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 explaining that technically you absolutly positively can. I not only know this from a technical stanpoint I have actually seen it done in games.
The conversation was that it 'is not cost effective' and my point is 'cost effective' assumes you will not make MORE money from it.
This is really easy stuff guys
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.
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 explaining that technically you absolutly positively can. I not only know this from a technical stanpoint I have actually seen it done in games.
The conversation was that it 'is not cost effective' and my point is 'cost effective' assumes you will not make MORE money from it.
This is really easy stuff guys
If you have 100 people running about building a city brick by brick with really serious graphics, you think that this is not at all a problem? Delusional.
Gameplay all the way, leave the graphics to old farts/younglings/people with no brain themeparkers.
Leave the game play for the true mmorpg sandboxs that actually have depth and longevity, and doesn't hold your hand because they know retards don't play it.
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.
Wrong, Look at eve.
Horrible graphics, yet they have one of the best gameplays, and one of the few MMORPG that actually went up with time.
If you have 100 people running about building a city brick by brick with really serious graphics, you think that this is not at all a problem? Delusional.
Where have you seen that done in games?
I will repeat myself.
The only time graphics become and impact on game play is when the players change the phyiscal world or when there are many players on the screen at one time. That leaves open a TON of things that can be infintely deep with ZERO impact to the graphics performance. Crafting of items for one, skill system for another if the numbers you are crunching do not change the physcial graphics of the game there is no impact.
Now, games I have played need a benchmark comparision would you not agree? For my benchmark I am going to use EQ2. The reason I select EQ2 is because its for the most part a AAA MMO game that has great success and is not WoW so we can not worry about all the problems that causes in a conversation.
Games with more demanding graphics and deepeer game play that I personally have played.
Darkfall, Fallen Earth. Also happens to be the only two other games I have played...
Would you disagree that fallen earth and Darkfall are not more complex in game play and have more demanding graphics than EQ2? And (i might add) cheaper to make)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I dont understand why we cant have both.....the amount of time that goes into making most of these games, I would think they would spend more time on such an important feature. They dont make or break the game....but they definitely help if it looks good. Who really wants to say...."well the story is good, isnt that enough" or "gameplay is fun, but the games butt ugly"
Originally posted by SEANMCAD Originally posted by Cuathon If you have 100 people running about building a city brick by brick with really serious graphics, you think that this is not at all a problem? Delusional. Where have you seen that done in games?
I will repeat myself. The only time graphics become and impact on game play is when the players change the phyiscal world or when there are many players on the screen at one time. That leaves open a TON of things that can be infintely deep with ZERO impact to the graphics performance. Crafting of items for one, skill system for another if the numbers you are crunching do not change the physcial graphics of the game there is no impact. Now, games I have played need a benchmark comparision would you not agree? For my benchmark I am going to use EQ2. The reason I select EQ2 is because its for the most part a AAA MMO game that has great success and is not WoW so we can not worry about all the problems that causes in a conversation. Games with more demanding graphics and deepeer game play that I personally have played. Darkfall, Fallen Earth. Also happens to be the only two other games I have played... Would you disagree that fallen earth and Darkfall are not more complex in game play and have more demanding graphics than EQ2? And (i might add) cheaper to make)
You would have to allow for Darkfall and Fallen Earth being less complete games compared to EQ2. If Darkfall and Fallen Earth had EQ2's level of content, including raids and such, they would probably be as expensive or more expensive.
I don't know that Darkfall counts as 'more complex' though. The game itself is probably less complex than EQ2, even if the resulting game play for players is more complex because of other players. EQ2's mechanics are more complex, but Darkfall's game play is more complex. Which gives Darkfall a development advantage over EQ2.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I dont understand why we cant have both.....the amount of time that goes into making most of these games, I would think they would spend more time on such an important feature. They dont make or break the game....but they definitely help if it looks good. Who really wants to say...."well the story is good, isnt that enough" or "gameplay is fun, but the games butt ugly"
Because gaming companies have lowered the standard we ourselves are debating over the limited parameters they have created for us as 'options' instead of thinking outside of 'their' box. What is amazing to me is how so many gamers dont even see that. they get tunnel vision, the get used to what they are fed as the reality
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
As pointed out by others not too many companies are going to produce high graphic games that can't be played but on a minority of machines. Your other point is valid enough and I do believe there are plenty of games with excellent graphics and good game play, just not too many MMO's as it limits the amount of peeps that can be on screen without lagging. I believe the majority of peeps complain when they are instanced and can't have large raids or RvR/PvP engagements. I believe it is more technical problems that can't be overcome with our available technology for the average computer of today, and not shoddy/lack of funding for the majority of what you seek.
