Gameplay vs Graphics

As an aside ...in respect to Star Citizen, I'm clearly a HUGE fan. This surprises me, because I don't like pew-pew space games, and always preferred RPGs, with a Fantasy bent. That said, Star Citizen is going to be incredible. There are lengthy, detailed articles regarding the game-play mechanics which I won't repeat here, but it's got a selective-multi-player concept, a solo player concept, a fantastic PvP concept, a great death penalty concept, and a huge laundry list of features that to get any other way, you'd have to buy like 5 games. On top of all that, the graphic fidelity is through the roof. If you want full access to the Alpha/Beta, and Star Citizen when it releases, and Squadron 42 (a separate game, think Wing Commander with multi-player) ...you can get ALL OF THAT, Alpha, Beta two AAA titles backed by a team of 212+ and a 40 million+ budget, for ..... $40. Same price as Shroud of the avatar at release. Of course, you have to back now, and I would...I think it's an exceptional value. It won't last forever, something to think about it.

As for Shroud of the Avatar, I'm going to make an attempt to intelligently articulate the argument of the critiques. What they wanted was a next generation MMO that "got it", and was like Ultima On-line but for 2015. What they wanted to do was launch the game, and show their WoW fan-boy buddy, look at this! Look at this game, and all this things you can do ...and not hear...

"Well, it's ok, but ...my WoW mount looks better. And I think I like my Night Elf's hair more ...have you seen the new Expansion for Wow, "Not Quite Dead yet?" ...you should check it out."

No, this gamer wanted his WoW buddy to go home and uninstall WoW in defeat, realizing the next generation was here. That's not going to happen, now.

Additionally, graphics can improve, but as we as gamers all know, they can only improve "so much" and are ultimately limited by the engine. That's why the original EverQuest became EverQuest 2, when it may have made more sense to just upgrade the graphic fidelity of the original EverQuest significantly and keep it's player base intact ...they just couldn't. When I'm taking about improving graphics, I'm not talking about going from alpha from release. I'm talking about from release, into the future. Some gamers not familiar with game development are probably judging the game as it appears now. But I think many gamers simply see the writing on the wall, looked up the engine, and compared it to what they see many other games show casing, and made a decision on what is a realistic expectation of the look of Shroud of the Avatar at release, and got upset. Maybe you think the player base is largely stupid and didn't do that...maybe, in either case, they are right. The games fidelity won't be on a par with it's competitors that are using things like Voxel Farm or Cry Engine 3.

Ultimately, I think Shroud critiques are probably thinking bad game play mechanics can and will change, over time. So even a game with bad mechanics and a great engine can become a game with great graphics and a great great-gameplay. But a game with an ok engine and and good mechanics will always be an ok engine with good mechanics. There are obvious limits to what can change and be tuned, but all MMO players are used to and very familiar with the fact games be altered and "balanced" after release, sometimes having big game-play impacts. WoW has changed it's game play mechanics since release (not going to argue for the better) and the look of the game has improved too, but the look hasn't changed in relation to how much the mechanics have changed. And today, WoW is graphically outclassed by games like FFXIV Reborn, and totally outclassed by games coming up like EverQuest Next. These two later games can simply add expansions and improve gameplay, and effectively, be much, much better than WoW. Basically, if you don't like the looks of WoW, you're never going to like them. On the other hand, if you don't like the some of the game-play mechanics of WoW, but love the looks, there's a chance WoW could change and become a much more enjoyable game for you. I think that's what they are thinking when they look at Shroud of the Avatar. It's like playing WoW, but better game play mechanics, in theory. But in reality, they want to play EverQuest Next quality graphics and Shroud of the Avatar mechanics. Since many backers pitched in before any demos were out, there is some disappointment due to a shattered expectation.

 

I don't know. I hate to play the part of the pessimist but I think you're giving the average player a bit too much credit.

 

You know, sometimes ubernice graphics fresh from Cryengine can be a hindrance. I have backed Star Citizen and find the motion blur and luminosity and saturation painful and almost sick inducing. I might be alone in feeling this but i have found that any game with this engine gives me the same effects.

