Disappointed

That's because a MUSH wasn't a game. A MOO isn't a game either, and I was on and made friends on both of those mediums, one of whom I still chat with. Both of which allowed you to create your own objects using its own scripting language. Probably the reason why I got into Computer Programming.

A MUD was a game. I also played WindsMARE (Multi-User Adventure Role-Playing Epic) for a long time, years at least. Eventually gave up because I had maxed out the current game and they were very slow on creating new content. It was definitely a game, and I didn't need graphics to enjoy playing it.

That said, I'm really excited for Ultra mode! I'm thinking of upgrading from Vista 32 to Windows 7 64 so that I can use my 4GB of RAM. We'll see though.

Uhm...you should be able to use your 4GB of RAM with a 32-bit OS. It's going beyond that where the system won't utilise anymore. So if you wanted to, say, move up to 8GB of RAM, then it certainly makes sense.

Then again, I still have issues today with Vista, and am hoping 7 fixes them, even though the only thing I use Windows for is playing games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dolphin Hallo. I think what was meant, that there be more content in the version of lots of maps as opposed to endless stories. And I agree. If the gameplay of missions isn't improved upon, the initial graphics ooh and ahh moment will fade, leaving the same arguments over maps. Translation: The old maps are predictable and boring, and that's not talking about the tilesets. The maps that are available have been played so often, that people can predict where things will be from only looking at one or two things from the beginning.

Exactly. And I never said otherwise.

Gameplay is just as important as graphics. Story is a different thing, but for an MMORPG, story is also just as important as those too.

The arguments that claim "Graphics should have lowest priority", or "Content over visuals, or "Pffft! They haven't fixed PvP and are instead adding reflections? **** that!" are simply short-sighted arguments with no real reasoning behind them.

Bottom line is, graphics go hand-in-hand with gameplay, content, and story. Just like how acting, visual effects, and story go hand-in-hand for movies.

There are exceptions to every rules when it comes to game design. None of these are set in stone. A game can have terrible graphics and fun gameplay (no, games like Starcraft and Counterstrike 1.6 are not examples of that. We're talking games released and maintained in THIS day and age that have less focus on graphics. Starcraft and CS 1.6 were pretty awesome for their time as far graphics went). And some players tend to choose other aspects of the game over graphics.

But the general rule and the convention in designing video games is that graphics are JUST as important as any other fundamental aspect of a video game. You know, because it's called a VIDEO game.

The following is taken from the book Game Design and Development, written by Ernest Adams and Andrew Rollings. It is a university text book being taught in the field of Software Engineering and Game Design:

"Video games are an art form, so aesthetics are a part of their design..."

"...a game with clumsy animation, a muddy soundtrack, trite dialog, or sloppy artwork will disappoint players even if its gameplay is good."

"An ugly or awkward video game is a bad one, no matter how innovative its design or impressive its technology. Part of your job [as a game developer] is to give your players aesthetic pleasure."

A little further on:

"We [game developers] believe the graphics versus gameplay debate is no longer a meaningful one. The truth is that graphics and gameplay must work together to produce the total play experience. The graphics create the setting, which both sells the game and involves the player in the game's fantasy. The gameplay provides the challenge and things for the player to do. Both are essential to the player's enjoyment of the game."

Over the years, due to expectations and competitiveness of gaming industries, the definition of "bad" and "good" graphics happens to change to change frequently. And often times, they change with technological improvements.

Dark_Respite's Farewell Video: "One Last Day"
THE COURSE OF SUPERHERO ROMANCE CONTINUES!
Book I: A Tale of Nerd Flirting! ~*~ Book II: Courtship and Crime Fighting - Chap Nine live!
MA Arcs - 3430: Hell Hath No Fury / 3515: Positron Gets Some / 6600: Dyne of the Times / 351572: For All the Wrong Reasons
378944: Too Clever by Half / 459581: Kill or Cure / 551680: Clerical Errors (NEW!)

Easily solved by adding a random generator. Which I believe they should do. Never the same map twice, perhaps the same tileset, but never the same map because every time you enter, its different based on what size the map is supposed to be and how many enemies and where, from there a map is randomly generated upon mission creation with enemies where they are supposed to be. (STFs, TFs, ITF, and so on should keep the same maps however because it would break the feel of these.... and probably piss off the Speed-TFers)

I have had a couple "Whoa" instances where I tried a mission, died, went back, died again, went back yet again, died yet again, picked a different mission, went to that one then, went back to my original mission and noticed... "Wait a minute... Wasn't that a dead end last time?"
So the capability is there its just poorly implemented.

Now I wish they would stop with the account page maintenance every time I need to re-up my main account so I can get back to being the lunatic instead of the loony. XD

I actually used to run a MU* called StarWars: The Final Episode off the SMAUG codebase for quite some time.
My favorites to play besides starwars themed MU*'s were Utopia and Godwars, but thats just my PvP side wanting to give a little beat down and crack some skulls for my bag.

of course it is, only a metal defective would think otherwise.

but it's nice to get some "official" confirmation of the obvious, although I don't expect it to have much impact on the paranoia lobby.

seriously, I'm still shaking my head at anyone who thought the devs would make GR JUST 1-20 and have the gall to call it an expansion.

