Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Graphics don't make for a successful MMO
Satarious
Member UncommonPosts: 1,073
If it did, Funcom would be the biggest and richest producer of MMO games rather than Blizzard. Funcom knows how to produce fantastic graphics. They're just not very effective at pulling off the FUN in funcom when it comes to gameplay and overall quality experience. People need to seriously prioritize what they're looking for in a great MMO. Imho, it should be listed as follows in order:
1) fantastic gameplay (beginning to end-game)
2) Superior, overall quality (well polished with few bugs)
3) Innovative gameplay that distinguishes it from the others in the mmo space (the full vo mechanic with everything else tied to it, in Bioware's case)
.
.
.
.
99) Graphics
If graphics were at the top of my list, I would be a total fanboi of Funcom and go to all their conventions and crap on all the other mmos and think they are the greatest thing evah since sliced bread!!!
Comments
Would combat fall in the line of gameplay? Gameplay is an awfully broad category.
A voice-acted story does not qualify for "gameplay". Especially when one is talking about an MMO.
I agree with the general sentiment of your post even though there are some glaring fallacies.
AoC "failed" for a number of different reasons that have nothing to do with how it looks. Put simply, the game was rushed and as a result, had a long litany of bugs, and unfinished content.
It is pretty clear that a good launch can make, or break an MMO. It's what essentially set RIFT apart from, say War or Aion.
If you hope the best for SWTOR to succeed then you better hope that EA keeps it's grubby paws off BioWare and does not force the devs to rush the game.
PS. There is a difference between graphical quality and game aesthetic. I, like numerous others, dislike the art choice of SWTOR, not it's graphics.
PPS. Voice-acted singleplayer story is not new to MMO genre. The scale in which BiOWare is executing it is unprecedented but everything suggests it will be one of their SRPGs with multiplayer components.
PPPS. AoC combat and gameplay is more innovative than SWTOR's - from what we have been told about SWTOR combat and gameplay anyway.
PPPPS. NB. Moderators: I make the comparisons because OP's post practically begs them, and not because I have some agenda.
"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
I need to take this advice more.
That was the exact point he made in the OP. If it was about looks, then he would have enjoyed Conan, since the game looked very good visually. His point is that it's more important to have good gameplay and polish, which is why AoC failed.
But what happens to a game if it sucks and it looks bad too?
Lol.
AoC had good gameplay.
It just wasn't a finished game~
To play the "predict the future game": IMO future SWTOR fans should be wary as the game does lack some features at launch which definitely hint that the game is not in 100% tip-top shape. Macros/Scripts for instance, interactive world, Vanity tab, etc.
"Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
I need to take this advice more.
I was thinking something similar while playing Rogue the other day. All graphics add for me is the need to occasionally spend money on better computer parts.
With that said, I wouldn't put it at 99. :P
Graphics do add a certain amount of immersion, humor, dramatic effect, etc. So while I wouldn't want a game that requires anything more than a $400 computer, I wouldn't want Nintendo 64 era graphics.
Sarcasm is not a crime!
I don't know about you guy's, but I just upgraded my computer a few months ago. They dam well better give me (all of the above) and the graphics as well.
This shit an't cheap and I want to get my monies worth ;p
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
AoC was a buggy mess at launch. Call me crazy, but that kind of stuff affects how I'm going to view the gameplay. Nothing SWTOR lacks at launch is going to have too much of a bearing on how much will be added to the game in upcoming patches. They've obviously left some stuff out because they wanted to make sure they delivered a smooth, polished product at launch, which they will. Macros/Scripts, and most likely add-ons will be added in an upcoming patch. BioWare has said this is high on their list. I'm not sure what you mean by "interactive world." Immersive? Fully explorable? Wide open? It's all of those things. And the vanity tab is an overrated feature in a game that allows you to mod your gear anyway. However, if the players want it, BioWare will give them that as well.
Future SWTOR fans shouldn't have any worries from what I can gather. The only true test for SWTOR will be how they develop the endgame content. Can they keep players interested enough at max level and provide more than just gear grinds through raids? That will be the big question.
