No. Not hellbent. Of course what you say is possible. I even gave an example: Skyrim. But it's naive to say that we don't have both because developers are lazy (and of course, you are the ONLY hard working programmer in the business...ammiright?)
By and large we don't have both because of these realities: 1) Economics. 2). Dearth of creativity.
An MMO like SWTOR that's spent $150 million is going to want to get its investment back. The safest way to do that is to follow a proven gameplay formula.
I also gave you an historical account of Elder Scrolls development, and why Skyrim NOW has both good gameplay and awesome graphics. It began with good gameplay in Daggerfall -- the graphics were so-so...it was that way, because they couldn't afford the infrastructure of artists at that time. But after their innovative gameplay was proven to be awesomely fun, and they made tons of cash, they were able to invest in hiring artists to improve the graphics -- the pinnical of which we see today in Skyrim.
I fully suspect that a game like Minecraft will someday have oustanding graphics. And instead of blocks, you'll have procedurally drawn pixels which will be manipulated on a grand scale. Imagine, for example, a Minecraft style game with Skyrim graphics? You mine into the side of a cliff and it actually LOOKS like you're mining into the side of a cliff. But that sort of marriage is years off.
when I mean 'developers' I mean the company actual developers. Its the company that make 'lazy' decisions based on how much money they can make with the least amount of effort.
Bottom line is, business of giving the customer the least amount as possible its technically TOTALLY possible to have both.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
No. Not hellbent. Of course what you say is possible. I even gave an example: Skyrim. But it's naive to say that we don't have both because developers are lazy (and of course, you are the ONLY hard working programmer in the business...ammiright?)
By and large we don't have both because of these realities: 1) Economics. 2). Dearth of creativity.
An MMO like SWTOR that's spent $150 million is going to want to get its investment back. The safest way to do that is to follow a proven gameplay formula.
I also gave you an historical account of Elder Scrolls development, and why Skyrim NOW has both good gameplay and awesome graphics. It began with good gameplay in Daggerfall -- the graphics were so-so...it was that way, because they couldn't afford the infrastructure of artists at that time. But after their innovative gameplay was proven to be awesomely fun, and they made tons of cash, they were able to invest in hiring artists to improve the graphics -- the pinnical of which we see today in Skyrim.
I fully suspect that a game like Minecraft will someday have oustanding graphics. And instead of blocks, you'll have procedurally drawn pixels which will be manipulated on a grand scale. Imagine, for example, a Minecraft style game with Skyrim graphics? You mine into the side of a cliff and it actually LOOKS like you're mining into the side of a cliff. But that sort of marriage is years off.
when I mean 'developers' I mean the company actual developers. Its the company that make 'lazy' decisions based on how much money they can make with the least amount of effort.
Bottom line is, business of giving the customer the least amount as possible its technically TOTALLY possible to have both.
And so your reasoning as to WHY this 'totally possible' scenario doesn't exist more is because companies are lazy....
And so your reasoning as to WHY this 'totally possible' scenario doesn't exist more is because companies are lazy....
/rolleyes
exactly.
have you ever tried explaining to a suit why they need to spend more money on their development project so that they can save or make more money later? trust me its a hard sell.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
And so your reasoning as to WHY this 'totally possible' scenario doesn't exist more is because companies are lazy....
/rolleyes
exactly.
have you ever tried explaining to a suit why they need to spend more money on their development project so that they can save or make more money later? trust me its a hard sell.
By that reasoning then, Bethesda has the only non-lazy developers in the industry.
Which is ridiculous.
Again the laziness meme regarding developers is naive at best, and is itself a sort of lazy intellectual explanation, especially when more obvious, and proven, reasons exist. I've already given evidence to that (which you seem hellbent -- to use your words -- on ignoring).
