| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:02pm |
AnneGuild Master
Posts : 4800
Joined: 8 MAR 2003
Status : Online | Ogre,what awful comparisonsyou use.You negate any judgement you make.
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:04pm |
Pastor DisasterJourneyman
Posts : 1056
Joined: 14 DEC 2004
Status : Online | I think, Parrot, you said something that really nails it; though I think it got lost in the shuffle.
This argument seems to be setting up "graphics" on one side and "everything else" on the other. I think that's an unfair comparison. Perhaps it would be better to break the game down into categories like the reviews do. Something like:
graphics
puzzles
story
characters
game interface
software glitches
(Perhaps "premise" could be a separate category.)
Now, if any ONE of those things is faulty, that doesn't make for a bad game (except, perhaps, software glitches). It might simply cause one to say, "It could have been GREAT if it were not for..."
But let's rank each one individually as to its significance. Perhaps graphics are not the number one important item, but that's different from saying graphics are secondary to "gameplay" (which implies the other five categories combined).
So, for instance, I have fond memories of The 7th Guest, but story and characters were pretty lousy. I loved Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy--obviously "graphics" would have to score pretty low (duh). I loved Myst III, but some of the FMV sequences didn't run right on my old desktop (no video card)--a software glitch that detracted from, but did not obliterate, my enjoyment of the game.
On the flipside, Discworld I scored just low enough in several categories to make me uninterested in completing it. No one particular thing ruined it for me. But Discworld II, being different basically in the graphics alone, improved the overall gameplay enough for me to enjoy it. So gfx was not the end all and be all, but it was enough to tip the scales.
Is that what you were trying to say, Parrot? If so, then yes I agree with you. Maybe we ought to start a thread where people rank (1-6) or weight (distribute 100 points among the six categories) the above factors in terms of importance.
Then, of course, there is that accursed X factor.
Or for us chickens, the eggs factor.
Or for us serial killers, the axe factor.
Or for you who don't like puns, the icks factor.
Dyslexics wonder why there isn't a word that means the same thing as "cinnamon."
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:10pm |
AnneGuild Master
Posts : 4800
Joined: 8 MAR 2003
Status : Online | The weight factor? Oh,bugger,I `ll have to go on a diet.
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:11pm |
Jeroen StoutSchattenjger
Posts : 2798
Joined: 14 NOV 2003
Status : Online | Pastor Disaster, that was exactly what I meant
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:15pm |
Pastor DisasterJourneyman
Posts : 1056
Joined: 14 DEC 2004
Status : Online | I will have to disagree with Parrot on the end-result issue. I expect better out of a full-blown company who is milking me dry to buy their product than I do out of a do-it-yourselfer who is putting this out for free. I have a ton of respect for a guy who can do this in his spare time. My programming experience began with BASIC and ended with ForTran.
Oops, I forgot to include "music" or "sound fx" in my categories. Shows how un-aural I am.
Aya: P.O.=p*ss off. And I'm sorry for implying that the poll was about you.
Dyslexics wonder why there isn't a word that means the same thing as "cinnamon."
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:16pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
There's just no getting around the fact that interactive games are a highly visual medium and you simply can not discount good design and high graphic production values as secondary to everything else.
Of course there has to be more to a game than the visual representation of the game world and the characters. But graphics are the primary input to your brain, reinforced by sound and/or text. In some cases there is also direct force feedback.
IMO, a good PC game these days must be well above average in every important area and if any one of them falls flat, it does detract from the overall quality.
This has always been true. It applied equally to relative comparisons of current games in the 1980's, 1990's and today. It applies even more to direct comparisons of games from the same era in the same genre.
What I do not believe serves any real purpose are direct comparisons of game graphics on a techncial level or other evolving elements from different eras of technology. It simply isn't fair to compare today's full 3D high res visuals with those from the early days. You can however, judge originality and style. Those things are timeless. So too are stories and characters. But be mindful that the total representation of a character or a setting also changes as new technology is added. It effects all facets of what you see and hear in a game just as advanced AI and better physics enhance gameplay.
So there are many considerations when comparing games from different eras, different genres and different modes like SP vs MP vs MMO. If these qualifiers are not spelled out in very specific terms, those comparisons have no validity.
On a more directly related note - I also think that comparisons of amateur freeware games and fully funded commercial releases from established professional studios are unfair. Yes they can be made but we have to make allowances for non-professionals working alone or in very small teams with no budget. Even a talented group is at a distinct disadvantge in every area - especially when high-end graphics created with the very latest engines and toolsets are used as a measuring stick.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:17pm |
AyaGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 7277
Joined: 16 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Pastor_Disaster (17 DEC 2004 11:15pm)
Aya: P.O.=p*ss off. And I'm sorry for implying that the poll was about you.
no worries... i just wanted to make things clear!
