Gameplay vs Graphics

Since the kickstarter I've occasionally heard complaints or people asking when/if the graphics are going to improve. Some people don't really seem to care and others seem to think it's a big deal. For whatever reason I suddenly feel compelled to throw my own thoughts into the mix.

Most of the folks who don't seem to care much about graphics remember the days when the current graphics we're seeing in pre-alpha weren't even conceivable. They remember the days where 16 colors and EGA resolutions (320x200) was a big a deal. Then came VGA.. and Super-VGA.. 640x480 and a whopping 256 colors.

Back then games weren't about graphics and surround sound audio. They couldn't be. Developers had to produce good gameplay. These were the days in which Ultima was born.

Gameplay is always king regardless of the technology behind the game and it seems in the past few years big developers have forgotten this simple fundamental truth or at least their publishers have. More graphics.. more fx.. make it pretty to ooo and ahh the gamer into buying games with less and less content and shoddy gameplay. Features are dumbed down. Difficulty is reduced to the perceived lowest common denominator.

Not everyone does this of course and simplification isn't always a bad thing. But I've gotten the feeling from people that younger gamers think of this state of affairs as the status quo while older gamers miss the good old days where gameplay ruled.

At any rate I digress a bit. There are two things from the past few years that have really stuck out in my mind.

The first was a game design workshop I attended at the GDC back in '07 and '08. One of the exercises we did was the pick a game and try to strip all media from it and turn it into a card game. No audio, no graphics. No UI. Strip it down to it's core mechanics and make it playable. Is it still fun? If it was you knew you had something.

It was kinda like reverse engineering a game back into a prototype card game. The impression it leaves on me now, among other things, is reinforcing the notion that graphics do not a great game make.

Of course, all the bells and whistles are nice to have but if all you're doing is dressing up a pig then what you've got is a dressed up pig.

The 2nd thing that sticks out in my mind right now is Minecraft. Recent proof that even today a game can be wildly successful even though it looks like it came right out of the early 90s. It doesn't matter because it's fun. Or at least it was. I haven't played it for awhile now but how many millions has it made now? I wasn't even that impressed with the code (having done some modest modding for it).

To anyone concerned about how the game looks. I challenge you to keep an open mind. Graphics will not make the game fun. Gameplay will and if it's fun to play it won't matter if it surpasses Skyrim or we're running around looking like stick figures. Fun is fun. Gameplay should always be king. Everything else is secondary.

 

who cares about graphics?
design and gameplay matter. Graphics don't.
Good design makes 2d graphics beautiful tho it's just 2d, for example.

p.s. bowen why do you have the ukrainian flag in your signature?

 

I want the graphics good enough so that:
1) People covet gear and other items for cosmetic purposes.
2) I can get the combat information I need watching my opponent instead of looking multiple weird places.

I think both of these could be accomplished with 8 bit NES graphics.

 

Personally, I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Also, you can't judge a game from 20+ years ago's graphics based on the standards of today. Even the old Ultimas when they were made were made to the highest graphics available at the time, yet they were still able to retain the storylines and gameplay that have made them as notable as they were.

A game's gameplay does not have an inverse relationship with the graphics. They are two separate pieces of the same puzzle. If a game has amazing graphics and crap gameplay, it's not the fact that it has amazing graphics that's the problem, it's the fact that the gameplay is complete crap. The graphics of Diablo 3, nor the RMAH made D3 as bad as it was, it was the utter failure of the original gameplay design (level cap at 60 like WoW, bad itemization compared to D2, etc).

To be honest, the first I started hearing this argument in the "you can only have one or the other" was via the "Classic Client ONLY!!1!" crowd with UO. It's a junk argument there and it's a junk argument here.

Graphics and Gameplay are NOT mutually exclusive.

That being said, I think SotA so far is looking really good for the point in development it is currently. Yes, there is plenty of room for improvement, and we have yet to see things such as environmental effects REALLY making the difference, but we'll get there.

Generally, I've seen this argument made to either excuse lower quality graphics, or as a way to fight against technological advancement (especially for a game that is in DIRE need of it). I see no reason for it to be an issue with SotA.

 

And I wouldn't presume to do either. I certainly hope I'm not leaving that impression. I am simply making a point that gameplay is the more important.

I liken game design to a kingdom. Gameplay is king of course. Graphics.. hmm I've never really figured on a specific role but why don't we call that the landscape. Seems fitting enough. A poor king will drive any kingdom into the ground. It all falls on him. A good king will elevate even a poor kingdom to be better than what it was.

Everything has a role to play and everything made well is a plus but without a good king it all becomes somewhat meaningless.

 

They're aiming for something between the cartoonish WoW characters, and realistic looking, and that's pretty much where they are. There will be more polish, but don't expect huge changes.

