They actually are saying that.Originally Posted by MrPlayskool
If you're trying to tell me mitt hands and a frozen face are okay for games in 2009, then I really don't know what to say
But personally, I kindda like mitten hands!
-
Quote:You may not. But thousands of us who invested in high-end computers system do demand up-to-date graphics.Originally Posted by Nethergoat
We're the gaming yin/yang of this topic Sam, because I genuinely wouldn't care if we were all still wallowing around with the graphics we had at lanuch. =D
As a person who is currently studying in the field of Software Engineering, with focus in Game Design, I can tell you that Graphics play a very, very, VERY crucial role in VIDEO games. Sure, your opinion may differ. We all look at things differently.
However, when it comes to VIDEO games graphics play as a medium for the content to embark on. In VIDEO games, content without visual representation is meaningless. And as time passes, technology advances. As technology advances, expectations rise.
An upgrade in graphics is just as important as upgrade in content and gameplay when it comes to VIDEO games.
You cannot compare a novel or a book or even a table-top game to a VIDEO game. Because as the name suggests, a VIDEO requires VIDEO as a method of communication. If you want an analogy, however, a VIDEO game requires and is dependent on VIDEO and graphics the same way a book requires and is dependent on its paper and text. That is as close as you can get to comparing novels with VIDEO games.
In Going Rogue, we are getting quite a balanced ratio of content to graphics. CoH is a VIDEO game. It requires content as much as it requires VIDEO. If the quality of content goes up, so must the quality of graphics.
And guess what! In CoH: GR, we're getting a whole new dimension with a whole new mission system, backstory, and atmosphere (that's content). We're getting a whole new game mechanic which includes switching sides and a bunch of other QoL and other game features (that's gameplay). And we're getting a graphics upgrade (that's graphics).
What're you whining about? -
Quote:Those are valid points and questions. They are completely things I'd be interested in too. And you're alright. it's just...some people ask those questions, and when they don't immediately get their answers, they start going on the Assumption Train and disappoint themselves and others.Originally Posted by UnSub
And then there are some of us who feel like they have valid points of query.
Things like:
- how are the markets going to be dealt with? Current descriptions make it seem like a huge potential hassle and also open the doors for arbitrage. Plus 95% of players - those not working on VEATs / EATs - will be going through the GoRo content rather than re-running existing content for the thousandth time. This is going to see low-level market materials / recipes dry up to a degree without access to the main markets or even dry up on one side completely (such as all the people taking Villain ATs heroside). Maybe this won't matter if GoRo is only lvl 1 - 20, but if it is lvl 1 - 40...
- what about currency? Does a redeemed Villain end up seeing all that infamy convert to influence? Does it all disappear during the conversion process?
- isn't only having a lvl 1 - 20 range for the new content fairly limited? That isn't going to last long. Perhaps there will be more, but a major new CoH/V expansion that aims to bring people back an hold them needs to last more than the first (quickly passed) 20 levels. Maybe the additional content for lvl 50s is going to end any concern I have, but it is certainly fair enough to ask the question.
- what happens to SG / VG status when characters redeem / go rogue? For that matter, what about Praetorian Groups (PGs)?
All of these things (and a lot more) will impact on the GoRo experience. Now is the time to raise them because there could still be time for such things to be considered and altered by the devs.
And "The Doomsayers" have been around since pre-launch. As have the White Knights.
No one can guess the answers to those questions right now. We just have to wait and see what the developers are doing instead of constantly trying to find excuses to criticize them with no basis or logic. -
Quote:...but a video game is NOT a novel.Originally Posted by Nethergoat
In the abstract sense than they're a diversionary entertainment, yes.
But if we think of a the game as a novel (another form of diversionary entertainment), graphics are the cover. They have no impact on the quality of the prose or how engaging the story being told is.
I'd prefer more energy be spent on the inside of the book than the outside, while understanding the need for 'rack appeal' to attract potential readers.
Look at the word: VIDEO game.
VIDEO! VISUAL! PICTURES! ANIMATIONS!
The graphics are not only the 'cover' of the book, but they're the MEDIUM of the book, when it comes to games. If you wanna look use the book as an example, graphics is the paper of the book. Each and every individual page. The story or content is written onto the pages. The cover is merely the box art of a video game...not the graphics!
A text-based roleplaying game is not a VIDEO game. It's a MUD...or MUSH...or whatever. It's a GAME. Not a VIDEO game.
I really can't explain this any more clearer than this... -
Quote:No! Don't say that! You're not allowed to think positively here! Don't you know the apocalypse is coming?!Originally Posted by golden girl
and gr has new content and new graphics - things are looking very good
Edit: Damn these boards not letting me type in all caps... -
In most video games, Graphics is one of the most, if not THE most essential component. Huge multi-million-dollar companies like nVidia and ATI thrive on that single aspect of games.
In the end, Graphics is what draws crowds, and it's what defines your experience in a video game.
You cannot even begin to lecture people that "content is more important than graphics".
Sure, content is important too. But not more than graphics. It's equal. -
Quote:Oh come on! Let GR's rear stay full for 5 minutes!Originally Posted by Frosticus
That is good news that you can become a full hero/villain and become a part of that society. Sorry I was just going off of the powerpoint in the youtube video that said things like WW is for heroes only, but didn't indicate that a villain could become a "full hero".
Thanks for the link to Posi's clarification.
Sorry, false alarm based on misinformation. Sounds like Sideswitching is about as good as they can do given the decision to keep the markets and games segregated.
I have a new question though. Where do rogues and vigilantes fit into lolpvp? -
Quote:I guess. I dunno, I'm having a hard time following Frost's logic.Originally Posted by Golden Girl
So if they merged the markets, combining the two halves, would that mean it was fullyassed?
-
Quote:Make sense much?Originally Posted by Frosticus
read much?
-
Quote:So just because they haven't merged markets they are "half assing" it?Originally Posted by Frosticus
I guess we'll just wait and see who is right, but if my brute in talos can't give a scrapper that just died an awaken then you are losing a lot of points imo.
Additionally the markets just sound like a gong show where Posi is sticking to his guns the way Statesman would despite being wrong, despite everyone saying he is wrong.
Everything else sounds great, like I keep saying. I've already given praise where it is due several times now.