58 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Okay... I admit it. Over the years as my hair line has receded, so has my desire for over-the-top graphic eye-candy. Yes, there was a time when I chose special effects over substance... When my hard-earned moola paid for the best GPU while my CPU and memory lagged way behind the curve.

Like a hot-blonde on my arm... I soon realized the bodacious ta-tas' and banging badonkadonk amounted to nothing without the ability to assemble a cohesive sentence...

Which brings me to the crux of my poll, I'm curious where the leanings of the community at large, as to which direction you lean. Are we willing to give-up the eye-candy to benefit game-play or are we mired in the sexy beast that is so prevalent in today's games?

What say you?

Edited by DaZur, 05 March 2012 - 11:55 AM.

[Sears]

I would say game-play over graphics. Once released the game will look as it is and it will be the game-play in the years to come that will keep people playing. Sure ever so often they might put a graphical upgrade in there.

[Gizeh]

I don't realy get it. Since when is the graphic of a game connected to its gameplay? If the gameplay is bad, graphics won't change that, no matter how good or bad they are.

But you can still make a game with good graphics (more or less just the engine you pick and the artwork you put in it) and a good gameplay (to some extend this also depends on the engine, but much more design of the game(play), balance, content, etc.).

With MWO we have a game, that will use the CryEngine3. I would say, this is one of the Top 3 Engines for modern games right now. We already now, that it will look good.(Ofcourse there is still some space to raise and lower the graphics, but all in all we can expect a very good looking game.)
About the gameplay we can say almost nothing. It can be good, can be bad. Who knows? It all depends on the developers and the ressources they put in different aspects of the game. A much more interesting question would be: Would you like content over balance?

But as said before I don't see where "willing to give-up the eye-candy to benefit game-play" will work?!

[Adridos]

I do not have the best graphics card, so I am mostly in the middle, but there are cases, when I just live with a few FPS under the norm.

[DaZur]

Gizeh, on 05 March 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

I don't realy get it. Since when is the graphic of a game connected to its gameplay? If the gameplay is bad, graphics won't change that, no matter how good or bad they are.

But you can still make a game with good graphics (more or less just the engine you pick and the artwork you put in it) and a good gameplay (to some extend this also depends on the engine, but much more design of the game(play), balance, content, etc.).

With MWO we have a game, that will use the CryEngine3. I would say, this is one of the Top 3 Engines for modern games right now. We already now, that it will look good.(Ofcourse there is still some space to raise and lower the graphics, but all in all we can expect a very good looking game.)
About the gameplay we can say almost nothing. It can be good, can be bad. Who knows? It all depends on the developers and the ressources they put in different aspects of the game. A much more interesting question would be: Would you like content over balance?

But as said before I don't see where "willing to give-up the eye-candy to benefit game-play" will work?!

Examples being:

• Environmental effects: Rain, fog, haze, heat-wave, smoke, foliage, LOD distance
  
• Partial effects: muzzle flash, missile trails, specular flash from glossy surfaces, foot prints, visual representational of damage on Mechs.

In short, engine-level graphical effects that may or may-not be utilized to sight your enemy, determine damage level or effects that provide cover, terrain masking, obscure recognition and or limit line-of-site.

[CheeseThief]

If those things aren't there by default on any graphical settings I will be greatly surprised, Mechwarrior 2 had most of that stuff in some form and I can run that on a calculator.

The graphics options should scale fidelity, texture sizes and how much processing power you want to throw at lighting and shadows, not cut graphics from the game because someone's PC may have less power than a GameCube.




Good Graphical Design > Cutting content

Edited by cheesethief, 05 March 2012 - 06:27 AM.

[CeeKay Boques]

Do we still live in a time of Graphics over gameplay? I've seen so many high-end graphical games fall off due to lack of game play... is this still real? What games make it just on graphics these days?

