The mistake you are making all over again is: gameplay=combat. That's why we are in this mess in the first place.
Gameplay in RPGs is way more than combat. Or at least it used to be ...
Sure RPGs involve more than combat. But combat isn't being touted as the only gameplay, only given as the clearest example to make my point with.
Why is it a clear example? Sift through the list of nearly every videogame RPG ever and notice that it takes you more than 300+ RPGs before you find one where combat wasn't a significant element.
(Making the assumption that you do, in fact, manage to find one. I didn't.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
The mistake you are making all over again is: gameplay=combat. That's why we are in this mess in the first place.
Gameplay in RPGs is way more than combat. Or at least it used to be ...
Sure RPGs involve more than combat. But combat isn't being touted as the only gameplay, only given as the clearest example to make my point with.
Why is it a clear example? Sift through the list of nearly every videogame RPG ever and notice that it takes you more than 300+ RPGs before you find one where combat wasn't a significant element.
(Making the assumption that you do, in fact, manage to find one. I didn't.)
You are making the same mistake here again. There are many gamers that do not like combat at all and avoid it as much as possible. How about trading, manufacturing, politics, espionage etc. There are soooo many options yet I know only one MMORPG that actualy has them working to a noticable degree and even advertises it (guess which one).
Where do you find intellectual challenge if everything centers around combat ? After a while each game plays the same (as I pointed out in my post). The different flavor is only the number of classes and skills but that's just cosmetics.
Just have a look at the WOW vs TOR class/skill comparisons, people saw cosmetic differences but huge similarity otherwise.
Yes, graphics are used to judge games before gameplay is even considered. Yes, I know that most people will look at a trailer and automatically assume how the game is based upon its graphical capabilities. I agree with you, HOWEVER, I believe that graphics are an integral part of the industry right now. Its almost like an action movie (Avatar) versus a romance (The Notebook). There are a lot of people who see both movies, but the general public will see the action movie because it is visually simulating you constantly (Note how much money Avatar made). That's how I look at it. Graphics are a game breaker in some ways. Put a game with crappy graphics out there, but a stellar gameplay and mecanics and there is a good chance the game will die, or just not be as popular.
It really comes down to quality versus visuals. But that is a bad way to put it because thats saying you cannot have a game with great graphics AND quality. But it is kind of limiting the situation to the two. Developers will ultimately choose the route that supplies them with the biggest fan base, and however they choose that route (graphics vs gameplay) will be up to them.
I am sure that this topic is discussed many times in a games development stages. Almost guarenteed.
You are making the same mistake here again. There are many gamers that do not like combat at all and avoid it as much as possible. How about trading, manufacturing, politics, espionage etc. There are soooo many options yet I know only one MMORPG that actualy has them working to a noticable degree and even advertises it (guess which one).
Where do you find intellectual challenge if everything centers around combat ? After a while each game plays the same (as I pointed out in my post). The different flavor is only the number of classes and skills but that's just cosmetics.
Just have a look at the WOW vs TOR class/skill comparisons, people saw cosmetic differences but huge similarity otherwise.
What are you talking about? Did you even read either post? Nowhere did I say or imply combat is the only type of gameplay. In the second post I explicitly said it's not the only type of gameplay, merely the clearest example because it's the most familiar (because it's most common.)
If you want to argue against someone holding an imaginary belief like "non-combat games shouldn't exist", do it against an imaginary person.
Don't use a person who explicitly says, "Non-combat games can exist, do exist, and will continue to exist, and are completely unrelated to the point I was trying to make." That's a bad person to hold that sort of imaginary discussion with.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And why shouldn't gameplay be focused on combat if that is what is fun for players?
Take the first Diablo. Before that, RPG has all sort of stuff. Heck, if you play Ultima 7, you can even pick up every piece of fork & knife. What Blizz realized, is that people like combat .. and they made a RPG that focus on nothing but combat, items and progression. Nothing else. The quests are made simple .. because they are nothing but excuses to kill lots of stuff.
And what happened? Diablo sold millions. D2 sold millions. D3 sold 12M.
Looks like lots of people like combat.
What the frak ? First of all, Diablo isnt strong with combat. Second of all, just because some people like Diablo doesnt mean all people do.
