Gameplay vs Graphics

@Bowen Bloodgood ...I guess my point is more that, and I'm not saying you personally, but just the general "vibe" of these threads collectively across the forum, is the idea that good game-play justifies mediocre graphics, as a way of quelling dismay when people go, "WTF did I pledge for...look at those graphics!" as they sit and watch the tech demo of Shroud of the Avatar. We all said it to ourselves, and then started to justify it.

However, I feel to even bring up the concept of "game-play" when talking about graphics, while it feels good, is simply an unfair misdirection. Game-play shouldn't come into a thread about graphics at at all. It should just be about graphics. However, the minute someone mentions graphics, invariably, someone else almost always says something about game-play because they once played a game that looked dodgy but was rather fun. The fact I may or may not had a ton of fun with a particular game that had bad graphics but great game-play (Shadow Run, for example), is incidental. They are not related. On this, it sounds like we probably both agree.

If you want to know what Shroud of the Avatar will be competing with when it releases? Here you go...



A a good graphic engine doesn't make a good game, but it absolutely gives a fantastic canvas to potentially create an amazing game, and I have to admit that the original Ultima On-line, despite game-play, wouldn't have been all the compelling to me if it had been released with 8-bit graphics instead of the cutting edge graphic fidelity at that time. I don't know a lot about the Unity Engine or if it can be tweaked in the end to look a ton better, maybe? However, I can tell you right from the start I've seen MUCH better tech demos of games not as far along as Shroud of the Avatar, and the Unity Engine is not CryEngine 3. I still feel there is plenty to be positive about in regards to Shroud of the Avatar, but I'm not going to lie, I'm disappointed about the graphic fidelity, and I think other backers have an equal right to be upset and/or disappointed too. There is a level of expectation to hit graphically based on the fact that this is 2014. Game-play isn't even an issue.

 

I see what you're saying and there is some merit in that certain expectations might exist based on the year and available tech, but I don't see anything out of line with what was shown in those early demo videos. I mean, if the kickstarter is what was used to entice backers, I'd say we've exceeded those graphics.

Of course, because graphics aren't terribly important to me, I'm sure that shades my opinion.

 

Here's Unity's show reel.

 

...hrm, that's sort of a bummer, operating under the assumption that show real is attempting to show the very best the graphic engine can do...

...this is my current level of expectation. I blame many, incredible games for this.



...granted, my expectations for 2015+ games graphically is high. It doesn't mean I won't enjoy Shroud of the Avatar.

 

I think it may be better to retarget the focus, instead of graphics, to aesthetic. On a technical level the graphics thusfar are passable at worst and nice and resolute at best, but the aesthetic choices leave a lot to be desired and seem to follow in the path of many a forgettable title in the past- in particular the standard flat character colors, the direct physical lighting without much attention to detailed ambient lighting, choices with small brush objects like grass, etc- and while that's a completely subjective assertion, I find it worrying on the analytical side that a title that is crowdsourcing item creation a bit can't take the time this early to decide on an appealing, unique aesthetic (or at least affirm existing internal conventions here on the forums) if exclusively for the sake of making a style guide for consistent looking community contributions. While lots of it is certainly subject to serious change at this point, I think that dialogue deserves opening pretty fast.

All the titles or genres referenced that I saw earlier in this thread either benefit from, or already answer definitively, the question of aesthetic choices in their visual approach. Older VGA titles just as much so, for the lack of pixel space and color pallete and the challenge to fill in an imagination. Card games as well depend on design for card appeal and readability. Even Minecraft, cited earlier as an example of 'poor graphics, great gameplay', has a consistent and appealing aesthetic that, while half utilitarian (voxels are square), saturates the game (creature appearances, items added later, light spread, block behaviors and more).

 

Here is a sample of what Unity can do from the scene jams that the community was doing. This to me is as good of graphics as I have ever experienced and I hope to see these scenes in game. check out the Night Scene at 6:53 especially...Wow it's awesome!