 

What you think most players are dumb and can be taken for a ride because some of the gaming industry think they know what gamers want. The only thing that matters today is making lots of profit for little substance, in the 80's early 90's of gaming the only thing holding them back was the technology, now they have it but most of the pioneers have gone or fallen into the mind set of the 21st century and lost the plot of what a game should be.
Chris Roberts with Star Citizen seems to be the exception a Kickstarter project that was set up to deliver not knowing what money it would have to succeed, yet now its pushing to create a game that will become a classic and in 20 years time players will want to see its return.

 

Bowen you probably should give the average gamer some credit, especially those over the 20 plus mark who most of us here are and have been with gaming for decades or more.

 

I wouldn't say dumb.. but I also wouldn't say they have a lot of in-depth knowledge of game design and development or the appreciation that comes with such knowledge. They just want to play a good game.

Most of us who actively participate here do not tend to represent the average. Take a look at how many registered accounts there are for example. 20,000+ people do not actively participate in any of the discussions here. Out of those who don't.. what % do you suppose check the forums every day? How about once a week? A month? I would be interesting to see those numbers but I would be surprised if those who are here once a week exceed 30% (20% would probably be pretty good).

Out of those numbers how many do you think actively keep up with fan and gaming sites in general?

There's a difference between intelligence and knowledge. Conversely you can just as easily say there's a difference between being actually dumb and just being ignorant.

The statements to which I was replying suggest a certain amount of investment in knowledge. I simply see no evidence that a majority invest that kind of energy to understand and appreciate the development side of things. I would wager the average player doesn't even know the name of the game engine being used for any particular game.

 

You're actually stating all this on an,internet forum with no context as to who any of the 70 k people who have backed the game are. I am a secondary teacher and you know what one of the highest lessons I've learned that have helped me not to become an embittered cynical bastard when it comes to my students? Not to make assumptions based on little to no context on who these people are.

10 k people probably have little time to fight tit for tat over a forum because they are now adults with children and little time, a lot might occasionally buy a mag as well if hey are waiting for flight..there may be a lot of casual gamers that are more tech based in their interests and support kickstarters because they support gaming...don't hold everyone to your standard of fandom cause usually that ends up with yourself being bitterly disappointed and dismissive of others perspectives.

 

While the OP makes some great points that I agree with, modern day technology still calls for a certain level of visual appeal. I think many could agree that playing a brand new RPG with graphics from pre 2000 would be a let down. Graphics, while far from the most important thing, create immersion and the kind of visual effects that platforms today are able to provide. If we disagree there, then we have a difference of opinion about modern standards.

I definitely don't think SotA is looking bad so far (most of it is quite nice), I just think there are some areas where things could and should be improved. The character models/detail and animations leave much to be desired and need some attention. If they don't get it, it will be a bit of a disappointment in my book. It won't be a game breaker, but it will be a detractor. This is coming from someone who is an avid retro-gamer btw, so clearly I enjoy games that are less than stellar looking. In fact, some of the best games I've ever played were pretty "blocky" lol.

 

@Gooseboy

Stating what exactly? That most people don't know everything about the things they do? How many people that drive themselves to work everything know how their car works? What percentage of drivers do you suppose are auto mechanics? You talk as if saying most people don't know everything is insulting. It isn't. People don't know or understand some things.

You can't assume that just because someone plays games that they read game magazines, follow the websites and pay attention to every little detail. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's not exactly a requirement. You cite reasons why they might not because they're busy? Same reasons why a lot of people just aren't paying attention. All of which is moot anyway since we make the time for the things we really want to do. Watch the news or read a fan site? Go to a movie or check out the forum of your favorite game. How people spend what free time they have is up to them. If you do a little research I believe you'll find that indeed most people who are registered for things like forums actually don't participate. It's pretty common. You see a large group with a facebook page? What percentage checks them out regularly?

I'm not making assumptions about individuals or small groups. I'm generalizing about the masses and if you have stats they say a lifetime of internet use has left me with the wrong impression I'd love to see them.

