Graphics over Gameplay...or? - Page 2

Adagio · March 11, 2003, 15:47

Seems like most people wants gameplay over graphics (Just as I expected)... but then there is this question:

How come more and more games nowadays, are focused on having perfect graphics, but ignoring the gameplay? I've seen too many of those games...

Smash · March 11, 2003, 15:54

Because bells and whistles sell stuff.Companies spend tons of money on marketing making us beleive someting is just great when really it is just so so.
Look at some of game ads you see on TV.Almost none of the actual game is shown.Maybe some cutscenes but no real gameplay.Most of what we see is some kind of dramatization that looks way cooler than the game does.

By the the time we figure out the game is so so,our money is allready spent.

Give me gameplay anyday.Heck I can make my own graphics for alot games if they don't suit my eye

Boris Godunov · March 11, 2003, 16:38

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG
Seems like most people wants gameplay over graphics (Just as I expected)... but then there is this question:

How come more and more games nowadays, are focused on having perfect graphics, but ignoring the gameplay? I've seen too many of those games...

I think it is because there was a period when there were good games with little graphics, but then came a graphics boom that coincided with better technology to deliver better gameplay. So when the two converged, giving better games with better graphics, gamers became accustomed to having state-of-the-art graphics melded with really good games.

This led to a general notion that there was no excuse to have substandard graphics in a game, and gamers more and more came to just expect superb graphics that beat out what came before.

Unfortunately, game design hasn't kept pace with the ability to implement eye-popping graphics. I think this is partly due to the advances in 3-D engines which make game design all the more complex.

So software companies are putting more and more resources and effort into the artwork, and less consideration is given to a story. That's because what people see about a game before its release more than anything else are the visuals. We still think that if it looks good, it SHOULD play good.

It's the same thing with Hollywood movies--better visuals somehow equaling a better product. It's a cycle though, and once people realize their wasting their $$ on empty spectacle, they will come back to wanting real quality. Happens in all forms of popular entertainment, and even in art.

Solver · March 11, 2003, 16:56

No, Civ 3 is nice, and no, I didn't get completely used to civ 2 views, ever. And yes, I'm biased. Fact is, I was utterly disappointed in civ 2 from my first games, and my disappointment increased later as I played it more

.

DrSpike · March 11, 2003, 17:21

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG
Seems like most people wants gameplay over graphics (Just as I expected)... but then there is this question:

How come more and more games nowadays, are focused on having perfect graphics, but ignoring the gameplay? I've seen too many of those games...

Smash has hit the nail on the head.........too many 'sunday gamers' who have eyes only for candy.

St Leo · March 11, 2003, 18:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Which version of which game?

Patched plain Kohan versus patched plain SK2.

I don't really want to argue about this, so I think I will change my post to:

Warcraft III graphics > Warlords Battlecry II, Kohan graphics
WBC II, Kohan gameplay >>>>>>> WarCraft III gameplay

I don't think anyone is going to argue with that.

DrSpike · March 11, 2003, 18:33

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo

WBC II, Kohan gameplay >>>>>>> WarCraft III gameplay

I don't think anyone is going to argue with that.

Right now there are 37 people in the Kohan MP room. There are 28,492 on battle.net for Warcraft3. So therefore I'd say there are 28,493 people that would argue with that, since I am on here not on battle.net.

Dis · March 11, 2003, 19:48

in civ2 it's easier to tell units apart then civ3. of course I use the unit shields to tell them apart.

I still can't tell units apart in civ3

Dis · March 11, 2003, 19:52

disappointed in civ2?

I'll pretend I didn't hear that.

Civ2 is the be all, and end all of computer games.

But eventually I did grow tired of the graphics. Civ3 graphics are better.

All I really wanted was civ2 with better graphics and some minor fixes like eliminated city support in favour of empire support. And stacking unit etc.

but instead they over simplified the game.

Smash · March 11, 2003, 21:53

hehehe..I remember posting if they made civ3 a suped up civ2 it would fail miserably.Perhaps,but after a few hours of civ3,I realized all I had wanted was a updated,modernized Civ2.I had more fun with the civ3 box than the cd

Maybe they wouldn't have sold many copies,but I'd be happy.

To tell civ3 units apart,set it so it has those lovely little cirlces under units.Real eye candy that is

Dis · March 11, 2003, 22:00

yes I have to have the circles

St Leo · March 11, 2003, 22:47

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike

Right now there are 37 people in the Kohan MP room. There are 28,492 on battle.net for Warcraft3. So therefore I'd say there are 28,493 people that would argue with that, since I am on here not on battle.net.

Right. Next, you are going to claim that MSIE is the best browser, Windows is a superior OS, and Britney Spear is a great musician.

Adagio · March 12, 2003, 05:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
disappointed in civ2?

I'll pretend I didn't hear that.

Yes, dissapointed in Civ2... it was missing lots of nice stuff from Civ1

Quote:

Originally posted by Smash
To tell civ3 units apart,set it so it has those lovely little cirlces under units.Real eye candy that is

It's not eye-candy... it's eye-killer... it makes it much harder to tell units apart (which is no problems, without those annoying circles)

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
Warcraft III graphics > Warlords Battlecry II, Kohan graphics
WBC II, Kohan gameplay >>>>>>> WarCraft III gameplay

I don't think anyone is going to argue with that.