 

I think in the end if they clean up the character models and the graphics look like they do in those scene jams I will be happy. I do certainly appreciate a good looking game, but gameplay is also important. And while I would love to have a game with great gameplay and super awesome graphics I realize with the small team and very limited budget it is important to have realistic expectations. Of course I am still expecting a game that both looks good and is fun to play. I just try not to set the bar especially when it comes to graphics unrealistically high.

 

There is a lot you can do with lighting and shaders.

Look at what this mod can do for games for example:

http://enbdev.com/index_en.html

 

The OP is a welcome change from the previous threads on graphics. Most threads hitherto have been negative. Nice graphics are nice but not a necessity. A poetic rebuttal of good graphics: use your imagination to fill in the gaps between "bad" graphics and reality.

I haven't had a lot of time or desire to play games for a while, and I'm now trying to remember what it was (ignoring SOTA pre-alphas ofc). There was a top-down game that's a copy of a 90s mac game (Escape Velocity) that I recently played on my phone, and sometime last year I remember playing Dune 2. It was awesome.

 

I lost many hours to Dune 2. My friend liked to click on the Harkonnen Mentat's mouth to make it move while singing: "When you're sliding into first and you feel a juicy burst. Diarrhea. Diarrhea." We were like 13 years old. Lol.

 

@Aduna

Unfortunately when someone judges a game based solely on the graphics (and especially when said game isn't even done yet), gameplay is implied. Gameplay is what makes a game a game.

What some of those folks really need to get into their head.. I mean really pounded in.. is that yes.. the budget and team size matter. Portalarium has less than 30 people total. AAA titles they're compared against? Generally have at least that many working on graphics alone. SotA less than 2 year development schedule. AAA titles? 4-5 years?

All these demo videos people are posting.. how many people and how much money does anyone suppose went into those? One doesn't just buy a game engine and suddenly everything looks beautiful. Game engine and graphics are about as related as graphics and gameplay. That is to say they're somewhat interconnected in making a good final product but as pointed out the quality of one is no guarantee of the quality of the other.

Just putting together an intro video on a lot of these games costs more than SotA's entire budget.

If you really put things into perspective.. SotA is doing quite well. Of course I hope the look will improve like anyone else but I don't expect AAA graphics just because games with $80+ million budgets and 100+ team sizes have it. People can be pretty quick to judge and in cases that sparked the OP they seem to be judging without any perspective or concern for gameplay.

 

OK, my 2 cents.

Graphics don't make the game. But they do make a game better. I was just reading an article on ten ton or MMORPG and they were discussing the state of the genre. One game they reviewed they really liked, especially the game play. But in this day and age and the level of technology a game needs more then just good game play. The game in question was a ghost town the author stated he saw one or 2 people, and that kept people away. Game play only gets you so far, story only gets you so far.
Add to that there is direct competition that has customize-able classes, that has a good story, destructible terrain which makes mining/quarrying fun and a decent crafting system. They leverage tech as far as they can and still keep the game appeal able to the most people.

Living in graphics from the amiga won't help it succeed.

 

Naturally. No one is suggesting that graphics be neglected. If you have 2 games with equal gameplay but one has vastly superior graphics then the one with the better graphics wins no doubt.

There was a certain philosophy I picked up at I think it was my first GDC in the one or two years they were doing in San Diago. (I missed those donuts! In SF they only had bagels.. bah!). There was a guy from one of Microsoft's game studios (I forget which one) who said your competition's best should be your minimum standard.

If you want to compete and be successful then you cannot neglect anything to the best of your ability.

Unfortunately this philosophy assumes an equal budget which SotA obviously doesn't have but the point I would like to make is I think Portalarium is exceeding (so far) the quality you would expect from a 90's budget in 2014. So I think they're more than living up to that philosophy within the confines of their size and budget.