Diablo is an Action RPG. Thats an old genre - nothing new at all. I dont like Action RPGs too much, I prefer real RPGs.
I never played Diablo 1. Only played Diablo 2 when it was sold very cheap, and even then only offline and only once. I never even contemplated to buy Diablo 3.
And - 12 million ? Thats not even the netherlands. Out of a 7 billion total population of earth, this is less than 0.2%. Not even taking into consideration the dualboxers.
Does that mean I dont like combat ? Not at all. Combat is very important to me. But the thing is, Diablo 2 doesnt have much combat. You are basically doomed to choose ONE skill and focus on that one exclusively. It really doesnt get more primitive and boring than that.
A game with great combat is for example Vanguard. Thats why I keep playing it, after all.
Your argument can be summed up as: everybody eats fast food, thus make it obligatory for everyone to eat fast food. This is riddiculous. Just because some people eat this crap, doesnt mean that many more people do not and even more importantly dont want to.
And why shouldn't gameplay be focused on combat if that is what is fun for players?
Take the first Diablo. Before that, RPG has all sort of stuff. Heck, if you play Ultima 7, you can even pick up every piece of fork & knife. What Blizz realized, is that people like combat .. and they made a RPG that focus on nothing but combat, items and progression. Nothing else. The quests are made simple .. because they are nothing but excuses to kill lots of stuff.
And what happened? Diablo sold millions. D2 sold millions. D3 sold 12M.
Looks like lots of people like combat.
What the frak ? First of all, Diablo isnt strong with combat. Second of all, just because some people like Diablo doesnt mean all people do.
Diablo is an Action RPG. Thats an old genre - nothing new at all. I dont like Action RPGs too much, I prefer real RPGs.
I never played Diablo 1. Only played Diablo 2 when it was sold very cheap, and even then only offline and only once. I never even contemplated to buy Diablo 3.
And - 12 million ? Thats not even the netherlands. Out of a 7 billion total population of earth, this is less than 0.2%. Not even taking into consideration the dualboxers.
Does that mean I dont like combat ? Not at all. Combat is very important to me. But the thing is, Diablo 2 doesnt have much combat. You are basically doomed to choose ONE skill and focus on that one exclusively. It really doesnt get more primitive and boring than that.
A game with great combat is for example Vanguard. Thats why I keep playing it, after all.
Your argument can be summed up as: everybody eats fast food, thus make it obligatory for everyone to eat fast food. This is riddiculous. Just because some people eat this crap, doesnt mean that many more people do not and even more importantly dont want to.
LOL .. vanguard .. really?
Action RPG like Diablo not strong in combat? What do those who play D2 for years do? Craft? LOL ....
My arguments summed up as: many gamers love combat. Many companies focused on combat gameplay and they reap the rewards.
And selling 12M is not good? How many subs did Vanguard has at the highest point?
The three most important things to me in an MMO are quality action based non targeting combat, good graphics, and a good, trinity based class system. So yes for some of us graphics are a very important part of a game. I don't care how awesome a game is and how many features it has, if the graphics are bad or artistically unappealing to me I just can't get myself to play it.
Originally posted by Leiloni The three most important things to me in an MMO are quality action based non targeting combat, good graphics, and a good, trinity based class system. So yes for some of us graphics are a very important part of a game. I don't care how awesome a game is and how many features it has, if the graphics are bad or artistically unappealing to me I just can't get myself to play it.
Of course graphics is important. We are playing video games, not text games.
There are so many games, i never have to sacrifice gameplay for graphics. To get my time, a game has to be fun (to me) and looks good (to me).
If Euclideon can make quality and not loosing performance, then I must disagree on your statement, because good graphics and good performance is all I want to see in games.
I will not play game if your character can perform three moves and is cartunish, but has good sandbox elements.
I want all in my game, graphics, performance, realistic characters, realistic combat and all the elements that sandbox could present.
Starting as caveman, then progress to conquer galaxy's, That "is" my dream game.
If Euclideon can make quality and not loosing performance, then I must disagree on your statement, because good graphics and good performance is all I want to see in games.
I will not play game if your character can perform three moves and is cartunish, but has good sandbox elements.
I want all in my game, graphics, performance, realistic characters, realistic combat and all the elements that sandbox could present.
