If I could get my hands on a console I'd play Zelda, Donkey Kong and Space Invaders again. :) Games have to have a hook, the fun factor to keep me playing, for the most part. Again I'll say that from what I've seen of Pantheon (Wild's End, Amberfaet etc) this is going to be a gorgeous game (already is) game play is what keeps me there, community is what keeps me there. I already think we have a large and great community, so already some pluses before we start testing. :)
Cana
Cromulent said:Rogue said:Have to say, I didn't bother kickstarting Pantheon when it first launched because it simply looked terrible. Awful. I didn't care if it was Everquest 1 reskinned. I had zero interest and would rather play P99, I wanted to want it, but couldn't justify it. It wasn't until the first big stream after they improved the pre-pre-pre alpha, then they said graphics/animation improvement, then I backed. It's a tired and boring trope to say gameplay is everything. There is a minimum level of graphics that are required. I consider current Pantheon to be that minimum for an MMO. As of the December stream.
Ultima Online was a big deal back in the day, thing was, I chose EQ because it was 3d and the graphics were better. Glad I did, but graphics were a factor then and they are now.
Eh. Back in the day I had loads of fun playing games like Baldurs Gate which didn't have great graphics but the game play was awesome. If I had known about Ultima Online when it came out I probably would have played that instead of EverQuest. But I ended up on EverQuest instead and enjoyed the hell out of it.
I still play old games that I have bought from GOG.com and it doesn't bother me at all. It is all about the game play for me. Good graphics mean nothing when the game is awful and good graphics mean nothing when the game is awesome.
If the game is awesome and the graphics suck I'll play it. If the game is rubbish and the graphics are awesome I won't play it. Pretty simple really.
I just can't understand your point. Good graphics mean nothing when the game is awesome? I guess better immersion for the player is a worthless aspiration to have. I suppose so is a lasting legacy. I expect good graphics and good gameplay because I want to see gaming tech become better. Accepting subpar results and filling your life with compromise doesn't help anyone. Even games like Doom (1995) look pretty damn good by today's standards when put in something like Z Doom. Why? Because effort was put into the Doom sprites and graphics.
There's a difference between crap graphics, good graphics and amazing graphics. Regardless, if the game is good, people will play. Conversely, if the game play is not, people will not play. Now the better that graphics, the more enjoyable the play. I think we all mean the same thing really. Let's not fall over a word.
Rogue said:Cromulent said:Rogue said:Have to say, I didn't bother kickstarting Pantheon when it first launched because it simply looked terrible. Awful. I didn't care if it was Everquest 1 reskinned. I had zero interest and would rather play P99, I wanted to want it, but couldn't justify it. It wasn't until the first big stream after they improved the pre-pre-pre alpha, then they said graphics/animation improvement, then I backed. It's a tired and boring trope to say gameplay is everything. There is a minimum level of graphics that are required. I consider current Pantheon to be that minimum for an MMO. As of the December stream.
Ultima Online was a big deal back in the day, thing was, I chose EQ because it was 3d and the graphics were better. Glad I did, but graphics were a factor then and they are now.
Eh. Back in the day I had loads of fun playing games like Baldurs Gate which didn't have great graphics but the game play was awesome. If I had known about Ultima Online when it came out I probably would have played that instead of EverQuest. But I ended up on EverQuest instead and enjoyed the hell out of it.
I still play old games that I have bought from GOG.com and it doesn't bother me at all. It is all about the game play for me. Good graphics mean nothing when the game is awful and good graphics mean nothing when the game is awesome.
If the game is awesome and the graphics suck I'll play it. If the game is rubbish and the graphics are awesome I won't play it. Pretty simple really.
I just can't understand your point. Good graphics mean nothing when the game is awesome? I guess better immersion for the player is a worthless aspiration to have. I suppose so is a lasting legacy. I expect good graphics and good gameplay because I want to see gaming tech become better. Accepting subpar results and filling your life with compromise doesn't help anyone. Even games like Doom (1995) look pretty damn good by today's standards when put in something like Z Doom. Why? Because effort was put into the Doom sprites and graphics.