However, what we've been talking about here are the very, very, very, few who should be informed but aren't setting their own expectations unrealistically and then complaining when they perceive they aren't being met. Some people do that. It happens. It has happened here.. It's going to keep happening here and if you read the OP I'm not complaining about those people.. I just want to challenge them to keep an open mind and if they can find the time and energy it wouldn't hurt to learn more about what they've gotten themselves into.

So.. back on topic anyone?

 

I think your OP did have merit and i actually agree with you there. I have been thinking that if they made a example render pass with shading, lighting, texture goodness all that stuff to show off the end product in character model and world we would have a lot more happier people.

Butt. If you want to throw around generalisations and assumptions without having a resolution other than,wanting to tell everyone they don't know as much as you, your not helping your case of people should be open minded and patient.
maybe find solutions, i love solutions. Ask the devs( busy as they are),to make an,example of the end product look, why not make scene jam and show off how awesome unity can be. There are always options.

 

Before you start accusing me of simply making assumptions (presumably founded or otherwise what reason would have to even bring it up) about the masses you'll need to do a little homework. Because if you have no foundation for your case then all you've got is "I don't agree with you 'cause I think you're making assumptions".

Let me give you a more specific example I came across recently. This one has actual numbers. There's a local children's musical theater in my area who has a facebook page they were using to pass on information. It's a fairly big operation. 4 different casts of kids ranging from around 5 years old all the way through high school. LOT of parents and family members involved. Turns out only about a total of 37% even checks that facebook page at least once a week. We actually thought that was pretty darn good.. but that's still 63% of the people not paying attention and this is with their own kids and grandkids being involved.

I can make generalizations because they work and I've been seeing this kind of group behavior for over 20 years. Why should the gaming community be any different? I'm not just making assumptions and you know.. the individuals circumstances are irrelevant to my statements anyway. They're either informed as to what they're upset about or they're not. Either situation is their own responsibility. It's not about who knows more. It's about who puts in the effort.

Portalarium has been more than forthcoming. Ask.. and you will be answered. Plenty of folks in the forums know better than I do what questions have been asked and answered and where they can be found and they'll be happy to point people in the right direction. It isn't Portalarium's responsibility to police each individual's perceptions. It is the individual's responsibility to get informed enough to form reasonable expectations.

 

@Bowen Bloodgood, I applaud you for trying to give a positive spin overall, suggesting both hope and tolerance. I also feel your personal frustration with what appears to be the average level of "intelligence" expressed both on the Internet, and just in people in general. While I do not want to say I'm "smarter" than these people, I can honestly say I'm often disheartened by the the often abysmal displays of stupidity and blatant misinformation I see at times, especially, on the intarwebz. It's a cause to lead one to become pessimistic about people overall, and I have all too often succumbed to that feeling.

That said, there's one thing we know about gamers ...they play games. They play ...A LOT of games. And they play them for hours, and hours, and hours ..and some of the most obnoxious and intolerable jerks are also the ones who know the games so well, they can give you the percentage effect of wearing one piece of armor over another, the overall damage quotient of your weapon systems, how often you should use which spells to increase DPS, so and so fourth, knowing more in some cases than the developers themselves on the overall effect of various in game systems. They spend A LOT of time figuring it out. They then publish this data. Other gamers read it. People rage on forums because their particular class/character has a 2% less damage modifier than something else, although maybe it can never even be seen in the game, they can mathematically prove it. In the Star Citizen forums there are HUNDREDS of posts about the fact that some ships have a center of mass that isn't in-line with their thrust, making them "off-balanced" when Newtonian physics are applied, through meticulous analysis of the released dev art (not even the game itself). ...and it's accurate.

For many gamers, this is a "lifestyle", not just a hobby. While not everyone is at this level of game mechanics understanding, I think a lot of people who don't play games are probably quick to dismiss gamers as largely non-nonsensical a "pew-pew now you're dead" hobbyists wasting their time. But gamers know their games are more than that, they are an interactive experience greater than books, or movies, or many other passive experiences, that non-gamers try and elevate past them. And gamers take gaming SERIOUSLY.