I don't really think that is the case for most producers. It also depends on what we value as good graphics compared to good game play, and each of us has our own opinions on that. I still think it is technically impossible to have ultra graphics and large scale RvR warfare. Also take into account the differences in each users computer setups and you can see what a nightmare it becomes. I've played many MMo's and when the screen lights up with people or stuff and their combat effects the gameplay can certainly or most likely comes to a stall. I just think it is unrealistic to want the best of both worlds when it is technically not feasible.
And so your reasoning as to WHY this 'totally possible' scenario doesn't exist more is because companies are lazy....
/rolleyes
exactly.
have you ever tried explaining to a suit why they need to spend more money on their development project so that they can save or make more money later? trust me its a hard sell.
By that reasoning then, Bethesda has the only non-lazy developers in the industry.
Which is ridiculous.
Again the laziness meme regarding developers is naive at best, and is itself a sort of lazy intellectual explanation, especially when more obvious, and proven, reasons exist. I've already given evidence to that (which you seem hellbent -- to use your words -- on ignoring).
1. comparing MMOs to single player games EVER is not a good idea.
2. having said that, yes they are. Did you know that each chapter of the edler scrolls series has a smaller and smaller world? Each time its out its top of the line graphics but also each time the world is smaller. Why do you think that is? its...you got it! cost effective.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Here's another example I've thought of to prove my point.
Guitar Hero. When it was first released, it had mostly cover bands performing the songs. Why is that? Because the developers were lazy? LOL. No. It was because the cost of paying for the actual bands to perform the songs, or licensing them, was too expensive.
At least too expensive on an untried, untested gameplay mechanic that required you to master pseudo-guitar skills. On top of that, the game required you to purchase expensive controllers/periphrials.
So were the developers lazy? Hell no. Not by a long shot.
But guess what. The gameplay proved to be a fantastic hit. So then the developers could afford to actually pay the real bands to perform their own songs (the equivelant of paying artists to create good graphics).
Here's another example I've thought of to prove my point.
Guitar Hero. When it was first released, it had mostly cover bands performing the songs. Why is that? Because the developers were lazy? LOL. No. It was because the cost of paying for the actual bands to perform the songs, or licensing them, was too expensive.
At least too expensive on an untried, untested gameplay mechanic that required you to master pseudo-guitar skills. On top of that, the game required you to purchase expensive controllers/periphrials.
So were the developers lazy? Hell no. Not by a long shot.
But guess what. The gameplay proved to be a fantastic hit. So then the developers could afford to actually pay the real bands to perform their own songs (the equivelant of paying artists to create good graphics).
Here's another example I've thought of to prove my point.
Guitar Hero. When it was first released, it had mostly cover bands performing the songs. Why is that? Because the developers were lazy? LOL. No. It was because the cost of paying for the actual bands to perform the songs, or licensing them, was too expensive.
At least too expensive on an untried, untested gameplay mechanic that required you to master pseudo-guitar skills. On top of that, the game required you to purchase expensive controllers/periphrials.
So were the developers lazy? Hell no. Not by a long shot.
But guess what. The gameplay proved to be a fantastic hit. So then the developers could afford to actually pay the real bands to perform their own songs (the equivelant of paying artists to create good graphics).
The lazy meme is just plain stupid.
just replace the word 'lazy' with 'cost effective pleae.
1. i dont mean developers who do the work are lazy I mean the business suits who make the decisions are not willing to take a risk and go for cost effective..aka...lazy but for the purposes of this conversation just replace 'lazy' with 'cost effiective so we can get back on track...thanks.
2. another example, Morrowind was mega huge world with top of the line graphics, each releases after that was a smaller world. why? its cheaper to make great graphics for a smaller world than for a larger one. So is that being 'cost effiective' or is that being 'lazy'? you tell me.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
No, but I don't want graphics over gameplay, either. There should be a happy medium. I think most gamers can agree with that. Even if you don't "need" nice graphics to enjoy your game, I don't know anyone who would turn them down for a game they already know to be fun.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
It's just one of those default meme answers, a reflex.