People expecting more haven't been paying attention.

I've seen people say the graphics look dated. Yeah? Well, so what?

Why should we put money into bleeding-edge graphics? Where would we get hundreds of millions of dollars to make that happen? From the people that won't pay anything until it's released and measures up to their lofty expectations? This is a crowd funded game. You'll pay in advance for features you want, or you won't get them. The graphics are already better than they need to be. Minecraft is a great example of why.

I know there are a lot of people that expect every new game to have the latest and greatest technology, and anything less will be derided and passed over.

I won't miss those people.

 

Graphics aren't a big deal for me, but when evaluating them, I care more about style than bling. If the graphics evoke the feeling of the game, but are lower-end, I prefer that to something ultra-shiny, but boring.

 

It is harder to initially market and sell a game with poor graphics, but if your game is known to have great gameplay, then people will overlook for graphics. But poor graphics can stop you from finding that initial audience sometimes.

Are the graphics on par with Skyrim, a game released two years ago? No. So you can say to an extent that graphics are dated. But I'm more concerned with client performance at the moment.

 

I guess I am one of the older gamers since I will be playing this game because the gameplay appeals to me. I plan on running this on my 4 year old PC on low settings anyway...

 

Don't forget that, while it may not seem so now, Ultima (and many of the other Origin products) were very advanced graphically for their time. When Ultima VI came out, i remember it being one of the few non-action 256-color graphics games out.

I really like the card game idea from GDC, very clever.

 

Graphics can add to the atmosphere of the game.

This is like when people discuss movies, and talk about the writing versus the visuals, downplay a movie that simply has good visuals, and make it sound like good movies are all about the writing and plot. Well, if that were true, we'd just be reading books, not watching movies. Needless to say, he visuals of a movie are a big part of the art form in themselves and help tell the story; that's why cinematographers win awards.

The same can be true for games, and has been true for the Ultima series, imo. Throughout the series, the graphics have set the tone and atmosphere for the games.

The thing that annoys me more is when people confuse the aesthetics and quality of the game's visuals with the technological level... when one thing doesn't necessarily have to do with the other. Ultima Online, in its classic 2D form, is more beautiful than a lot of 3D games out on the market today. In fact, I still enjoy the graphics of the early CGA-VGA Ultimas very much. They were really artfully done for the level of tech they were working with. Remember Ultima V, being resurrected on death, and seeing Lord British's image in the mirror towards the end of the game?

So this is where the "graphics" argument starts to lose me. Sure, the devs should work with the best level of tech they can get to work within the time and budget. But it doesn't need to be bleeding edge to be beautiful.

 

I agree. I use Shadowrun Returns as an example frequently. I like that game because of it's graphical style, not in spite of them. I mean it's isometric; it's rather simple, but the handdrawn look of the textures is stunning and does a lot to capture the feel of the game. That is the extent to which I care about graphics. Top of the line or not rarely enters my mind.

 

People have to remember this game is being developed in less than two years and with a pretty limited budget. Skyrim was in development for 4 years and with a budget of $85 million. For a game that is less than a year into development SotA is looking pretty damn good as far as I am concerned.

 

Notch is a pretty cool guy, if anyone deserves it, it's him.

 

It's not a question of game-play vs. graphics. It's a question of good game-play with mediocre graphics and good game-play with great graphics. I've recently spent some time in EverQuet Next Landmark, which uses Miguel's "Voxel Farm" technology. The video below is an old tech demo of Voxel Farm. It's not the CryEngine, but bear in mind, the world is like "minecraft" and everything is destructible such that you can dig right down into the earth, or build up your own buildings, right in game, right on the spot.



This is an intensively imersive experience. Just sitting on a small hill watching the sun rise over a walled keep you built yourself, in the way you wanted, with basements and staircases, and all the bits in it, designed by you, can be stunning. And let's be honest, it's naive to assume BECAUSE the game has nice graphics, it's going to have bad game-play. That's like pretending all beautiful people are dumb...they aren't. EverQuest Next Landmark may not be your game, but it has lots of great ideas, and some fantastic game mechanics. The mine-craft like mechanic was a huge internet phenomena, and it has it. And EverQuest Next the MMO will spring board off that, taking it a dozen of steps farther, also using user generated content, submitted easily, from all users, in EverQuest Next Landmark. It doesn't matter if you like Shroud of the Avatar more (in theory) than EverQuest Next Landmark, personally. The point is, there are a lot of games coming up, many with mind blowing graphics AND great game-play constructs. Now I'm not saying that Shroud of the Avatar isn't going to be fun. I'm just saying you can't use this tired game-play vs. graphic debate. There are a LOT of great looking games with fun game-play mechanics coming up, Star Citizen, for example?