As pointed out by others not too many companies are going to produce high graphic games that can't be played but on a minority of machines. Your other point is valid enough and I do believe there are plenty of games with excellent graphics and good game play, just not too many MMO's as it limits the amount of peeps that can be on screen without lagging. I believe the majority of peeps complain when they are instanced and can't have large raids or RvR/PvP engagements. I believe it is more technical problems that can't be overcome with our available technology for the average computer of today, and not shoddy/lack of funding for the majority of what you seek.
good response but a few things to point out here.
1. High end single player games would also be limiting their possible population and yet it doesnt seem to be a factor in their choice of graphics.
2. as a programmer I can tell you that at least in the area of your stats, crafting mechanics etc one could create a system that is so complex that it would take decades to create and it would not have any impact at all on your load screen. Load screen and the like comes purely from graphics regardless of if you have a deep engine or not.
In all fairness I should say it is possible to have a rules engine so complex that it weights down you server and even your client BUT the graphics choice you make doesnt have an impact on that one way or the other. its only when your rules engine changes your graphics more than a number on a stat sheet or in your players bag that it becomes a question.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
As pointed out by others not too many companies are going to produce high graphic games that can't be played but on a minority of machines. Your other point is valid enough and I do believe there are plenty of games with excellent graphics and good game play, just not too many MMO's as it limits the amount of peeps that can be on screen without lagging. I believe the majority of peeps complain when they are instanced and can't have large raids or RvR/PvP engagements. I believe it is more technical problems that can't be overcome with our available technology for the average computer of today, and not shoddy/lack of funding for the majority of what you seek.
I dont think thats a point to really take into consideration anymore. They need to have multiple settings for multiple setups. I look back now and think EQ2 is kinda bland....but, look at all the settings they have to go from extremely detailed, to practically no texture at all. Theres a setting for just about every gamer in there. They even have saved presets for this and every tweak in between! This needs to be the new standard!
Well I want both too, but still don't think it is possible. If it were possible it would of been done at least once in all the new MMO's made in the last few years. You can't really believe every single release made had inferior coders and/or a lack of funding right? Although you can turn down graphics in most new MMo releases I have yet to see one that was able handle very large crowds if it had the excellent graphics to start with. Once again what is considered excellent graphics is up to each of us to decide, but I'm assuming your meaningsomething in the lines of AoC.
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.
Wrong, Look at eve.
Horrible graphics, yet they have one of the best gameplays, and one of the few MMORPG that actually went up with time.
Yup , look at EVE back in 2000. Do you seriously think it had anywhere near the graphical depth it has today? Think again , back in 2000 EVE's graphics were pretty BAD , but due to amazing gameplay and awesome PvP , no one noticed. When CCP saw that their subs numbers just kept rising they started on gifting us with graphics. So in the end , CCP are probably the only MMO devs out there that know how to create a MMO from A to Z.
I also like gameplay over graphic. Personally my best exemples are dwarf fortress for solo gaming and H&H for mmo. Both those game are stunning once you get into it, you definitly need dedication especially for DF but its well worth it. They are not all that good though, far from that.
I'll try the OP game if i find time, and tell you what i think.
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'll say the same thing as I said to the OP, I don't think the wane in DAoC's popularity was because of the graphics. I dunno exactly why I quit, I guess one day I had just had enough. For a lot I thnk it was changes that where implemented. Still one (if not the) favourites of all time.
Umm.. hell yes? The glory of gaming honestly was the snes maybe ps1 era, ever since graphics have been getting better gameplay has been getting worse and going further down the tubes. Only savior to gaming lately has been indie games, they focus on gameplay and not graphics and I find them alot more fun than most big devolopers games.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Umm.. hell yes? The glory of gaming honestly was the snes maybe ps1 era, ever since graphics have been getting better gameplay has been getting worse and going further down the tubes. Only savior to gaming lately has been indie games, they focus on gameplay and not graphics and I find them alot more fun than most big devolopers games.
agreed indie games are much better.
