PDA

View Full Version : Do you really care about visuals?


kafros
8th Apr 2005, 06:19 AM
I donít. Well actually I do but it is on the bottom of the wish list. 3 games this year gave top visuals + physics but failed on the multiplayer factor big time:

1. Doom III (great visuals). Noone waits around to see a shadow on the wall. They all go fraggin around.

2. HL2. (great visuals + great physics) If you exclude the first half hour of pure joy after tossing toilets at other players, the game goes back to standard moves/weapons deathmatch

3. Painkiller (great visuals + great physics). I was totally disappointed by the lack of elements (in multiplayer) like special cards and the physics engine that were so good on the Single Player portion of the game.

I really hope the developers spend most of their time on gameplay features and not on re-writing many versions of the game engine to see what gives best visuals/performance.

If my CPU is "stressed" when I finally get the finished product, I want it to "stress" because it gives me a more interactive playground and not because it helps in the calculation of real-time shadows on the walls.

ready...

steady...

start flaming!

Taleweaver
8th Apr 2005, 07:24 AM
Flaming? Naah...I think most people here will agree that many maps UT2003 shipped with had just too much meshes, putting gameplay on a second place.

In that aspect, Epic really made a good correction with the mapping style in UT2004 (and with the UT2003 bonus packs I think...I wasn't around back then): it had some good visuals, but the chance of getting stuck between meshes was much lower.
These are the kinds of maps I'd like to see: a good proportion of visuals in about every part where it doesn't hinder the players' movements, and a main focus on the gameplay...
And it's good to know that Epic is going to put the focus on gameplay :)

edhe
8th Apr 2005, 08:00 AM
If nobody cared about visuals then we wouldn't live in an age where games are the biggest cause of technological development.

Even if you don't care about the aesthetics in a map, the developers do. They want to have a more engrossing experience, so you'll love it (maybe without knowing) and the game will have more of a chance of consuming people, and selling more.

I play 2k4 at a low details level - but that's my competitiveness showing - but i have a heavily powered system (for 18 months ago anyway) which i didn't spare any cash on, i did that to see things at their best.

I also gladly accept that gameplay is priority over graphics, which is why i also have a console :)

BooGiTyBoY
8th Apr 2005, 08:05 AM
I only want the game to be good enough so it's nice and clear at a smooth fps. Until I got a small cpu upgrade form a bud, I was running at a low res at low detail and it made the game VERY hard to play. People were zotting me from distances where I couldn't even pick them out against the backround cuz' their pixels just kind of "blended" in, etc.

I'd much rather be able to play it at lower detail settings at a higher res, then holy **** settings at a lower screen res.

Tournament0
8th Apr 2005, 10:52 AM
Do you really care about visuals?
Yes, I do.

NeoNite
8th Apr 2005, 11:02 AM
I really hope the developers spend most of their time on gameplay features and not on re-writing many versions of the game engine to see what gives best visuals/performance.



They have to spend time on both the gameplay and visual aspects of the game.
And if they wouldn't spend that much time on visuals, there'd be no progress and people wouldn't be "wowed" anymore. That would be "mucho sucko" for the company.

It's a thing called progress. The visual department is very important.
Equally important as the gameplay one, though.

It goes hand in hand.

BooGiTyBoY
8th Apr 2005, 11:11 AM
It goes hand in hand.

We hope and pray it does... :lol:

NeoNite
8th Apr 2005, 11:13 AM
I left out the part where they're dancing in the strawberry fields........... forever ;O)

BadAss84
8th Apr 2005, 12:11 PM
Well for me personally, gameplay > graphics any day, but i do still like a game to look 'nice', doesn't have to be spectacular, just as long as its easy on the eyes i don't mind :)

Though i wouldn't not play a great game if it did have bad graphics ;) I'd just put up with it :p

Also i think for the company, as neonite said, graphics are very important, get the graphics looking great and people will buy it, draw them in with the graphics, keep them there with the gameplay, thats how i see it ^^

JohnDoe641
8th Apr 2005, 12:23 PM
Well speaking of a sp game, the visuals should coincide with the gameplay to make the sp experience a rich a memorable one. One where co-op players can have fun exploring the map for hours upon hours like we did with Unreals co-op.