Game publishers, driven by people with money that don't play games, don't seem to really "get that". Hence, there has been a movement of game developers striking out on their own, and seeking alternate forms of publishing, like, Shroud of the Avatar and Kickstarter, etc, appealing directly to the mass of gamers that DO get it. Many indie-games have been appearing, in larger numbers, on Steam through green-lighting, and there will be more to come. Gamers are willing to vote with big dollars (Skyrim sales were something like $450 million in the first week), and it makes it enticing to put something out there and try to tap the customer base. But appealing directly to that customer base, while it can be worth it...is not easy.

Collectively gamers are a hard, very demanding, well-informed, self entitled group of people with high expectations and long memories (the Internet never forgets) and very hard to please. When the game Watch Dogs initially did it's graphics demo at E3, gamers were taken aback, and squealed with glee. Recently Watch Dogs released a play video that showed similar segments, but also showed down graded graphics. I think the graphics look pretty good still, and you could even try and make this an argument for your original post, the Developers sure did. Here's an example:



My point is though, gamers ...noticed. They are not a largely ignorant group of people only partially invested and rarely reporting on forums. They are clever, they are watchful, they are fiercely demanding, and nothing gets past them ...and they outraged in force. News articles started to circulate, youtube videos popped up, and the game started to garner bad press. Calls for how game publishers "lie" about the look of their games were made, and accusations of deceptive advertising were lobbied. While I think it's fair to say, on a whole, on a whole, only a minority of gamers are actually vocal (nerdy?) enough to post like us ...I don't think were representative of most gamers, who, like the previous poster said, may be busy, with kids, older, etc. ...and just don't have time or access to sit on forums regularly and chat about games. However, I think a strong case can be made for how informed, and critical, gamers are as a group.

...just as an aside, the link below has a video of Jimquistion which is pretty funny, and actually, bears a lot on some of the topics we touched. ...worth a look, I think. (Shroud of the Avatar does not fall into the Watch Dogs category, by the way)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vid...h-Dogs-A-Vertical-Slice-Of-Steaming-Bullshots

 

I think there are simply enough gamers that even the small % is a lot of people. 20% of a million is still 200,000. Makes it seem like more people are paying attention than they are. If indeed most gamers are too busy.. that's still most gamers not paying attention.

Besides I believe we're talking 2 distinctly different scenarios here. What you're talking about is what gamers see through marketing and ultimately the final release of the game the may be informed as to what's going on but what I'm talking is the uninformed, not getting informed and then raging It also doesn't mean the 'informed' are informed about the same things.

Knowing how fast a car goes, its breaking distance, how well it turns, how much fuel it holds, how much it sells for etc etc.. doesn't mean you know or appreciate how its engine works or the process it took to build it. Those are two separate levels of information. So to come and make a judgment about a game based on the graphics at this stage is like walking up to a car factory, peaking through the window and saying "that unfinished car is going to be bad.. it hasn't got paint or anything."

Rather what they should be saying is something more like "hmm that car isn't finished but my that frame looks sturdy.. but we'll see what it looks like when it's done"

 

Plenty of indie games with more primitive graphics that are doing well because they can now sell through services like Steam and don't need big publishers. Plus also Facebook games, where nobody expects advanced graphics. I don't think the argument that you need advanced graphics to sell games makes sense. Note that I said primitive graphics though, not "bad" graphics.

 

Off topic... The gaming community, collectively, reminds me of Mike Teevee from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. They think they're smarter, more critical, and more well-informed than they actually are.

 

True, many lower budget games use a well-defined aesthetic to compensate for less "bleeding edge" graphic effects.


In my opinion, throwing money at increased technical graphic proficiency is not going to overcome a lack of cohesive artistic design.

Best to go with a quality artistic design to begin with, and throw on the extra bloom later.

 

One thing to note is there isn't a straight line from 'Realistic Graphics' to 'Everyone Wants'. I'm one of those worst kinds of people, the collector, who goes around and buys all the games in a series and then never turns around and plays them, and to be honest Skyrim graphics didn't entice me to actually buy the game, and I likely wouldn't ever have if my younger brother hadn't bought me the complete pack of the main games of the series. My disinterest in the series by that point had broken my completionist trend, and I had started playing it back in Arena until Morrowind broke me.