Starting as caveman, then progress to conquer galaxy's, That "is" my dream game.
i cant agree with this since minecraft is still currently oe of my faverite pat times.
and astetics are more important then grapics in my opion.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
If Euclideon can make quality and not loosing performance, then I must disagree on your statement, because good graphics and good performance is all I want to see in games.
I will not play game if your character can perform three moves and is cartunish, but has good sandbox elements.
I want all in my game, graphics, performance, realistic characters, realistic combat and all the elements that sandbox could present.
Starting as caveman, then progress to conquer galaxy's, That "is" my dream game.
i cant agree with this since minecraft is still currently oe of my faverite pat times.
and astetics are more important then grapics in my opion.
You like it ++ for you, you have more games to choose from, me? I can't play such games, I would reather play CSS 24/7 if I could, with no progresion.
Originally posted by Leiloni The three most important things to me in an MMO are quality action based non targeting combat, good graphics, and a good, trinity based class system. So yes for some of us graphics are a very important part of a game. I don't care how awesome a game is and how many features it has, if the graphics are bad or artistically unappealing to me I just can't get myself to play it.
Of course graphics is important. We are playing video games, not text games.
There are so many games, i never have to sacrifice gameplay for graphics. To get my time, a game has to be fun (to me) and looks good (to me).
I'm not arguing that graphics don't matter. The difference between video games and text-based games is exactly what I mean by graphics enabling gameplay. There's a lot of cool gameplay that you simply can't do in a purely text-based game.
I'm not even arguing that it doesn't matter if today's games look like games from 20 years ago. I wouldn't advocate that unless it's all that some indie team can do on an extremely tight budget. For a given set of game mechanics, of course you want the graphics to look as good as possible.
Rather, my argument is that if you're having to cut out cool gameplay stuff for the sake of making graphics better, then you're doing it wrong.
If Euclideon can make quality and not loosing performance, then I must disagree on your statement, because good graphics and good performance is all I want to see in games.
Well yes, if pigs fly and Hell freezes over, then the title of the thread is wrong.
Euclideon has yet to demonstrate that they can have a game world in which anything actually moves, let alone have the complex animations that you'd want for a video game.
If Euclideon can make quality and not loosing performance, then I must disagree on your statement, because good graphics and good performance is all I want to see in games.
Well yes, if pigs fly and Hell freezes over, then the title of the thread is wrong.
Euclideon has yet to demonstrate that they can have a game world in which anything actually moves, let alone have the complex animations that you'd want for a video game.
I don't say the title is wrong, I am simply saying graphics do matter, alone with performance, those indie developers spend too much time developing new engine, so they don't have enough time to do quality.
Big game developers are lazy to add content at release, so their games are consumed too quick.
Comments
Sure RPGs involve more than combat. But combat isn't being touted as the only gameplay, only given as the clearest example to make my point with.
Why is it a clear example? Sift through the list of nearly every videogame RPG ever and notice that it takes you more than 300+ RPGs before you find one where combat wasn't a significant element.
(Making the assumption that you do, in fact, manage to find one. I didn't.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You are making the same mistake here again. There are many gamers that do not like combat at all and avoid it as much as possible. How about trading, manufacturing, politics, espionage etc. There are soooo many options yet I know only one MMORPG that actualy has them working to a noticable degree and even advertises it (guess which one).
Where do you find intellectual challenge if everything centers around combat ? After a while each game plays the same (as I pointed out in my post). The different flavor is only the number of classes and skills but that's just cosmetics.
Just have a look at the WOW vs TOR class/skill comparisons, people saw cosmetic differences but huge similarity otherwise.
Yes, graphics are used to judge games before gameplay is even considered. Yes, I know that most people will look at a trailer and automatically assume how the game is based upon its graphical capabilities. I agree with you, HOWEVER, I believe that graphics are an integral part of the industry right now. Its almost like an action movie (Avatar) versus a romance (The Notebook). There are a lot of people who see both movies, but the general public will see the action movie because it is visually simulating you constantly (Note how much money Avatar made). That's how I look at it. Graphics are a game breaker in some ways. Put a game with crappy graphics out there, but a stellar gameplay and mecanics and there is a good chance the game will die, or just not be as popular.