To clarify, when I mention "Full VO", it's an umbrella that covers all the other aspects that go with it such as "branching story lines", etc. that Bioware has implemented in this game.
Second, your definition of "gameplay" is far too narrow. Gameplay is a very broad concept that is composed of individual game mechanic components. I think what you're focusing on is the "combat" game mechanics portion of gameplay. And while that may be similar to WoW, the Full VO mechanic (with all its sub components such as branching stories, etc) is very much unique from WoW and other MMOs. To me, the "story and lore" aspect of WoW is just dead and not very interesting. Which is why people, for the most part, just ignore it in favor of phat lewts and/or level/rank status. Bioware is breathing life back into the story and lore with this mmo, I believe. It's bringing it back from the dead, even though it was never really alive in MMOs to begin with.
It sounds like you're one of those types who puts a premium on the combat mechanics and animations, etc. Which is fine, but that's just like, your opinion, man.
In case you didn't notice SWTORs graphics aren't even that good. Or maybe that is what you were trying to say?
I wouldn't put graphics at 99 but generally I understand what the OP is saying. There are 3 months left (well 2+ with early access) for all sort of neato changes to what we are seeing. In the end, some people will be happy, some won't. *shrug*
I would like to think "better" graphics can enhance a games appeal and immersion.I'm really really tired of dumbing down(yes thats an unfair term...but no less unfair than the OP's unfair de-linking of graphics to game play enhancement).
I feel with some games like I am being time warped back to the early 1900's when all auto's manufactured were black....just because. Now if there's a lag issue with a large number of players in an area....that would be a reason.But I haven't heard that rationale.
Did the film makers of STAR WARS dumb down their graphics on the movie screen ?
I disagree, not to say they are state of the art, only that they are still none the less well done.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If an MMO goes too high end it fails like APB. I am getting sick of games discarding gameplay in favour of graphics. And the sooner the 3D fad dies a death the better. Thats my rant for the day finished.
Although I do agree that graphics do not make the game. Graphic style does however have a tremendous impact on the playability, for myself at least.
I would much rather play this game ................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y77BsaCoOMk&feature=related
than this game .............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGWoH9PKqbE&feature=related
given the choice of course.
From a 3D standpoint, both are very well done. Great modeling, animations and rendering of the scenes. One however IMO is geared towards children and the other is geared toward an older audience. It's the style of the art that seperates this. There are games currently out that I found unable to play due to the art style. I just couldn't get past the cartoon look of ........ everything.
Meh ..... it all just comes down to personal opinion now doesn't it. I do like my shiny graphics.
~Hairysun
http://www.straightdope.com/
Is it just me or is there no differerence between these two videos? O_o
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. By 3D I meant the stupid glasses and massively overpriced TV's/ monitors. Not old school 3D, I take that as a given in any decent MMO since the early noughties.
It's just you. You should probably go get your eyes checked.
<childish, provocative and highly speculative banner about your favorite game goes here>
I don't know, I thought the second one was more "cartoony" than the first one, but not to the point it would upset me.
Actually it isn't ...... Initially I had the links pointing to exactly the same video. I corrected it several minutes after I posted it.
Lol ....
~Hairysun
http://www.straightdope.com/
Medal
The OP is correct in his sentiment. Games that focus on top of the line graphics sacrifice manpower and resources that could be better used to address elements that actually make the gameplay fun. Here are some other examples besides AoC:
1. SWG - When the game first came out, it had some of the best graphics in the industry - and remarkably few bugs graphic-wise. However, it had almost no quest content (Jabba's Palace was merely a clay art museum without anything to do besides come an look). It had HUGE balance issues. My combat medic could wipe out a room full of imps with poison and then disease them to the point that they had 1 hit point when they respawned. My friend could pistol whip any mob to death no matter the size. There was no Z-axis movement consideration so you instantly ran from the bottom of a cliff to the top in a split second. And, finally, there was no fricken story for the first few months. You just kinda created your character and hung out. Granted, it is a sandbox MMO, but it's also Star Wars... story has to fit in there somewhere.