From a technical standpoint there really isnt much reason why AAA games can not also have great features of a indie game they just need to remove the head from the ...you know what...
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Umm.. hell yes? The glory of gaming honestly was the snes maybe ps1 era, ever since graphics have been getting better gameplay has been getting worse and going further down the tubes. Only savior to gaming lately has been indie games, they focus on gameplay and not graphics and I find them alot more fun than most big devolopers games.
Being indie is not an excuse not to spend on graphics. There are so many good games with good gameplay AND graphics out there. There is no need to settle for one over the other.
The good indie games look good (look good = good design/aesthetic .. and not necessarily high polygon count). Trine 2, Orc Must Die ... all look nice.
I am not obligated to buy anything that i think look ugly.
Comments
I am explaining that technically you absolutly positively can. I not only know this from a technical stanpoint I have actually seen it done in games.
The conversation was that it 'is not cost effective' and my point is 'cost effective' assumes you will not make MORE money from it.
This is really easy stuff guys
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If you have 100 people running about building a city brick by brick with really serious graphics, you think that this is not at all a problem? Delusional.
Where have you seen that done in games?
F**K Graphics.
Gameplay all the way, leave the graphics to old farts/younglings/people with no brain themeparkers.
Leave the game play for the true mmorpg sandboxs that actually have depth and longevity, and doesn't hold your hand because they know retards don't play it.
Wrong, Look at eve.
Horrible graphics, yet they have one of the best gameplays, and one of the few MMORPG that actually went up with time.
I will repeat myself.
The only time graphics become and impact on game play is when the players change the phyiscal world or when there are many players on the screen at one time. That leaves open a TON of things that can be infintely deep with ZERO impact to the graphics performance. Crafting of items for one, skill system for another if the numbers you are crunching do not change the physcial graphics of the game there is no impact.
Now, games I have played need a benchmark comparision would you not agree? For my benchmark I am going to use EQ2. The reason I select EQ2 is because its for the most part a AAA MMO game that has great success and is not WoW so we can not worry about all the problems that causes in a conversation.
Games with more demanding graphics and deepeer game play that I personally have played.
Darkfall, Fallen Earth. Also happens to be the only two other games I have played...
Would you disagree that fallen earth and Darkfall are not more complex in game play and have more demanding graphics than EQ2? And (i might add) cheaper to make)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I dont understand why we cant have both.....the amount of time that goes into making most of these games, I would think they would spend more time on such an important feature. They dont make or break the game....but they definitely help if it looks good. Who really wants to say...."well the story is good, isnt that enough" or "gameplay is fun, but the games butt ugly"
The only time graphics become and impact on game play is when the players change the phyiscal world or when there are many players on the screen at one time. That leaves open a TON of things that can be infintely deep with ZERO impact to the graphics performance. Crafting of items for one, skill system for another if the numbers you are crunching do not change the physcial graphics of the game there is no impact.
Now, games I have played need a benchmark comparision would you not agree? For my benchmark I am going to use EQ2. The reason I select EQ2 is because its for the most part a AAA MMO game that has great success and is not WoW so we can not worry about all the problems that causes in a conversation.
Games with more demanding graphics and deepeer game play that I personally have played.
Darkfall, Fallen Earth. Also happens to be the only two other games I have played...
Would you disagree that fallen earth and Darkfall are not more complex in game play and have more demanding graphics than EQ2? And (i might add) cheaper to make)
You would have to allow for Darkfall and Fallen Earth being less complete games compared to EQ2. If Darkfall and Fallen Earth had EQ2's level of content, including raids and such, they would probably be as expensive or more expensive.