My favourite game at the moment (and the most fun I've had in a long time) is Danganronpa: Trigger Happy Havoc. The blending of art styles it uses, and the way it exudes atmosphere with its choices on how to portray 2D characters in a 3D environment, along with the voice acting and writing, combined with the increasing complexity of the courtroom gameplay mechanics push my buttons in a way that most 'AAA' graphics workhorse titles don't succeed in. Corpse Party is similar, highlighting how something as simple as sprites that look like they'd belong in a SNES game (The original game was made with RPG maker before the series took off and got one of the larger publishers behind it) can evoke a wide range of emotions, combined with excellent voice work and writing.

I'm sure there are plenty examples of non-indie titles where they veer away from Realistic Uber Graphics to follow their artistic beliefs. I've heard nothing but gushing about South Park for instance and no one could ever accuse it of having amazing photorealism. MineCraft however falls into what I dismiss as 'retro for a day that never was' along with prefaded t-shirts that you buy in worse condition than an original t-shirt of that era that has been worn and rewashed many times of the decades. It may be hypocritical of me, but a game that makes my eyes bleed (to use hyperbole) that looks worse than any game I played in the era it is meant to emulate (which is subjective reality, since I've been playing games since the early 80s) really makes me not want to even touch it.

Gamers can be more than just being obsessed with graphics, and can find ones where the gameplay and stories shine far beyond any graphical interface. Not everyone will want that tho. We've been told repeatedly in some threads that the character graphics especially are going to improve, so I'm just going to wait and see. I'd likely play it in either case, although I really really hope they fix the Ray Martin hair.

@Bowen: Social media really isn't a good measure for interest. I know people that actively avoid social media entirely for a number of reasons, including the tin foil hat brigade that seems more and more reasonable as time goes on, and they might just be more willing to interact on an interpersonal level, once again for a number of reasons. They may be interested, but may need a different communication strategy. Like when presenting training you have to do it for all of the different types of learners. Someone may not absorb something through information on a screen, it may be because they're wired to learning through rote, interactivity or handouts.

 

@Akeashar,

Yea, the appropriateness of the style also depends on the goal of the game. I would say that as much as graphics help create atmosphere, and the intended atmosphere of the game is a real, living breathing world, that more realistic graphics can certainly help in that. Skyrim was pretty good about that. It also helps translate emotions with more depth. But, I'd also say there's a steep limit to how much improved graphics can help. Sometimes I see people post comparison threads between older and newer iterations of graphics processors, saying how much better it is, but you don't really notice in passing, you only see it if you stare at it. You very soon start to realize some people are just graphics geeks and are often hung up on minor things.

And , still, it has a lot to do with how the artists use the graphics. Paintings aren't necessarily better artistically based on their fidelity to life. Studying nature and copying it and learning from it can help, and all of the classical artists did that, but in the end, they always (and purposely) idealized things, because realistic fidelity, beyond a certain degree, didn't necessarily help the artistic effect. Compared to old master paintings, modern photorealism is pretty uninteresting.

So, I guess to the question, do we want top of the line graphics? Sure, but it depends on how its balanced against other concerns and how much the game artists can make meat out of the advanced technology and actually put it to good artistic effect. But really, at this stage, I also find it relatively unimportant, because I don't see the current graphics as bad, besides the areas they've already said they're going to work further on and frankoly don't really need comment from us (hair textures, character models, etc). Its at the level of quality where I don't think improvements are going to be much of an issue except to people who are graphics geeks.

 

I was sold on SotA the minute I saw that it was Hex based. If that answers your question.

I knew they had no choice but to focus on game play, I was satisfied with the first graveyard scene.

I only become more skeptical with each graphics upgrade and each attempt to please popular game fans.

 

@Akeashar

The facebook example is just one I happen to have on hand where I knew the numbers off the top of my head. The phenomenon I was talking about is not exclusive to social media. Also it was not meant as a representation of interest.. but one of effort.