Graphics mean jack really. After the first 10 minutes of playing and going "wow good graphics" you basically forget about them and never think about them again. Game play on the other hand you are thinking about every second you are playing. I'd play a text only MUD if it had good game play and I knew how to play it.
I think the graphics look decent as is (though I would love to see better), and this is with placeholders in pre-alpha. The recent perception video looked pretty passable despite the hilarious running animation.
Gameplay is by far the most important but graphics/animations/sounds are still important.
It's like any relationship: in general, the looks are what attract you in the first place. But the content is what keeps you there.
If I see a game with really crappy graphics, it's pretty easy to think that not a lot of care was put into the game at all. Maybe it's low budget, it was rushed, etc. So I may falsely assume that not much thought was put in the gameplay and just leave before the good parts even have a chance to shine. That would of course be pretty narrow-minded, but it happens and devs should be aware of it. Longterm, yes, content is more important. But it would be foolish to not give graphics proper attention to make sure your first impressions are positive. That way you can grab new players with that "wow" moment.
But as far as the amount of progress in the overall development process, you can't really judge it just on the fidelity of the graphics.
I think people who say I want the graphics and the gameplay are just not being realistic about the choice. You cant have it all, there has to be tradeoffs. From what I have seen, high graphics is the wasteful thing to add to a game. Anytime someone says a game has the most amazing graphics, I already know the game is going to be terrible.
A more difficult question, is one with tradeoffs.
Assigned points based on how long before the game will be out of date or unplayable:
Graphics Year 1 = 1, Y2 = 2, Y3 = 4, Y4 = 8, Y5 = 16 Max = 31 (Example Level 5 Graphics would probably be Virtual reality today, in 5 years that will be standard)
Gameplay Year 1 = 1, Y2 = 1, Y3 = 2, L4 = 2, Y5 = 3 Max = 9
Polished/Debuged Year 1 = 1, Y2 = 2, L3 = 3, Y4 = 4, Y5 = 5 Max = 15
Keep in mind, Current standard graphics Y1 are better than the best graphics of 2000.
Yes I get people are going to say, no fair graphics max requires has 31 points and Gameplay only has 9. Well life is not fair, unfortunately this is the reality if you want to see every blade of grass or petal on a flower or VR tech. This is why the gaming industry is in such a bad place, to keep thier Level 5 graphics, they have to sacrifice everything else. Its even worse, because to keep Y5 graphics, each year the game has to devote massive resources just to keep it cutting edge.
If you only have 19 points for a small dev group?
I would choose Y5 Gameplay, Y3 Polish, Y2 Graphics
Bazgrim said:It's like any relationship: in general, the looks are what attract you in the first place. But the content is what keeps you there.
If I see a game with really crappy graphics, it's pretty easy to think that not a lot of care was put into the game at all. Maybe it's low budget, it was rushed, etc. So I may falsely assume that not much thought was put in the gameplay and just leave before the good parts even have a chance to shine. That would of course be pretty narrow-minded, but it happens and devs should be aware of it. Longterm, yes, content is more important. But it would be foolish to not give graphics proper attention to make sure your first impressions are positive. That way you can grab new players with that "wow" moment.
But as far as the amount of progress in the overall development process, you can't really judge it just on the fidelity of the graphics.
I'm certainly not saying the devs shouldn't put effort into the graphics. They should. But they shouldn't work on graphics at the exclusion of anything else. An MMO is going to be running for 10+ years. There will be plenty of time to polish the graphics after release. The important thing at the moment is making the game play so damn addictive that no one will be able to stop playing the game because it is so good :).
