25 replies to this topic

[Cake Bandit]

Dartan, on 12 November 2011 - 06:04 AM, said:

Animation is completely different from graphics and far more important than graphics since solid detailed animation can never get outdated, like graphics can.

graphics=lighting+textures
visuals=graphics+animation

Lets add some depth here.

And I'm of the opinion that quality animations should be second to quality mechanics and balance. I mean, I'm pretty sure anyone here would rather play Doom than call of Juarez: the Cartel. Not to mention we don't want to exclude too many people by demanding crysis level animations everywhere and melting their graphics cards.

[LordKelvin]

Animations and graphics quality are great for making a game shine. But as everybody's already said, what really matters is how much fun you have playing the game. That means good balance, mechanics, user interface, gameplay variety, and so on.

Take a look at Doom 3, for instance. Among the very best graphics when it was released, but it was just miles of corridor shooting and not really giving you a lot of choice in what to do other than just blasting monsters. On the flip side, look at Crysis 1 (or at least the first half of it); discounting the graphics, you had loads of different ways to play it, lots of options on what weapons or tactics to use, and so on.

I don't care how pretty a game might look, what I care about is how much fun I have playing and re-playing it.

[Phades]

Well the mechanics really give reason for a visual to exist and behave a certain way and if the mechanics aren't consistent with its self, or impedes the player into a specific play style, then the rest of the house of cards is going to cave in upon its self. If they get past that aspect, then the mechanic not lining up with the visual effect is the next major thing that will have the whole thing crumble down onto its self and injecting some fluff about (insert pixie dust reason y here) doesn't save the title aside from the small group of individuals that prefer to read about something more than actually play it. The reason why the player does something is probably a close 3rd to where things fall apart, even though it is commonly a core mechanic regulating how the world works outside of the individual actions within the game. If it doesn't feel right or give too much of a burden to get to the more interesting parts of the game, then it will end up being a short attention span game since each time the player does something it is just obvious repetition instead of dynamic interaction.

Lots of things will make or break something before you start analyzing the color pallet or continuity of style. Hell, the game just working as intended tends to break it before visuals really matter in either the technical (although the technical can be a contributing factor to the failure), or the overall style applied.

[UncleKulikov]

Animation isn't the most important thing for a game.

It's balance. If it isn't fair, it won't be fun, and if it isn't fun, it's not a good game.

[Helmer]

Fun> mechanics > graphics

Mount and Blade: Warband is a perfect example of this .

Edit: Darn iPhone grrrr

Edited by helmer, 17 November 2011 - 05:16 PM.

[Dsi1]

Combat, the thing you're doing the most is the most important. If it isn't fluid(fight the forces acting on your mech, not the controls of it), isn't skill based(see: gigantic "chance to hit here" circle), or depends heavily on luck(ala WoT), it won't be good, especially not for anything competitive.