No problem to argue here, since I have no clue what WBC or Kohan is!!!

DrSpike · March 12, 2003, 07:55

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo

Right. Next, you are going to claim that MSIE is the best browser, Windows is a superior OS, and Britney Spear is a great musician.

Seriously, traditionally I hated RTS..........I played Kohan and it was ok, but it was one of the campaigns I never bothered finishing, and there was never that much interest in MP.

WC3 I finished SP, and is great MP. It has both reasonable graphics and great gameplay IMO.

FrustratedPoet · March 12, 2003, 08:06

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike

WC3 I finished SP, and is great MP. It has both reasonable graphics and great gameplay IMO.

IMO it does too.

Scouse Gits · March 12, 2003, 08:15

Gameplay is all ...

SG[1]

Scouse Gits · March 12, 2003, 08:19

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG
Yes, dissapointed in Civ2... it was missing lots of nice stuff from Civ1

Pray tell - I recall nothing superior in Civ1 - unless you own the Warrior that sunk the Battleship!

SG[1]

General Ludd · March 12, 2003, 08:20

Actually, I always thought that the original had a better map generator. But that's it.

DrSpike · March 12, 2003, 08:30

Civ2 was really Civ1.5........there was nothing in Civ1 that was good that wasn't in Civ2........except maybe the screen at the end where you saw the rise and fall of your empire.

Jamski · March 12, 2003, 09:08

That's why Civ2 is the "best" of the Civ series. It takes the classic formula from Civ1 and tidys up the rough corners.

BTW, I'm going with WBC2 over WC3. Simply more to do, more races etc. But I also think both games have "good" graphics.

-Jam

FrustratedPoet · March 12, 2003, 09:12

wtf is WBC?

Jamski · March 12, 2003, 09:16

Warlords Battlecry (2) - Fantasy RTS with "RPG elements". You can probably still pick it up for €10 or something.

-Jam

FrustratedPoet · March 12, 2003, 09:22

OK, thanks.

I had heard the name before, but just didn't recognise the TLA.

Guynemer · March 12, 2003, 11:03

Gameplay or graphics... hmmmm...

SMAC or Civ3...

Gee, what a tough choice.

Traianvs · March 12, 2003, 11:42

Quote:

In Civ 2, units graphics made it hard to tell which unit is which. Isometric view made it just plain hard to see what squares are adjacent to what other squares, etc.

Actually, I found civ2 to have the best overview...

Long time ago I bought civ: call to power, it had better graphics, supposedly, but I never got further than the classical age because I hated the layout and graphics of the game... chaotic, especially when several units are standing next to eachother and simply crappy map graphics...

civ2 is superior over ever other civgame (civ3 looks just the same as civ: call to power imo)

I want decent graphics to enjoy a game, though it is not the most important factor: monkey island (still searching for #2 for free, and perhaps #3 as well!) is still a great game to play, despite the choppy graphics

Solver · March 12, 2003, 12:19

I hoped that Civ 2 would take the classic that Civ 1 is, remove messy stuff, add something cool. Instead, I still had absolutely ridicilous air units, those DAMN CARAVANS!!!, the ability to buy half the enemy army with Spies, and the same unit building cities and doing terraforming. Most Civ 1 problems weren't fixed. Just the Warrior vs. Battleship, which was *sort of* fixed. While the crap that Civ 2 added... Leonardo's Workshop and Fundy govt were enough to make the game crap!

Adagio · March 12, 2003, 12:52

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Civ2 was really Civ1.5........there was nothing in Civ1 that was good that wasn't in Civ2........except maybe the screen at the end where you saw the rise and fall of your empire.

That's among the things I missed in Civ2...

But I wouldn't even call it Civ1.5, it's more like 1.2:

Updated graphics, and a few more units/techs/improvements/wonders...

Hmm...sounds like an addon to me

Oh, wait a minutes, in an addon they don't remove good stuff

DrSpike · March 12, 2003, 12:57

Like SG asked you what did they remove? Nothing to my knowledge.

Adagio · March 12, 2003, 13:09

Well... you mentioned yourself, what they have removed (and I remember that more things where removed, but I can't remember exactly what it was)...

...now I know: One more thing they removed was the palace (replaced with some boring inside view of the palace)

Yes, I know, it's only fluff (is that the word?), but it's still fun

I can't see how Civ2 can be a special game, since they almost didn't include anything new (to gameplay)

pg · March 12, 2003, 14:13

i just installed civ1(civnet) and civ2 recently. i still prefer civ1 just because i think it has less baggage and the games are usually much quicker. civ2 is much easier than i remember it being after i've played civ3 and prefected ics. in civ2 i almost play it like simcity now, defense seems so strong. the random maps in civ2 are horrid also. after eu2 all civ games just feels bad. maybe if civ4 fixs all the micromanagement problems along with making it possible to play with 50+ civs at once along with better diplomacy i'll be interested.