Games, gameplay and graphics

Indyskies misunderstood me in the comment i made on AMMayhem's article. I can't edit my comment there tho, so i'll post something here.

The article has a lot of truth in it. I don't think that gameplay comes first and foremost, though.

I do not want to say that graphics are more important than gameplay. I just want to comment on making levels which are substantially sub-par to the game's graphics they're made for.

If someone makes a level for UT99, and gives it custom 64x64 8 bit textures, 16 polygons on brushes in total, but it has a nice gameplay, does it deserve a high score? No.

Why not?

Because if i wanted to play levels like that i'd start up Quake or Doom, not UT99.

People need to see that levelmaking isn't just about gameplay. Immersion is a very important issue in all games, whatever the genre, and i can't get that immersion while looking at 2 cubes with monotonous grey painted walls whilst seeing in between the weapon effects and models that look entirely out of place.

Also, making levels isn't just about comming up with a lay-out, placing weapons and releasing the level 'because the gameplay rocks'. More people can make stuff like that.

Making a level needs an understanding of the game. The entire game. If people are satisfied with making levels that look and play like Doom, than something's wrong. Why then not play Doom in the first place?

Someone said to that: "Well, no one's playing Quake or Doom anymore, but i want to have the gameplay in UT"

Why the hell do you think that no one plays doom or quake anymore? If they have such a brilliant gameplay, why then are there virtually no servers online?

I just think that it's a lame excuse to not have to pay attention to what you;re actually trying to make. A level with bad or mediocre graphics doesn't set a mood. It doesn't pull you in. If people want to play UT just to kill stuff in a 2 by 2 room with 16 players, i suggest they go play Phobia II and no UT.

People need to see that they are contradicting themselves. They say that a level with good gameplay deserves a high score.

Well then, if a level with obnoxious graphics but brilliant gameplay deserves a full score, does a level with brilliant graphics and brilliant gameplay deserve the same score?

This is the reason why levels that look bad generally score lower than levels that look good.

Remember, Nalicity gives 3 scores:

Awe. For the graphics, the mood, the look, the immersion, the impressiveness of the art. While most people think that this doesn;t matter, should the time spent on this part of the design simply be ignored? That would be simply a HUGE insult to the people to have put their time into it.

Build. For how the level runs, how it is optimized, whether the functions that are used actually work well. This is an aspect what most people also ignore in the graphics vs gameplay discussion. If you build a level with brilliant cast but horrible build and awe, that just shows that those people don't know anything about using the editor, only about design.

Cast. How does the level play? How does the lay-out work out in actual gameplay? How is the weapons distribution? This is of course the third important part of a level's score. However, it is neither higher or lower in importance as the other 2, i;ve already explained why.

In short, a level is scored for how much effort the author put into it, and how much he learned from doing it.

Mel's level have some very intruiging designs, however, he doesn't improve on his skills with unrealed and simply make crude designs with basic shapes, hence his levels get a low score.

Kami's levels have good graphics, good build and good gameplay. He learned from every elvel he made and has shown that he has mastered both visual art and design prowess.

Now, according to some people who say that graphics doesn't matter, Kami levels should get the same score as Mel levels.

If someome can explain to me why things should be this way, please tell me why.

1:If a level that's made for UT99 looks and plays like Quake 1, i'll simply install Quake 1 and play that game, not UT99. It's as simple as that. You;re so concerned with the system requirements of the levels, well, then why not play Quake 1 instead? Runs great on most PC's nowadays.

2:The fact that the maps aren't seen on servers a lot doesn't mean they're bad. Most servers don't put up custom maps at all, since people will take the bandwith to download them, and maps are BIG, especially for UT2K4. Bandwith is expensive, VERY expensive, hence the no custom maps (in most cases), especially on public servers.

IF there's a custom map on, it's either an unusually popular one (w00tabulous for example), or a map from the scene or from a friend (sniper maps and cubemaps (pun intended)). I wouldn't give w00t a high score though, even gameplay wise (spawn spammage, yay, if people think that's fun, i'll simply go to another server). What IS and what isnt played on a server gives little to no indication as to whether a map is good or not. Also remember that most people that play online don't even bother to look for new maps, yet another reason you don't see a lot of custom maps on servers.


And a sidenote: If a level runs too slow your PC can't handle the game right, so turn down the detail. Of course, you have exceptions to that (a UT99 level with 40k polygons in view is simply not good). The hardware development doesn;t stand still, and if people don't buy a new computer or at least a new vid card or gfx card for over 5 years, that's no my fault they;re trying to play levels and games that are far beyond their hardware.

A level that is playable on an average PC of this time shouldn't get a penalty because it's not playable on a low-end pc of this time. I mean, isn't that the definition of "low end", being sub-par?

Of course, you can mean levels that looks like 3DS MAX projects. As i said, it should be playable on an average PC of the time. Those kind of levels may get a higher score if reviewed a year later or so, simply because they'll be playable then.... Same with the newer UT99 levels, those would not be playable on the hardware back in 99-2000, and hence get a lower score (probably somewhere on build and cast).