2. Vanguard - Awesome graphics, seemless worlds, beautiful landscape, best crafting since SWG. WORST MMO LAUNCH IN HISTORY. So many bugs that powerhouse computers had a hard time running the game well enough to make it enjoyable. Nowadays, everyone is surprised that it's still around. I keep wondering why? Do some of the coders have to work off their life-debt to Sony. Works alot better but the server is almost empty. Too bad.
3. Vanilla FFXIV (Have not returned to see if it has improved) - Great graphics, high expectations. Worst GUI in history, pointless gameplay, no commerce whatsoever, quests that were mind-numbingly repetitive. I loved FFXI. This was a huge disappointment.
What do all of these games have in common? They spent way too much of their budget ramping up the appearance of their game rather than the playability. One reviewer actually said "The best thing you can say about FFXIV is that it has a nice intro movie."
Why does this happen? I think it's an issue of misunderstanding the logisitics of undertaking a project as big as an MMO. Here's a quote from Georg Zoeller, one of the lead developers on SWTOR from the September 23, 2011 interview with Gamasutra (emphasis mine):
What advice would you offer developers tasked with generating content for an MMO?
First: Continuously invest in your tools. Make sure you keep on top of which tools are actually used for content creation, how many people rely on them, how stable they are, and where time is going when users interact with those tools.
With good metrics about use and stability of mission critical tools on your project comes the ability to understand return of investment. For instance, "If we speed up the pathfinding generation, we can save 250 man hours over the next four months, but if we fix this crash, we're avoiding 340 man hours of downtime over the next week."
Second: Test early and extensively. Test with both external testers and with automation software.
We all understand the benefits of human beta testers -- in addition to a great QA department -- and how talented they can be in finding all the things you didn't and how they keep surprising you by turning up the most obscure issues.
Additionally, automated testing and asset validation greatly complements those manual testing efforts by detecting subtle changes. For example, you might say, "The bot used to complete this quest in 2:20 minutes and only died here in 1/20 runs; now we're up to 2:50 and a 1 in 10 death rate. Something changed, QA investigate!" These processes also guard against regression and repetition of previous mistakes.
Every time we discover a problematic asset on Star Wars: The Old Republic, we investigate if a so-called "speed trap" should be created, an automated test of game assets that detects the condition -- exposing all problems of the same type -- and prevents it from happening in the future.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/37413/GDC_Online_Speaker_Spotlight_BioWares_Zoeller_On_Iterative_MMO_Content.php
When a developer invests heavily into the graphical component in a game, buying top of the line graphics engines to run their product the risk is that there will be considerable bugs and errors due to the fact that it is mostly untested technology. Ironing out some of these issues may be a small fix, but when you have several thousand errors, the time adds up. Also, it's easier to rely on older, less hardware intensive engines because they have likely been around for a long time, meaning that issues with the engines are knowable or have already been addressed. Additionally, developers will want to modify the existing engine as much as possible to their own designs, possibly opening up new bugs and errors that previously were not experienced.
So what happens? The developer ends up spending a marjority of their time fixing the graphics portion of their game, but neglecting the gameplay portions. From a developer stand-point, that might make sense if they feel that they can't fix the graphical problem when they ship the product. From a player stand-point, it friggen sucks because you end up playing a game that might look nice but is missing huge elements of actual gameplay. The game comes out, and it's missing half the things that would have made it fun (PVP balance, Commerce, Crafting, Social Elements, etc).
But.. hey... at least it looks nice.
I thought he was just being a dick. Sorry, Urvan.
<childish, provocative and highly speculative banner about your favorite game goes here>
No, but bad graphics prevent people from playing games.
well actually i dont quite agree with this - 95% of players will choose game with nice graphics and average gameplay over a game with deep, great gameplay but bad (or even average) graphics
no, it doesnt - graphics doesnt PREVENT anything (except maybe in some cases some pixel hunting
- those players are just too shallow to play them.