Compare it for what it is, a game with mediocre graphics. I saw the graphics, I still pledged. ...but I recognize the graphics, are very dated. Download the free to play tech demo of Outerra, and you will see the "future" of MMOs, that use procedurally generated continuous landscapes that are beautiful, in 1:1 scale.



Some one is making a Lord of the Rings version of this kind of world. In my honest opinion, good future MMO's will be set up with these kind of expansive worlds using the Oculus Rift for true "hole-deck-esque" feel, with facial tracking so your lips are synched to the character, and voice mods so you can talk as your character in game with your real voice, all with voxel based terrain you can build on and destroy. You don't need "plots" for your house. You are playing on something the size of the real earth, with everyone. There's lots of space, players make their own towns, and nations. That's the future.

Is the graphic look of Shroud of the Avatar dated? Will it suck to play? Maybe, we have to see. Does a a bad graphic look make a game inherently awesome in game-play, NOT AT ALL. Can Lord British pull it off? Maybe. Does Lord British mean the game-play will be totally awesome be default? NOT AT ALL. Despite Ultima Online nostalgia, there was as much wrong with it as there was right. Every MMO since used it as a guide of what NOT to do. I like the general concept of Shroud of the Avatar, and I have faith that Richard Garriott "wants" to build an awesome game.

I also recognize the budget is not like the 40+ million of Star Citizen. That's not an excuse either. So Shroud of the Avatar has a small budget? So what? There are lot of games with great graphics, and great game-play that have larger budgets, but cost ME the same to play. Why should I put up with less, when the cost to me is the same? So what then? Skyrim wasn't worth my $60 because it took longer and had a bigger budget? Skyrim was worth every penny I spent on it.

I was curious about Shroud of the Avatar, and I dropped $60 on it too. ...but I did it in mind in part because I also love when a game dev is going after his dream, and so I had to support Richard Garriott. I did the same for Kingdome Come: Deliverance (anotehr beautiful game graphically with neat game-play). I don't mind helping Mr. Garriott make his dream, and I like how's he's involving the community. That said, I'm hoping I get a good 2-3 months of Shroud of the Avatar, and then, it will be well worth the money. I'm remaining cautiously optimistic. Like I said, I'm glad I supported Richard and hope for the absolute best. ...but I have both eyes open, here.

 

My only real,concern with the graphics is this: textures. As long as they are nicely painted and aged so they look like they belong in a living world. Anything shiny and saturated will look like a crappy second life medieval build. you can get away with a lot as an artist by adding a little dirt and scum.

 

No one has assumed anything about good graphics meaning bad gameplay. Where on earth did THAT come from? Quite the opposite. A lot of people seem to want to judge a game solely based on the graphics. The assumptions I've seen made are "well that looks horrible this game is going to stink" and nothing is even finished yet.

Ideally you want everything the best it can be.. but between gameplay and graphics.. gameplay is the more important of the two. That does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that graphics don't matter at all or that they're not important. But gameplay is the foundation on which great games are built. Would anyone still like EQ Next Landmark if the gameplay stunk? Probably not many. Would they like it if it were fun but ugly? Probably not as many but a lot more than the opposite scenario.

Great gameplay AND great graphics? Throw in a great story with that and that's pretty hard to beat.

 

The difference with SotA is it will have a great story for about 40 hours of play, but the emphasis in all the work is on a MMO with sandbox elements.
A lot of RPG's now use your choices making a difference to how you perform in a game they also have 100's of side quests decent graphics and go for a big open world either 3D isometric or 1st/3d person aspect so that exploring becomes a major part of the game. So here we have RG going in 2 directions at the same time so I think both will suffer, forget about graphics quality if you don't create a world to explore but go for lots of instances then neither the single RPG or MMO will be that enjoyable.
Skyrim a single player RPG as a big world and sets the standards to achieve by anyone. The argument that it had a big budget is irrelevant Bethesda's Elder scrolls started out in the early 90's its earned a big budget, and it as been a consistent PC best game that everyone wants to play. Now 30 years later they are going to try it as an MMO we will have to wait and see if it's the right choice.

 

@Aduna

I just wanted to clarify a bit. If you think I was saying gameplay suffers at the hands of good graphics that's not it. Rather the emphasis on the part of some on graphics.. and not enough on gameplay produces bad games.. Emphasis here on not enough on gameplay within actual development. If all developers put the same amount of effort into gameplay as they did the graphics and other goodies they'd be producing much better games.

But again.. I wasn't implying gameplay varies inversely with graphic quality. That's just silly.

 

The only issue I have with the graphics is the hair, and that mostly in char creation because either It's not as good there or that's where I'm focused on it. I would like to see more natural hair but am also quite confident that it will come, that will in no way stop me from loving the game as it looks now. I love the graphics, except the hair, especially the facial hair.