 

I've been playing online games since the original MUDs. I've been quite amazed and impressed at the increasing graphics realism and sophistication as the years go by. However, drop-dead gorgeous graphics but lack-luster game play will hold no ones interest very long.

Any gaming company that wishes to earn my dollar simply must provide both an adequate graphic environment and solid game play. The operative word here is adequate. Many successful games today are successful not because the graphics quality mimics real life but because they are FUN to play. That's the whole point of a game! If I want to watch HD graphics with no interaction on my part then I'll load up a blu-ray and watch it on my TV.

I don't expect SotA to have the most realistic graphics in today's market. I do expect an open and solid gaming experience. Interactive Virtual Reality movie-games are still a dream for the future.

 

I think I stated in another thread that in my opinion the graphics for SotA are about 80% of the way "there". I think most we will see from here will be more subtle tweaks for the environment, maybe a few additions such as different plants to break up the repetitiveness and most of the work done on the character/mobiles models. The rest will be the addition of environmental effects (some we already have, others will be added in later).

Only other place I see issues at least right now is with the scaling of items in containers (seems like large items end up tiny and small items end up huge in comparison in containers).

I think SotA has a great chance to prove that you DON'T need a ridiculous budget to have decent to high level graphics. You have to remember that a lot of those huge budgets go into building a game engine from scratch (or using one with higher entry costs), sinking millions into FMV (Steven and Lum talked about this in one of the Pen of the Avatar episodes), and using a cast of high-profile voice actors (think the common names you see in anime/animation such as Steve Blum, Crispin Freeman, Tara Strong, Cree Summer, etc etc etc). If I remember correctly, a LOT of SW:tOR's budget was sunk into the voice acting.

My main point though is that the presence of one (graphics) does not negate the presence of the other (gameplay). I think there is room in SotA for both, and quite frankly, I'm happy with what I have seen thus far, especially given the current release state of the game.

 

SW:TOR had great graphics, good story line, excellent voice acting, and truly crappy game play. Hit level 50 multiple times and stood around on the fleet deck simply waiting for the next PvP queue pop. I will admit, however, to greatly enjoying Huttball - one of my favorite things to do during my brief stint with that game.

I think SotA's graphics will be improved upon as well. I'm looking forward to texture improvements but I'm liking what I'm seeing so far.

 

My main point is and will always be that it's a fallacy to think that SW:TOR had horrible gameplay BECAUSE of the good graphics/story/voice acting. It had horrible gameplay because it had horrible gameplay. Same holds true for other games. The graphics have nothing to do with the gameplay UNLESS the dev team involved simply does not understand how to put together well-designed gameplay in the first place (or simply does not want to take any risks outside of copying an established gameplay model).

I don't see the SotA team as that type of team, especially considering the people involved.

 

@Bowen Bloodgood

I said it earlier, but permit me to elaborate. And I'm trying to be careful, as I'm playing devil's advocate against the budget argument, not Shroud of the Avatar, which I remain optimistic about. I'm playing devil's advocate to inspire thought...a dangerous thing on the Intarwwebz, I know, but here goes...

...it's not really fair to lobby a "budget is smaller thus lower your expectations" argument to the average gamer. Whatever their budget is, or their team size is, it too is incidental. Say for a moment, I came at this game at release, and I can get this game for $50, or EverQuest Next for $50 (pretend for the moment it's equally as neat game play wise, or insert some other MMO here if you just can't stomach that idea). The point is, I, as a consumer, am looking at two MMO-ish titles with compelling game-play for $50. Why should I pay as much for Shroud of the Avatar with less graphical fidelity JUST BECAUSE the Shroud of the Avatar team was smaller, and their budget less? Sympathy? Small budget and small team to me, is a negative, not a positive. That's a reason to set the game down. Small budget/small team means you're also going to possibly get unimplemented or possibly broken features because a small team did not have the time or money to do everything they like.

