Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
(Graphics Sells Boxes, Game Play keeps players) (Graphics sacrifice Gameplay, & Gameplay Sacrifice G
MMOExposed
Member RarePosts: 7,400
Graphics sells boxes
&
Gameplay keeps players
Graphics Sacrifice Gameplay
&
Gameplay Sacrifice Graphics
I seen mmorpg, come out, with a strong focus on Graphics as their main selling point. But really, has this ever been a possitive thing to the MMORPG genre?
*AoC:
this game for example, had to sacrifice the Persistent Seamless world, for Load Screen zones, because of the graaphics overload.
*AION:
This game has to use the Click to move combat, and slugish controls do to the over load on graphics.
Should New MMO continue to focus of Graphics as a major selling point, or should gameplay take the lead once again as the main selling point?
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
Comments
The controls aren't due to the graphics mate. NC Soft made Aion. It's in a very similar vein to Lineage, and Lineage has click to move combat as well. It's just the style the games were made in, not what limitations they were made with.
I think it should be both. Dev's don't have to chose one or the either, they just do.
But if one had to be picked, I'm sure the majority would pick gameplay. But that doesn't mean graphics has to be sacrificed...
its really a no brainer here, without great gameplay its just like watching a cinematic.
If you think AION is on the high end of MMO graphics you may need to upgrade your computer. They do more than just run MS Word these days.
Alltern8 Blog | Star Wars Space Combat and The Old Republic | Cryptic Studios - A Pre Post-Mortem | Klingon Preview, STO's Monster Play
They are not mutually exclusive. You can have both.
Drop the next-gen marketing and people will argue if the game itself has merit.
Listen I don't like Aion, but it was the smoothest mmo to be released post WoW. Did you even play the game? calling it sluggish? And point and click really?
Anyways I do agree with your general point that a lot of the times game companies try and focus on graphics rather than gameplay.
http://steamcommunity.com/id/Cloudsol/
/thread
I think very few games are stressing ultra-high graphics that are on the horizon. The only notable graphics-game I think is FF:XIV, and I think thats more just bad game optimization for when it runs bad, and it's nothing groundbreaking visually either.
SW:TOR is stylized, so if the volume of gameplay is there, it'll definitely be a good water-mark for the balanced path of things.
GW2 looks good, but doesn't look to be breaking any sort of visual ground. ANet is just working so what they have is done well.
RIFT was on visual par with WAR when I played it at PAX, not to shabby but nothing that's made to strain systems.
Earthrise looks like it's stylized enough to not need to sac gameplay for graphics.
More games are taking the stylized graphics approach to help bolster the quality of gameplay. That means the game can run on potentially that many more computers on its launch day.
It doesn't make sense to make an MMO that would need a $2000-at-launch-of-game computer to run efficiently. It makes a lot more sense to make sure it can run on the $1200-2yrs-ago computer though, since a lot more potential players would have that.
Lets Push Things Forward
I knew I would live to design games at age 7, issue 5 of Nintendo Power.
Support games with subs when you believe in their potential, even in spite of their flaws.
I don't really buy this. Sure, the absolute top graphics (like AoC was in 2008) makes a problem when you try to allow players to play it on any computer. But good programming makes it possible to have very well looking games with good gameplay.
I can mention many games with graphics below average that still have crappy gameplay and a lot of instances, like WAR to mention one.
The problem seems to be more that the some devs think that good graphics is enough selling point and you can sacrifice gameplay because of it, "no need to make the game really fun because player will play it anyways, it looks awesome"...
The real bandit here is that most MMOs are not so good as they should be, they are badly coded, releases too early, have boring grindy content and are not just fun enough.
No amount of good graphics will save a bad game but don't think that no good game can have good graphics because of that. To quote Monty Python "Clark Gable is dead but very few of the dead people are in fact Clark Gable".
The fact is that it is very hard to make a great MMO, and it isn't easier to make one with great graphics too.
Graphics are currently at the point where you can pretty much create a realistic looking scene... albeit on the very peak top end systems.
Quite honestly, the majority of recent MMOs have seems to put more effort into graphics than gameplay, and look where that's left us. Countless shallow, repetitive, and downright boring MMOs. Sure they may grab the attention of those who only care about looks, but just the same as a brain dead ditz that's all looks and no mind, only having looks to go on doesn't last.
That's not to say that graphics are unimportant, but we're pretty much at the point where even 'mediocre' graphics these days, are pretty darn respectable.
I seem to recall way back when, that one of the major handicaps to some of the 'massive' in MMOs back in the day, were not only server side limitations on how many people you could fit in a zone, but also in that PCs running the client weren't capable of rendering too many characters, objects, or a far view of terrain. With constantly increasing graphics, we've essentially made games lately that require the client limitations to stay relatively the same, if not become even more restrictive.
I believe that developers need to start rebalancing their priorities. Graphics are relatively easy to scale later on if you have a half decent game engine. You can also put higher polygon model versions with higher resolution textures in a few years down the road. Core gameplay mechanics on the other hand, are extremely difficult to overhaul in the middle of a game's lifespan. Particularly when many of the players have already grown comfortable with the current system, even if it does have it's flaws.
The problem is that it's a business decision, not an idealistic one. The game has to be budgetable and marketable, no matter what we want in our hearts.
Graphics are pretty easy to demonstrate to a customer. People will swarm around a brand name IP and sniff at it. Proving that gameplay itself is going to be fun for months on end is harder, especially if you intend to introduce anything original.
(ironically, after about a month of playing a game, I no longer see the actual graphics unless I consciously stop and think about them - my brain learns to just filter out all the details and decorations not relevant to gameplay and focuses on abstract shapes and motions that trigger different reflexes)
I agree.
Things like advanced ingame physics and massive outdoor areas with hundreds of players are mutually exclusive. Not this.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
The suggestion that graphics sacrifice gameplay is utterly laughable. Some of the best looking games have some of the best gameplay. Also, Aion uses WASD movement.
As multiple people have mentioned, it's not really "graphics vs. gameplay".
An argument can be made that with better graphics it may take longer to push out new art content, but again, that depends more on the tools initially designed for this purpose than on the quality of the graphics alone.
EQ2 had a total overload on the graphics - when it launched computers could barely run it, this was actually one of the major reasons EQ2 didn't succeed as well as it could have, people couldn't run it. But it still had great gameplay, and one of the big reasons that many people still play it today, 6 years down the road is that despite being 6-years old, the graphics quality holds up remarkably well versus even the most current games.
Ultimately, a "AAA" title these days needs to have both - the graphics and the gameplay. There are so many awesome games - AO, FE, Ryzom, etc. that have great gameplay, but people don't want to play due to graphics.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
I am actually one that goes for the graphics BUT I have to say if there isn't something to the game to keep me involved other than pretty looking clothes and avatars, then I'll quit much faster than a game where you have some substance. Like quite a few people have said, it has to be both to keep people interested. And sadly for me, I think it's much more gameplay to keep someone involved than graphics.
As much as I loved the graphics in Aion, I was there for maybe a month before I got bored...