I think there was a point where graphics WAS game play. The more advanced the graphics, the better the game play, such as how Quake was an advancement from DOOM, even though much of the game play was the same. At some point we hit a photo realistic saturation where every game could look super awesome, and it doesn't mean anything anymore.

Edited by Technoviking, 05 March 2012 - 08:37 AM.

[metro]

i prefer the ole adage.....no fence straddling.

You are either all in or all out!

[CoffiNail]

I voted for Balance, because CryEngine 3 is a engine made to look freaking pretty as anything! I have a decent video card, was fairly top of the line when i got the PC, Radeon HD 5850, but I run MWLL on all high with a average 30 FPS. I tend to prefer the graphics maxed out to look damn pretty. I mean I do like my eyecandy, i just also want gameplay to be spot on, too many companies shell out their money to the artists and not the coders and level designers and we get a damn good looking game, but not a good one. I however think PGI will have a very very very good mix of eye candy and game play.

[Kodan Black]

Back in the MW2 days the graphics industry-wide were not that great, so it wasn't a big deal to be "missing out" on them. Now the graphics can make a difference (for instance distance rendering could give a slight advantage). But I've also found in some games that all of the eye-candy can be distracting or downright block important elements. There are some instances of folks with lower graphics settings being able to more clearly see something that gets missed when you run higher settings.

My general stance is that I want to run the settings as high as possible without negatively impacting the speed of the game. I'll be plenty happy running stuff at 75% of max if it means things run smooth as silk. It is really up to the developers to ensure that different graphics settings don't greatly influence gameplay.

[whiskey tango foxtrot]

I want it all.....the tata's and the brains.

[DaZur]

whiskey tango foxtrot, on 05 March 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

I want it all.....the tata's and the brains.

Sir... That woma... er game does not exist. LOL!

I have high hopes for MW:O however...

[Stripes]

Over decade of my gaminf experience i developed very, lets say, strange taste in graphics. Usually i am trying to squeze maximum graphics in 30-40 frames per second - with textures holds top priority. With my love to tweal a little with video driver, sometimes it is produce some strange things

For some games and genres, good or average graphics is must have by default - and MWO one of them.

[GDL Germ]

I don't think it will really matter, if you don't have a pc that's able to play crysis2/battlefield 3 decently already. Can't expect to play a cry engine3 game, and it's stupid to impose or expect the developers to tone down the details in the game because you can't/refuse to upgrade your pc to modern capability's. Also on a side note because I saw people say that they have a good gpu but lack ram and cpu power. You can't go out and buy a gtx590 and have a e6600 and 2 gbs of ddr2 and expect to run modern games. Well rounded system is the way to go not a 500 dollar gpu in a 300 dollar system, won't work.

Edited by GDL Germ, 05 March 2012 - 09:19 AM.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Graphics over gameplay?

No reason we can't have both. Its not an either/or proposition.

What we are really talking about is how accessible the game should be hardware wise. Do we leave behind the people who want to play on a 5 year old laptop with integrated graphics? I'd say yes. Should we offer something for the guy who has a SLi rig with top of the line cards? Absolutely. You need to set the bar high if you want longevity. Today's high end is mediocre next year. If we're optimizing the game for someone with a GPU released 4 years ago it is going to leave us no where to go in the future.

Bad Poll.

[stun]

I spent 2 grand total on my rig because I love the eye candy.

But yeah, we should be able to have both.

[Stripes]

We always can nicely ask for "Textures: off" option!

P.S. My first run on Rune was without textures due to video hardware malfuction, so it is not so horrible as it is sounds

[Ranger207]

cheesethief, on 05 March 2012 - 06:24 AM, said:

Mechwarrior 2 had most of that stuff in some form and I can run that on a calculator.

Can I have your calculator? I wanna play MW2.

[LackofCertainty]

I prefer the leeward side of the fence, myself.

[Exilyth]

It's quite unconfortable sitting on the fence...

Graphics without gameplay and gameplay without graphics are both bad, but I'd rather live with 'gameplay without graphics'.