In MP, game play is the only thing that should be considered when designing a map, which Epic seems to be doing now, and the art comes after spawn point/weapon/pickup/lift/trap/etc is placed and perfected.

imho

Bang Yr Head
8th Apr 2005, 01:30 PM
I often take the time to look around to enjoy the artwork that has gone into the game. so, yes, I do care very much about visuals.

kafros
8th Apr 2005, 02:09 PM
Well you can't have both (great visuals & great game mechanics). Nice stuff like real-time shadows and particle engines comes at a CPU cost together with the GPU cost.

If the CPU "concurrently" executes the AI code, game state code, physics code and rendering code I would rather see time taken from rendering complex stuff than any of the other three. This will be a multiplayer(even if off-line instant action) game so better game mechanics and more interactive playground will do more good than better eye-candy... I hope so at least...

T2A`
8th Apr 2005, 02:09 PM
Ditto (JD, Radeon). Gameplay matters more, but that doesn't mean I want to see a bunch of sh*tty-ass-looking maps.

NiteX
8th Apr 2005, 02:47 PM
Gameplay is very important. But, so are the visuals. You have to realize without the visuals the gameplay wouldn't be as great. But does that mean UT3 maps should have real dynamic shadows? No, whats the point in having shadows in a map that you will never notice because of the fast gameplay? But, i'm more than positive it will, just because thats what people want now a days. They want a game that's amazing to look at and jaw dropping gorgeous.

Dark Pulse
8th Apr 2005, 02:56 PM
Gameplay over Graphics, but they'd be fools to make a great-playing game that looks terrible.

They are getting this right, though; remember they're doing layouts of levels first, then eyecandy.

O.S.T
8th Apr 2005, 03:25 PM
it really depends on the game
I don't need awesome graphics in an MMORPG(because of the scale of the world and mass and varity of the playermodels), but I want great graphics in a FPS
not only great graphics, I want to be impressed by the buildings and player models, yeah, I do care about visuals

imo the "graphics OR gameplay" thing is useless, because gameplay has nothing to do with graphics
there are great games with simple graphics, but there are also great games with awesome graphics(like there are bad games with simple graphics and bad games with good graphics)
it depends on the developer
if the developer is capable of making a good gameplay, they will make a good gameplay, it doesn't matter how the graphics are

Nosnos
8th Apr 2005, 04:59 PM
nice graphics is needed to spark an interest for the game, but the longer you play it the less important it gets... atleast for me or I wouldnt be playing the games I do play but rather change game everytime something new and better looking comes out... nice graphics is a plus though, no doubt about it, good graphics doesnt have to get in the way of good gameplay...

Dark Pulse
8th Apr 2005, 07:58 PM
nice graphics is needed to spark an interest for the game, but the longer you play it the less important it gets... atleast for me or I wouldnt be playing the games I do play but rather change game everytime something new and better looking comes out... nice graphics is a plus though, no doubt about it, good graphics doesnt have to get in the way of good gameplay...
What Nosnos said. I still play Doom, the old Quakes, and UT99 every so often (Though the last of them more then the others.)

Raden
8th Apr 2005, 10:56 PM
I get like 50 FPS on UT2004 but of course I have to turn everything to Low, so I settle for about 30-40 FPS on High. I'd still rather actually play my games than watch the slideshows, though.

Tournament0
9th Apr 2005, 04:38 AM
I also have to turn my settings low.
:(
But I am hoping to get a new computer by the time "Envy" comes out.
:)

carmatic
9th Apr 2005, 07:44 AM
like, this kinda asks the question, how many polygons does it take to render something like an arrow that points players to the next point at which they will experience what they are supposed to experience... i care about visuals, its part of the experience, but in the heat of the moment of fragging someone , the visuals usually get filtered out as i try to line my crosshair onto my target, or they get in the way like foliage and trees... better yet, i wish that the crosshair in the next UT is a pixel shader operation, in that it will adapt and adjust its colour to whatever its rendered over(kind of like the windows inverted cursors), so i can always see it and the levels tend to feel more beautiful when my crosshair always stands out... after all, the entirety of the game happens inside the crosshair , and if you make the connection between the game and the graphics good, then the game feels as beautiful as the graphics...