I don't know that Darkfall counts as 'more complex' though. The game itself is probably less complex than EQ2, even if the resulting game play for players is more complex because of other players. EQ2's mechanics are more complex, but Darkfall's game play is more complex. Which gives Darkfall a development advantage over EQ2.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Because gaming companies have lowered the standard we ourselves are debating over the limited parameters they have created for us as 'options' instead of thinking outside of 'their' box. What is amazing to me is how so many gamers dont even see that. they get tunnel vision, the get used to what they are fed as the reality
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
As pointed out by others not too many companies are going to produce high graphic games that can't be played but on a minority of machines. Your other point is valid enough and I do believe there are plenty of games with excellent graphics and good game play, just not too many MMO's as it limits the amount of peeps that can be on screen without lagging. I believe the majority of peeps complain when they are instanced and can't have large raids or RvR/PvP engagements. I believe it is more technical problems that can't be overcome with our available technology for the average computer of today, and not shoddy/lack of funding for the majority of what you seek.
good response but a few things to point out here.
1. High end single player games would also be limiting their possible population and yet it doesnt seem to be a factor in their choice of graphics.
2. as a programmer I can tell you that at least in the area of your stats, crafting mechanics etc one could create a system that is so complex that it would take decades to create and it would not have any impact at all on your load screen. Load screen and the like comes purely from graphics regardless of if you have a deep engine or not.
In all fairness I should say it is possible to have a rules engine so complex that it weights down you server and even your client BUT the graphics choice you make doesnt have an impact on that one way or the other. its only when your rules engine changes your graphics more than a number on a stat sheet or in your players bag that it becomes a question.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
No, I want both.
I dont think thats a point to really take into consideration anymore. They need to have multiple settings for multiple setups. I look back now and think EQ2 is kinda bland....but, look at all the settings they have to go from extremely detailed, to practically no texture at all. Theres a setting for just about every gamer in there. They even have saved presets for this and every tweak in between! This needs to be the new standard!
Well I want both too, but still don't think it is possible. If it were possible it would of been done at least once in all the new MMO's made in the last few years. You can't really believe every single release made had inferior coders and/or a lack of funding right? Although you can turn down graphics in most new MMo releases I have yet to see one that was able handle very large crowds if it had the excellent graphics to start with. Once again what is considered excellent graphics is up to each of us to decide, but I'm assuming your meaningsomething in the lines of AoC.
Tired of developers sacrificing graphics so like with SWTOR, you don't even have an option for hi rez textures.
Even more tired of people who don't upgrade their pc's for 5+ years and beetch cause they can't play the newest games.
Skyrim + Ultima Online = win
I want both. Call me crazy....
##Best SWTOR of 2011
Posted by I_Return - SWTOR - "Forget the UI the characters and all ofhe nitpicking bullshit" "Greatest MMO Ever Created"
##Fail Thread Title of 2011
Originally posted by daveospice
"this game looks like crap?"
Yup , look at EVE back in 2000. Do you seriously think it had anywhere near the graphical depth it has today? Think again , back in 2000 EVE's graphics were pretty BAD , but due to amazing gameplay and awesome PvP , no one noticed. When CCP saw that their subs numbers just kept rising they started on gifting us with graphics. So in the end , CCP are probably the only MMO devs out there that know how to create a MMO from A to Z.
I also like gameplay over graphic. Personally my best exemples are dwarf fortress for solo gaming and H&H for mmo. Both those game are stunning once you get into it, you definitly need dedication especially for DF but its well worth it. They are not all that good though, far from that.
I'll try the OP game if i find time, and tell you what i think.
I'll say the same thing as I said to the OP, I don't think the wane in DAoC's popularity was because of the graphics. I dunno exactly why I quit, I guess one day I had just had enough. For a lot I thnk it was changes that where implemented. Still one (if not the) favourites of all time.
Umm.. hell yes? The glory of gaming honestly was the snes maybe ps1 era, ever since graphics have been getting better gameplay has been getting worse and going further down the tubes. Only savior to gaming lately has been indie games, they focus on gameplay and not graphics and I find them alot more fun than most big devolopers games.
Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:
A. Proven right (if something bad happens)
or
B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)
Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!
agreed indie games are much better.
From a technical standpoint there really isnt much reason why AAA games can not also have great features of a indie game they just need to remove the head from the ...you know what...
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Gamers are like women, they don't know what they want. As for gamers who are women, let's not get into that...
Being indie is not an excuse not to spend on graphics. There are so many good games with good gameplay AND graphics out there. There is no need to settle for one over the other.
The good indie games look good (look good = good design/aesthetic .. and not necessarily high polygon count). Trine 2, Orc Must Die ... all look nice.
I am not obligated to buy anything that i think look ugly.