Now...if the Shroud of the Avatar during that fictional future moment of purchase, may be a fine game, with no bugs, but there is a equal chance that other MMO will also be bug free (likely neither, but you get the point). In fact, there 's a better chance EverQuest Next will be more polished, because it has a bigger budget, more devs, more bug squashing, more testers, etc. I don't think anyone is going to argue against the idea a bigger team and a bigger budget gets you more. What I'm saying is...why should I PAY for less, when I can get more? ...that is, if I was the average consumer. I'm not though, so my pledge value is over $100. But just because I'm a silly idealist, doesn't make the argument I'm making, invalid. The average gamer has every right to get the best value for her money she can. Now if Shroud of the Avatar is a $25 or even $35 ...that's a better case, and a fair one. It would then be my opinion that the average consumer would still pay the extra $20 for the superior product since an extra $20 is a small issue compared to the mecha of game development, graphics + awesome game-play. I point again to Star Citizen, where people are dropping over $100 on average, in many cases, over $300+ or more. Gamers are willing to pay what it costs to be part of that big budget title that has both graphics and game-play. just my opinion here, though.

 

Assuming you came into buying either SotA or EQ:N knowing NOTHING about them and going only by the boxes in a store, I'd agree with your assessment.

By comparison, while I believe that graphics ARE important (even to the people who keep saying they are NOT), there are more factors at work here for people who are familiar with MMOG and CRPGs in general, not the least of which are the notoriety of the teams behind the two games.

Cases in point, knowing Ultima and Richard Garriott, I have a good idea what to expect out of a game that RG puts forward when he is in control. I also have to take into account some of the lesser titles as well, so there is also that to consider.

Then comparing and contrasting that with what I know of Everquest and Brad McQuaid's preferred game style in regards to Pantheon, while EQ:N and/or Pantheon may have better graphics than SotA, the core gameplay concepts of Level/RAID, forced grouping, and whatnot does not appeal to me the way that the Selective Single/Multiplayer does with SotA.

I also play Path of Exile (a Diablo clone done by an Independent company) which when I started about a year ago in early Beta had very rough graphics and limited animation to the point that it felt like playing an 8-bit shooter (at the time, melee was NOT viable, so I played an archer). Now thanks to constant updates, the game is very well done with amazing graphics (animation is still limited compared to the physics engine in D3, but better than they were by a LOT) AND great ARPG gameplay.

 

Well we're basically down to the differences in perception between the 'average' game and those of us who don't fall into the category. On that point I think the actual sale price of SotA was going to be around $40 last I heard.

I myself would be looking at the context and setting of the game. Indeed if I had no preference or two games were more or less identical to my particular fancies I would want to get the most bang for my buck. But what really was starting to get to me is when a backer puts invests and then posts negative comments or concerns at this still very early stage.

If you're going to put your money into a project then make sure you understand what you're investing in. Some of these people are getting disappointed at an unfinished product because of their own expectations rather than what was promised. It's a little different after the game is finished and sitting on the shelf. Still, the box art doesn't make the game either. Yes people will be more likely to buy the game that looks better but my point is more about getting past impressions. You can judge graphics very easily from screenshots and videos. Gameplay you just have to experience and right now for SotA that's still very incomplete.

Now Star Citizen.. I looked at once awhile back and I forget which stretch goals they were working on but it was something like 30-40 million. I can't say I blame people for getting excited I want to play it too. I just don't have the means to pledge and probably won't have the time to play so I haven't followed it. Besides I prefer medieval/fantasy just a bit more than Sci-Fi.. perhaps one day.

On a slightly different note going WAY back. They did say their target graphic wise was 'just below Skyrim' but their target for interactivity in the world was Ultima VII. On the latter I think they're going to exceed that target so + gameplay there. The graphics I'm not so sure. As the style is very different a straight comparison may not be possible but I think it'll come down largely to character models and animation. So whether they hit that target or not remains to be seen.

I've seen some pretty cool screens from the scene jam a few months back so I'm pretty sure Unity can delivery somewhat.