But I am hoping to get a new computer by the time "Envy" comes out.
:)
Yes! so people will envy you with your new computer!!

whats the point in having shadows in a map that you will never notice because of the fast gameplay?
if you have a sun-like lightsource in the level (parallel light that lights the level evenly, at least in the open areas) , the shadows act as a cue for your perception of things in relation to e.g. the ground, and its one of the good things about good graphics...like if you start having big vehicles that fly and cast big shadows , then it helps gameplay to be able to use these shadow cues .... or, if you have a ballistic weapon like the flak cannon secondary fire, and your in a room with a decent (non-disco-like) light source, with someone else in the room casting a proper shadow which you can see easily, i think its easier for you to hit him with a projectile than if he was just a flat bunch of polygons on your screen...

The_Head
9th Apr 2005, 10:49 AM
Do you really care about visuals?

In short, YES DAMMIT!

I want this game to look, but yes, UT2003/4 had loads of meshs that got in the way, but that only happens when the mapper was lazy and didn't block them off well. A lot of the better maps are well blocked off in the right places and are no problem

Tournament0
9th Apr 2005, 10:59 AM
In short, YES DAMMIT!

I want this game to look

Of course it will look good. It's Unreal Engine 3. :)
:tup:

JohnDoe641
9th Apr 2005, 12:54 PM
If a game doesn't look, it's not worth buying. :cool::tup:

shadow_dragon
9th Apr 2005, 03:04 PM
Gameplay is far far more important. ofcourse but, though someone said Graphics has nothing to do with gameplay i disagree. Graphics does have some effect.
For example. Farcry. I used to play over a lan in a duel with my brother, i'd hide in the foliage, kill him, move and hide in some other foliage but sometimes would be wowed by the accuracy sheer fluke of him managing to pick me off from miles away even before i'd shot a bullet. While if he tried sniping me it'd be almost impossible to find him.
Wasn't till after i bought a new graphics card that i found out that the scope on the rifles made a very subtle lens flare effect that can be seen from great distances.

half of your game is your environment and how you use, mostly this is graphics and how well they render your environment, your arena.
Real time shadows, will be usefull in manys ituations to see your oponent coming but also fora great many things we probably won't even consider. People alreadyuse their sounds to determine where their opponent is and what they're doing. Imaigne if people could start reading their environment to do the same? Surely this is how it's meant to be and to a great extent this is graphics related i believe.

I don't mind huge sacrifices in graphics for gameplay but i think it'd be wrong to assume they add nothing to gameplay and in some ways they add the best parts.

FireCrack
9th Apr 2005, 03:55 PM
^Well, i ersonaly wouldnt factor that in as graphics.


Anywyaws, i say

gameplay=K*graphics

where K is some constant, if the gamplay is awesome and the graphics blow, not a good game, and vice versa. Try to make the graphics and gameplay give a feel for eachother. Ofcourse i have no qualms with K being less than 1 but dont try to make K be 0.1 or somthing ludicrous lioke that.

iron12
10th Apr 2005, 07:02 AM
I just hate bumping by head on stuff.

Other then that I don't mind the eyecandy.

CyMek
10th Apr 2005, 09:23 AM
First off, i'm surprised you didn't like HL2. I love it.

Anyway, I think graphics count. I mean, they are by no means mutually exclusive. The only two things that I can think of where graphics get in the way of gameplay are low fps and mesh collision. I think Epic has learned their lesson on both counts, so we Shouldn't have too many problems.
Oh yeah, I amost forgot to mention that graphics are not just how many polygons or how hi-res the textures are. IMO Unreal is still one of the most serenely beatuiful games there is. Better looking than UT2004 for sure.

The_Head
10th Apr 2005, 11:59 AM
/Agrees with Iron12

CyMek -> "mutually exclusive" never thought I'd hear that outside of a maths lesson...

Beauty isn't necessarily to do with more stuff, as CyMek said UT99 was a gorgeous game. Layout and great Architecture are all facters. I've done a couple of maps for UT2004. The best looking is byfar the one Where I concentrated on a Good architectural design. Not the one crammed full of meshes etc. I dont want Epic to overdo it like on some UT2004 maps. Sure I love good graphics as much as the next person. But I dont want to sacrifice gameplay for it.

UnrealGrrl
10th Apr 2005, 12:42 PM
for me its simple... i want both and feel theres no reason we cant have both.

gameplay obviously hasta be there first or theres no point. but gameplay is worthless if theres no visuals. checkers has good gameplay but i dont want to play it on my computer...

eyecandy is very important and matters alot otherwise everyone would be playing old computer games and thered be no unreal in the first place. hey space invaders rocked right?!

gameplay and visuals need to both be top notch or theres no point imnsho.