I don't think there's any such thing as a "lazy dev". Lack of budget, yas. Lack of time, always. Deadlines, you bet.
But we've seen plenty of examples of developers talking after-the-fact about how much better a job they could have done on project X, given a free leash.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
And so your reasoning as to WHY this 'totally possible' scenario doesn't exist more is because companies are lazy....
/rolleyes
exactly.
have you ever tried explaining to a suit why they need to spend more money on their development project so that they can save or make more money later? trust me its a hard sell.
By that reasoning then, Bethesda has the only non-lazy developers in the industry.
Which is ridiculous.
Again the laziness meme regarding developers is naive at best, and is itself a sort of lazy intellectual explanation, especially when more obvious, and proven, reasons exist. I've already given evidence to that (which you seem hellbent -- to use your words -- on ignoring).
1. comparing MMOs to single player games EVER is not a good idea.
2. having said that, yes they are. Did you know that each chapter of the edler scrolls series has a smaller and smaller world? Each time its out its top of the line graphics but also each time the world is smaller. Why do you think that is? its...you got it! cost effective.
But cost effective =/ laziness. Cost effective = economics.
As far as Skyrim is concerned, the actual size of the world seems to have limited impact on the actual GAME PLAY.
And yes, I WILL compare MMOs to a single player game when the same forces are at work in limiting their implementation. Namely, 1) economic. 2). Creativity.
Even if you don't "need" nice graphics to enjoy your game, I don't know anyone who would turn them down for a game they already know to be fun.
(MUDs)
The graphics really, really don't have to be there. But some people do refuse to play without them, no doubt. And given a few more years, there won't be anyone left who remembers games without graphics.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
But cost effective =/ laziness. Cost effective = economics.
As far as Skyrim is concerned, the actual size of the world seems to have limited impact on the actual GAME PLAY.
And yes, I WILL compare MMOs to a single player game when the same forces are at work in limiting their implementation. Namely, 1) economic. 2). Creativity.
cost effective = thus it is most cost effective to create a game with a button that just says you win.
Clearly there is a point where the return on investment is judged wouldnt you agree? so here is the question, would high end graphic game with deep game play create more reveune? there is the root of the question now isnt? because technically it IS possible but what you are implying is that people would not be all that much intrested. I think that is asine.
and as far as Skyrim is concerned, morrowind is one my favorite games ever mostly because of the size of the game, I have not and will not buy Skyrim because Obviolon was a disapointment to me IN THE ACTUAL GAME PLAY
compare single player games with MMOs all you want I dont take such comparisions at all seriously. its like asking 'gee why cant wow be like crysis'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
so here is the question, would high end graphic game with deep game play create more reveune?
Yes, and no? You can argue that Crysis would have made more money with lower system requirements, for example, just by selling twice as many boxes. Vanguard certainly would have sold more copies if they didn't 'overshoot' the average machine on opening day.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
so here is the question, would high end graphic game with deep game play create more reveune?
Yes, and no? You can argue that Crysis would have made more money with lower system requirements, for example, just by selling twice as many boxes. Vanguard certainly would have sold more copies if they didn't 'overshoot' the average machine on opening day.
EXACTLY and what the group is implying here and I dont think they are even aware of it is that a high end graphics game with good depth would not bring in more reveue. The impilcation is that it needs to either be low end graphics with good depth or high end graphics with zero depth but that there isnt a market place for both.
i think that is silly talk. I think there is demand for both.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
i think that is silly talk. I think there is demand for both.
But you said better income from higher-end graphics--and in at least a few cases, the opposite was true.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
I am sure it's probably been mentioned, and I have never even played it, but I would say that Minecraft is absolute proof that people want gameplay over graphics.
I don't think this is even open for debate anymore.
I am sure it's probably been mentioned, and I have never even played it, but I would say that Minecraft is absolute proof that people want gameplay over graphics.
I don't think this is even open for debate anymore.
Wrong, Look at Dark Age of Camelot.