These aren't the darkfall devs folks.

I don't remember writing that. Sounds like me though.

I think it was like 3 years ago....

/thread.

I think that graphics are pretty important. Not to me, PERSONALLY, but they are important.

Art-style is also key. Which is why some folks can't stand playing WoW, no matter that almost any comp can run the game.

EDIT: It's also one of the reasons I have stopped playing CO, even though my brother bought me a 6 month sub. I thought the art-style would grow on me. It most assuredly has done the opposite. Maybe it was cause beta was limited to only two days a week or so, but for some reason it didn't bother me then. Now I can't stand the art-style, outlines off or not.

Whereas some like it's art-style more than this game's.

To each their own.

Actually, people are extremely good at noticing minute differences in faces of all kinds. We're hardwired to do so. We don't all have a consistent *memory* for faces, and we tend to remember faces more similar to the kinds we see every day. But take a face from an ethnicity unfamiliar to us, photoshop a minor difference, and the average person can general detect that difference down to very low levels of change in a side-by-side comparison.


Only sometimes. Some chest details are very distinct. Some are not. A significant percentage have details impossible to resolve except at distances and timescales where you could also distinguish faces.

Many of the faces in CoH are similar enough to confuse, true. But Champions Online has facial sliders, and it *is* possible to detect when someone has done something goofy with those. Maybe not all the time, and maybe not in an immediately obvious way, but I've seen cases where a player character I only saw in snapshots for brief moments in time seemed "odd" and it turned out after more time elapsed that I noticed they screwed with their face in ways that seemed odd to me.


That's true, but I don't see how its relevant. Just because big details are easier to detect, doesn't mean the little ones are unnoticable.


Most of the time I can't see what my own powers are doing visually either: I see *other* players powers and the NPC powers more than I see my own, unless I deliberately stop to pay attention. The thing is it takes no more effort to make good looking powers for the times I am paying attention than it takes to make them look good all the time. However often I am in a position to see my own or someone else's face, it takes no more effort to make everyone's face animated all the time than to focus exclusively on the subset of cases where its most likely to be noticed.

The truth is the main reason I want facial animation is less for *literal* animation, and more for dynamic expressions. A significant percentage of the "faces" in the costume editor have "frozen expressions" on them designed to make that sort of expression available to players: grins, scowls, crazed wide-eyed looks. But short of changing costumes entirely, there's no way to make that selectable.

And there are combat-opportunties to make those expressions. During the animation for Nova. During the kicking animation for Eagle's Claw. Windup for Assassin's strikes. The "tarzan" emote for MoG goes to the trouble of actually generating an audible howl, but the face makes no expression consistent with it and it *would* be noticable: on NPCs if not yourself. Just because it might not be a noticable effect during Snapshot doesn't mean there aren't lots of cases where it would be noticable.


As I said: I'd lobby for things like animated flowing hair and dynamic cloth for capes and skirts first, but I would place user-selectable expressions on the same par with, say, flight poses. Fully animated faces is something I would consider at an even lower priority, except for cut-scenes.

I don't know how that is abstract, as that's pretty much what videogames are and have always been, but... whatever.

I agree with you in principle here. As one old videogame magazine (that is long, long gone) always said: "The game's the thing". The graphics ought to take a backseat to the gameplay. Just as with any movie, where even the most brilliant and expensive special effects and on-location shots, and first run actors will do nothing to save it from a badly written story (Well, except maybe "Plan 9 From Outer Space" if it was done deliberately campy, but I digress!).

Personally, I'd have loved for CoH to gain much more interactive environments; little things like not getting stuck on shrubs or bushes (and, ahem, being able to pick up objects and throw them at foes! >.>) Not to mention the rather one-sided conversations you have with your contacts. There's a wee little bit of environment interaction if you have the physics turned on (and I guess having reflective surfaces will count, too) , but that's much too little.

Eye candy is good and all and it will hook in new players, and keep the game appearing fresh and new. But I hope they don't stop there, and go much further than that and make all aspects of the game more immersive and more interactive.

Same here, i personally cant see how so many people can stand playing a game that to me personally looks THAT bad. Then again though i do still play some good old classic games with really bad graphics!

Final fantasy 7 + 8 [8 is my all time fav!]
Dune
C & C [the original, not red alert!]
Cruise for a corpse
Monkey Island [again the originals, not the appaling remakes we got today]


That being said, graphics is really important to catch peoples attention obviously.

That's not graphics, that's style.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

I play really old games with bad graphics too... But they dont cost me money every month to play them.

I play Civ 2,3, and 4
I play Heroes of Might and Magic 4
I play Tropico 1... but now that I have tropico 3 I may finally remove tropico 1 from my gameputer...
I play PONG!

Quite true. WoW is an animation style choice. Some like it, some don't, and it also has low requirements to allow plenty of people to play. For me it was okay, I just didn't like how it played after awhile.

Graphics are super important to me, only cuz, well... I don't enjoy looking at playdough figures. I can't get past that to find out if the game is fun. I just don't like looking at ugly.