(i now wonder what P.O. Box means... : )
You have gotten the attention of the mysterious lady. She turns to face you. Her face is devoid of any flesh. You are frozen with horror as she begins ripping your body into a bloody mess.
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:17pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Anne (17 DEC 2004 11:02pm)
Ogre,what awful comparisonsyou use.You negate any judgement you make.
The comparison was made by Lucien21 I was just splitting it up and showed all possible ways of it.
What do you mean I negated any judgement I made? Sorry I really didn't understand that sentence now in the whole context. I always stayed by my words.
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:17pm |
Pastor DisasterJourneyman
Posts : 1056
Joined: 14 DEC 2004
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Anne (17 DEC 2004 11:09pm)
The weight factor? Oh,bugger,I `ll have to go on a diet.
Sorry for posting so rapidly in succession, but I must say it is a delight to "hear" British cursing for a change.
Dyslexics wonder why there isn't a word that means the same thing as "cinnamon."
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:19pm |
AnneGuild Master
Posts : 4800
Joined: 8 MAR 2003
Status : Online | So Terry,have you played it and what did you think of it?
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:21pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Terry_Penrod (17 DEC 2004 11:16pm)
.
There's just no getting around the fact that interactive games are a highly visual medium and you simply can not discount good design and high graphic production values as secondary to everything else.
Of course there has to be more to a game than the visual representation of the game world and the characters. But graphics are the primary input to your brain, reinforced by sound and/or text. In some cases there is also direct force feedback.
IMO, a good PC game these days must be well above average in every important area and if any one of them falls flat, it does detract from the overall quality.
This has always been true. It applied equally to relative comparisons of current games in the 1980's, 1990's and today. It applies even more to direct comparisons of games from the same era in the same genre.
What I do not believe serves any real purpose are direct comparisons of game graphics on a techncial level or other evolving elements from different eras of technology. It simply isn't fair to compare today's full 3D high res visuals with those from the early days. You can however, judge originality and style. Those things are timeless. So too are stories and characters. But be mindful that the total representation of a character or a setting also changes as new technology is added. It effects all facets of what you see and hear in a game just as advanced AI and better physics enhance gameplay.
So there are many considerations when comparing games from different eras, different genres and different modes like SP vs MP vs MMO. If these qualifiers are not spelled out in very specific terms, those comparisons have no validity.
On a more directly related note - I also think that comparisons of amateur freeware games and fully funded commercial releases from established professional studios are unfair. Yes they can be made but we have to make allowances for non-professionals working alone or in very small teams with no budget. Even a talented group is at a distinct disadvantge in every area - especially when high-end graphics created with the very latest engines and toolsets are used as a measuring stick.
Cheers, Terry
I fully agree with all you said!
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:22pm |
AnneGuild Master
Posts : 4800
Joined: 8 MAR 2003
Status : Online | P D.Wait until you hear Caroline who is a scouser.
Ogre,`One night stands?`
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:22pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Originally Posted By Anne (17 DEC 2004 11:19pm)
So Terry,have you played it and what did you think of it?
I've yet to find the time Anne but I have downloaded the game and voted accordingly in the poll (the last choice). That's also why I haven't made any specific comments about Other Worlds... yet.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:23pm |
Jeroen StoutSchattenjger
Posts : 2798
Joined: 14 NOV 2003
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Pastor_Disaster (17 DEC 2004 11:15pm)
I will have to disagree with Parrot on the end-result issue. I expect better out of a full-blown company who is milking me dry to buy their product than I do out of a do-it-yourselfer who is putting this out for free. I have a ton of respect for a guy who can do this in his spare time. My programming experience began with BASIC and ended with ForTran.
Ok, I don't expect an indy game to be the technical level of a Valve game. And there is something to be said about liking a game more because it was made by a single person singlehandidly, but, with me thats a small factor. I judge things on the way they are, not the way they were produced. Of course, it's a factor thing again.
And, again, you can do a lot with little. I've seen some small studios making one great game which was better as any game one very large studio has ever made. Comparing isn't that wrong, it just depends on what you are comparing.
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:32pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Originally Posted By The Parrot (17 DEC 2004 11:23pm)
Ok, I don't expect an indy game to be the technical level of a Valve game. And there is something to be said about liking a game more because it was made by a single person singlehandidly, but, with me thats a small factor. I judge things on the way they are, not the way they were produced. Of course, it's a factor thing again.
And, again, you can do a lot with little. I've seen some small studios making one great game which was better as any game one very large studio has ever made. Comparing isn't that wrong, it just depends on what you are comparing.
Sure, just so long as you remember to make those distinctions and spell out the specific differences in the conditions that games were made in, it is alright to compare.
The question is, what real purpose does it serve to compare freeware titles created by an amateur in his or her spare time with very limited tools and no budget to commercial releases from professional studios?