I enjoy good graphics as much as the next guy. When the original Crysis was released I was blown away with the graphics and I played it loads. But the only reason I played it loads was becasuse I enjoyed the game play. If I hadn't I would have logged in for say 20 minutes just to walk around and be amazed at the graphics and then I would have uninstalled it and asked for a refund from Steam.
Rogue said:I just can't understand your point. Good graphics mean nothing when the game is awesome? I guess better immersion for the player is a worthless aspiration to have. I suppose so is a lasting legacy. I expect good graphics and good gameplay because I want to see gaming tech become better. Accepting subpar results and filling your life with compromise doesn't help anyone. Even games like Doom (1995) look pretty damn good by today's standards when put in something like Z Doom. Why? Because effort was put into the Doom sprites and graphics.
Everquest had crap graphics, and I was more immersed in it than any MMO since. Including (and in most cases especially) modern AAA titles. I will say that there have been games in general that have immersed me more, but even then the level of the graphics were not the deciding factor. The only game that has made me repeatadly do a full on fear jump in my seat and always made me totally on edge was The Forest. And that was far less about the quality of the graphics, and much more so the quality the devs achieved in preventing my vision of the dangers until they were on top of me, and the timing of the sound effects. Those are gameplay designs independent of graphics and they are what made it memorable and immersive.
I've played multiple games that looked fantastic that I played for an hour and never picked up again. I'll play hours worth of Civ4 to this day, but you cant make me play Civ5 or 6 which look exponentially better. I just bought Endless Space (for $1 on Steam) and after 2 hours I doubt I'll fire it up again regardless of how good it looks. I still pick up Masters of Orion 1 somewhat regularly and will continue to over MOO 2 or 3 or Endless space any day. I still prefer Sim City 2000 over Sim City 4, though comparing the graphics is laughably in facor of 4. I've recently been playing Empyrion Galactic Survival, which has deep graphics flaws, especially the aliens and their animations that are on par with DOOM 2, but the gameplay is superb in my opion. Another good example is Factorio, which has pretty basic simplistic graphics, but it's complex and engaging. I love it.
The term "Lipstick on a pig" comes to mind. You can put all the lipstick on it you like to make it look pretty, but you're still kissing a pig.
Some games really knock it out of the park and excel at both graphics and gameplay (Skyrim is a good example). But when push comes to shove I'll play a game that plays well with fervor and will kick a game that plays like crap to the curb quickly. Conversely, I will play a game that looks great only until so long as the gameplay keeps me engaged, and the graphics have no impact on how long I stay.
Bazgrim said:It's like any relationship: in general, the looks are what attract you in the first place. But the content is what keeps you there.
When I look back on all my relationships I remember those that were, "she has a great personality" with fondness, and the ones that were "wow!" at first sight with contempt. With one exception. And I married her :)
Rogue said:Have to say, I didn't bother kickstarting Pantheon when it first launched because it simply looked terrible. Awful. I didn't care if it was Everquest 1 reskinned. I had zero interest and would rather play P99, I wanted to want it, but couldn't justify it. It wasn't until the first big stream after they improved the pre-pre-pre alpha, then they said graphics/animation improvement, then I backed. It's a tired and boring trope to say gameplay is everything. There is a minimum level of graphics that are required. I consider current Pantheon to be that minimum for an MMO. As of the December stream.
Ultima Online was a big deal back in the day, thing was, I chose EQ because it was 3d and the graphics were better. Glad I did, but graphics were a factor then and they are now.
I played both. I swtiched over fully to EQ once UO made changes I didn't agree with like Power Scrolls and stuff like that. Couldn't stand it basically after UO:R. Loved Pre-T@A, T2A and UO:R though.
Feyshtey said:Bazgrim said:It's like any relationship: in general, the looks are what attract you in the first place. But the content is what keeps you there.
When I look back on all my relationships I remember those that were, "she has a great personality" with fondness, and the ones that were "wow!" at first sight with contempt. With one exception. And I married her :)
Lol nice :) That's how it goes
I'd say the same pretty much goes for games haha