Any experienced person who knows a thing or two about MMOs will say the DAoC has the BEST PvP system of any mmo out right now by far. And the PvE was fantastic also... but the graphic engine is slacking and it has a terrible population because of how far behind it is in graphics, yet the gameplay is still top shelf.
I really do perfer gameplay to graphics, but with that said I need a level of graphics. Basicly while I don't need skyrim or cyrsis, when I looking at a game it has to be pretty/organic enough that I wouldn't feel that playing it for more then a couple of hours would make my eyes bleed.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
i think that is silly talk. I think there is demand for both.
But you said better income from higher-end graphics--and in at least a few cases, the opposite was true.
no..better income from higher end graphics WITH deep game play.
What others are implying here is that people do NOT want high end graphics WITH deep game play that there is only a market for one or the other
Do you agree with that implication?
It might be helpful if you would stop lying all the time. What people here are implying is that you can't have state of the art graphics in a sandbox MMO and also complex sandbox features. No one doesn't WANT both.
I am sure it's probably been mentioned, and I have never even played it, but I would say that Minecraft is absolute proof that people want gameplay over graphics.
I don't think this is even open for debate anymore.
from reading this string and listening to first hand accounts of peoples view I am the only one who actually likes both and would perfer depth and graphics inside the game. However the rule of the day is that there are not enough people like me to justify doing that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
when I mean 'developers' I mean the company actual developers. Its the company that make 'lazy' decisions based on how much money they can make with the least amount of effort.
Bottom line is, business of giving the customer the least amount as possible its technically TOTALLY possible to have both.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
And so your reasoning as to WHY this 'totally possible' scenario doesn't exist more is because companies are lazy....
/rolleyes
exactly.
have you ever tried explaining to a suit why they need to spend more money on their development project so that they can save or make more money later? trust me its a hard sell.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
By that reasoning then, Bethesda has the only non-lazy developers in the industry.
Which is ridiculous.
Again the laziness meme regarding developers is naive at best, and is itself a sort of lazy intellectual explanation, especially when more obvious, and proven, reasons exist. I've already given evidence to that (which you seem hellbent -- to use your words -- on ignoring).
I don't really think that is the case for most producers. It also depends on what we value as good graphics compared to good game play, and each of us has our own opinions on that. I still think it is technically impossible to have ultra graphics and large scale RvR warfare. Also take into account the differences in each users computer setups and you can see what a nightmare it becomes. I've played many MMo's and when the screen lights up with people or stuff and their combat effects the gameplay can certainly or most likely comes to a stall. I just think it is unrealistic to want the best of both worlds when it is technically not feasible.
1. comparing MMOs to single player games EVER is not a good idea.
2. having said that, yes they are. Did you know that each chapter of the edler scrolls series has a smaller and smaller world? Each time its out its top of the line graphics but also each time the world is smaller. Why do you think that is? its...you got it! cost effective.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Here's another example I've thought of to prove my point.
Guitar Hero. When it was first released, it had mostly cover bands performing the songs. Why is that? Because the developers were lazy? LOL. No. It was because the cost of paying for the actual bands to perform the songs, or licensing them, was too expensive.
At least too expensive on an untried, untested gameplay mechanic that required you to master pseudo-guitar skills. On top of that, the game required you to purchase expensive controllers/periphrials.
So were the developers lazy? Hell no. Not by a long shot.
But guess what. The gameplay proved to be a fantastic hit. So then the developers could afford to actually pay the real bands to perform their own songs (the equivelant of paying artists to create good graphics).
The lazy meme is just plain stupid.
Amen.
just replace the word 'lazy' with 'cost effective pleae.
1. i dont mean developers who do the work are lazy I mean the business suits who make the decisions are not willing to take a risk and go for cost effective..aka...lazy but for the purposes of this conversation just replace 'lazy' with 'cost effiective so we can get back on track...thanks.