Except for the very rare player-created mod or freeware game that exceeds all expectations and actually rivals commercial releases, these are apples and oranges.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:34pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Anne (17 DEC 2004 11:22pm)
P D.Wait until you hear Caroline who is a scouser.
Ogre,`One night stands?`
Oh come on that was an example. I never had a one night stand in my whole life and most likely never will, besides I'm happily married with a pretty and very intelligent woman.
Sorry, what is a scouser? That word wasn't in my dictionary.
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:35pm |
Jeroen StoutSchattenjger
Posts : 2798
Joined: 14 NOV 2003
Status : Online | Can't you compare the taste of apples and oranges I know what you mean, but an indy game can do by style what a big company can do with technology ... well, in my ignorant view of the world, anyhow
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:37pm |
AnneGuild Master
Posts : 4800
Joined: 8 MAR 2003
Status : Online | Looking forwards to your first game Parrot.
Alkis,you have made a brilliant game but it is so frustrating.( the puzzles)but I am at the syberia 1 level.
pas de problems.Alkis you should be flattered at this thread.
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:37pm |
| Deleted User | I'm going to echo Terry's statement here, although I am a visual person by nature.
Games are by their very nature visual, for me. Text adventures aren't anything other than a computer version of the old Steve Jackson books, only more complex, for example... a computer is capable of doing more than text, so for me even though a text adventure can be a good game, it's not something I would enjoy more than something with a graphical presentation.
Remember, this is my opinion as a person who works in the media sector! Computer games allow for graphics, sound and gameplay and all three working in unision is important for me. Overall design is essential... hence why something as dated as the early Sierra titles still holds up for me. For all their blockiness and limited colour and sound, the design is very well implemented and taking time into consideration, even Kings Quest looks good.
But I don't expect to play that kind of game now. I'm fussy, I admit it. But at least I'm honest!
Other Worlds is a great effort. Full of charm, but its presentation lets it down for me. It's not easy to use, it seems very disparate, the sound doesn't work out well. BUT- I admire the effort behind it and the passion of Alkis, all the way down to getting people to beta test it to iron out the bugs. It's not a game I would usually play and wouldn't have if it wasn't for Aya's enthusiastic review and the involvement of forumites who's opinions I'd respect.
As such, as an amateur effort, I applaud it. I can't play it without grimacing (the colours hurt my eyes), but I think that amateur games such as this one are very difficult to rate or criticise. Some are outright bad, agreed, but this kept me going for a bit before I gave up on it which at least SAYS something.
Alkis kept me going for a while! The fussiest visual gamer in the world! So that's got to be something worth smiling about. I can't rate it up there with commercial releases, but it made me happy for a bit. Which is good!
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:39pm |
AnneGuild Master
Posts : 4800
Joined: 8 MAR 2003
Status : Online | [smiley=rofl.gif]Ogre,I will leave Caroline to explain.
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:48pm |
| Deleted User | Oh, now you are backing out... :'(
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:53pm |
Lucien21Guild Master
Posts : 4876
Joined: 9 JUL 2003
Location: 0
Status : Offline | I guess maybe it's because adventures are descended from text adventures makes them fairly unique in that what has traditonally defined a good adventure doesn't involve graphics, but the ability to imagine yourself in the game. The quality of the puzzles and the exploration.
True that these days is a more visual medium and todays generation get bored if there are no flashy image to stare at.
A perfect game would obviously have fantastic graphics to back up the fantastic puzzles and plot, music etc.
However I still believe that the quality of a game doesn't hinge on it having great graphics.
Sure you would mention it in a review but I can still enjoy a game without them.
Maybe it's just the text adventurer in me
Dear Diary, My teenage angst bullsh*t now has a bodycount.
|
| 17 DEC 2004 at 11:54pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
Originally Posted By The Parrot (17 DEC 2004 11:35pm)
Can't you compare the taste of apples and oranges I know what you mean, but an indy game can do by style what a big company can do with technology ... well, in my ignorant view of the world, anyhow
Yes it is possible Parrot, just not very plausible.
A commercial studio can also attract top professional talent for writing, design, art diection, illustration / animation, music and voice acting as well as technology. The better ones all do so and it is just not fair (in 99% of all cases) to compare the results to games by amateurs working alone with very crude tools and no money.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 18 DEC 2004 at 12:03am |
Jeroen StoutSchattenjger
Posts : 2798
Joined: 14 NOV 2003
Status : Online | Yeah, Terry, you are right ... but I don't think style is made by money...
Btw, example of what I mean:
[img]http://dat.jeroenstout.net/forums/oldgames.jpg[/img]
The above screenshot is low-res old technology, but if I may say so (yes, it's a screen from my game), it still looks neat enough.
The other one is full-res, only with (IMO) ugly colours and a bad contrast.
The first is old technology, the 2nd is bad graphics.
|