It really comes down to quality versus visuals. But that is a bad way to put it because thats saying you cannot have a game with great graphics AND quality. But it is kind of limiting the situation to the two. Developers will ultimately choose the route that supplies them with the biggest fan base, and however they choose that route (graphics vs gameplay) will be up to them.
I am sure that this topic is discussed many times in a games development stages. Almost guarenteed.
What are you talking about? Did you even read either post? Nowhere did I say or imply combat is the only type of gameplay. In the second post I explicitly said it's not the only type of gameplay, merely the clearest example because it's the most familiar (because it's most common.)
If you want to argue against someone holding an imaginary belief like "non-combat games shouldn't exist", do it against an imaginary person.
Don't use a person who explicitly says, "Non-combat games can exist, do exist, and will continue to exist, and are completely unrelated to the point I was trying to make." That's a bad person to hold that sort of imaginary discussion with.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What the frak ? First of all, Diablo isnt strong with combat. Second of all, just because some people like Diablo doesnt mean all people do.
Diablo is an Action RPG. Thats an old genre - nothing new at all. I dont like Action RPGs too much, I prefer real RPGs.
I never played Diablo 1. Only played Diablo 2 when it was sold very cheap, and even then only offline and only once. I never even contemplated to buy Diablo 3.
And - 12 million ? Thats not even the netherlands. Out of a 7 billion total population of earth, this is less than 0.2%. Not even taking into consideration the dualboxers.
Does that mean I dont like combat ? Not at all. Combat is very important to me. But the thing is, Diablo 2 doesnt have much combat. You are basically doomed to choose ONE skill and focus on that one exclusively. It really doesnt get more primitive and boring than that.
A game with great combat is for example Vanguard. Thats why I keep playing it, after all.
Your argument can be summed up as: everybody eats fast food, thus make it obligatory for everyone to eat fast food. This is riddiculous. Just because some people eat this crap, doesnt mean that many more people do not and even more importantly dont want to.
LOL .. vanguard .. really?
Action RPG like Diablo not strong in combat? What do those who play D2 for years do? Craft? LOL ....
My arguments summed up as: many gamers love combat. Many companies focused on combat gameplay and they reap the rewards.
And selling 12M is not good? How many subs did Vanguard has at the highest point?
Of course graphics is important. We are playing video games, not text games.
There are so many games, i never have to sacrifice gameplay for graphics. To get my time, a game has to be fun (to me) and looks good (to me).
If Euclideon can make quality and not loosing performance, then I must disagree on your statement, because good graphics and good performance is all I want to see in games.
I will not play game if your character can perform three moves and is cartunish, but has good sandbox elements.
I want all in my game, graphics, performance, realistic characters, realistic combat and all the elements that sandbox could present.
Starting as caveman, then progress to conquer galaxy's, That "is" my dream game.
i cant agree with this since minecraft is still currently oe of my faverite pat times.
and astetics are more important then grapics in my opion.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to
Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
You like it ++ for you, you have more games to choose from, me? I can't play such games, I would reather play CSS 24/7 if I could, with no progresion.
I'm not arguing that graphics don't matter. The difference between video games and text-based games is exactly what I mean by graphics enabling gameplay. There's a lot of cool gameplay that you simply can't do in a purely text-based game.
I'm not even arguing that it doesn't matter if today's games look like games from 20 years ago. I wouldn't advocate that unless it's all that some indie team can do on an extremely tight budget. For a given set of game mechanics, of course you want the graphics to look as good as possible.
Rather, my argument is that if you're having to cut out cool gameplay stuff for the sake of making graphics better, then you're doing it wrong.
Well yes, if pigs fly and Hell freezes over, then the title of the thread is wrong.
Euclideon has yet to demonstrate that they can have a game world in which anything actually moves, let alone have the complex animations that you'd want for a video game.
I don't say the title is wrong, I am simply saying graphics do matter, alone with performance, those indie developers spend too much time developing new engine, so they don't have enough time to do quality.
Big game developers are lazy to add content at release, so their games are consumed too quick.
And i won't play minecraft because it is ugly (not that i will like a building game anyway).
Yes, asthetics are important. That is why WOW endures .... simple graphics, but good art design.