2. another example, Morrowind was mega huge world with top of the line graphics, each releases after that was a smaller world. why? its cheaper to make great graphics for a smaller world than for a larger one. So is that being 'cost effiective' or is that being 'lazy'? you tell me.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
No, but I don't want graphics over gameplay, either. There should be a happy medium. I think most gamers can agree with that. Even if you don't "need" nice graphics to enjoy your game, I don't know anyone who would turn them down for a game they already know to be fun.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
It's just one of those default meme answers, a reflex.
I don't think there's any such thing as a "lazy dev". Lack of budget, yas. Lack of time, always. Deadlines, you bet.
But we've seen plenty of examples of developers talking after-the-fact about how much better a job they could have done on project X, given a free leash.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
But cost effective =/ laziness. Cost effective = economics.
As far as Skyrim is concerned, the actual size of the world seems to have limited impact on the actual GAME PLAY.
And yes, I WILL compare MMOs to a single player game when the same forces are at work in limiting their implementation. Namely, 1) economic. 2). Creativity.
(MUDs)
The graphics really, really don't have to be there. But some people do refuse to play without them, no doubt. And given a few more years, there won't be anyone left who remembers games without graphics.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Well, I'm glad you've finally come around to my point of view. See, was that so hard?
(even though lazy is not synonomous with cost effective, I'll take that as a consession)
cost effective = thus it is most cost effective to create a game with a button that just says you win.
Clearly there is a point where the return on investment is judged wouldnt you agree? so here is the question, would high end graphic game with deep game play create more reveune? there is the root of the question now isnt? because technically it IS possible but what you are implying is that people would not be all that much intrested. I think that is asine.
and as far as Skyrim is concerned, morrowind is one my favorite games ever mostly because of the size of the game, I have not and will not buy Skyrim because Obviolon was a disapointment to me IN THE ACTUAL GAME PLAY
compare single player games with MMOs all you want I dont take such comparisions at all seriously. its like asking 'gee why cant wow be like crysis'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Yes, and no? You can argue that Crysis would have made more money with lower system requirements, for example, just by selling twice as many boxes. Vanguard certainly would have sold more copies if they didn't 'overshoot' the average machine on opening day.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
EXACTLY and what the group is implying here and I dont think they are even aware of it is that a high end graphics game with good depth would not bring in more reveue. The impilcation is that it needs to either be low end graphics with good depth or high end graphics with zero depth but that there isnt a market place for both.
i think that is silly talk. I think there is demand for both.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But you said better income from higher-end graphics--and in at least a few cases, the opposite was true.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
no..better income from higher end graphics WITH deep game play.
What others are implying here is that people do NOT want high end graphics WITH deep game play that there is only a market for one or the other
Do you agree with that implication?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
gameplay over grafix? hmm ya ...id take a game with daoc grafix with great gameplay..but id still play daoc anyways heh!
I am sure it's probably been mentioned, and I have never even played it, but I would say that Minecraft is absolute proof that people want gameplay over graphics.
I don't think this is even open for debate anymore.
Wrong, Look at Dark Age of Camelot.
Any experienced person who knows a thing or two about MMOs will say the DAoC has the BEST PvP system of any mmo out right now by far. And the PvE was fantastic also... but the graphic engine is slacking and it has a terrible population because of how far behind it is in graphics, yet the gameplay is still top shelf.
I really do perfer gameplay to graphics, but with that said I need a level of graphics. Basicly while I don't need skyrim or cyrsis, when I looking at a game it has to be pretty/organic enough that I wouldn't feel that playing it for more then a couple of hours would make my eyes bleed.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
It might be helpful if you would stop lying all the time. What people here are implying is that you can't have state of the art graphics in a sandbox MMO and also complex sandbox features. No one doesn't WANT both.
from reading this string and listening to first hand accounts of peoples view I am the only one who actually likes both and would perfer depth and graphics inside the game. However the rule of the day is that there are not enough people like me to justify doing that.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me