Eye Candy vs. Storyline & Gameplay
by Nate "Nateholio" Watson · in General Discussion · 01/22/2003 (3:57 pm) · 26 replies
I'm curious how many of you out there are more appreciative of a game with a lot of eye candy but a relatively slow plot and boring gameplay; or a game that is just the opposite. The reason I ask is that this has been a point of contention between myself and my teammates working on a game. I keep telling them the first version needs to focus more on gameplay and plot rather than eye & ear candy, as we're going to have to sacrafice a little of one to gain on the other. I also tell them the reasoning behind it, but its still a hot issue.
#22
In part, I think all facets of a game, i.e. Art/Graphics * Gameplay * Plot (if applicable) are all on pretty well equal footing.
The net effect is that of trying to strike a balance between the three facets of game design, with the three facets of game consumption... purchase, play, and replay.
The fact of the matter is, whether we want them to or not, that most consumers will make their first impression of a game by what they SEE, whether it be on the box, or on the website.
If a gamer likes what he sees, but isn't willing to part with his cash on a gamble, he'll likely research that title to see if it's worth the purchase, that's where the other two come into play.
Furthermore, if the game is to his liking, he will recommend it to his friends, and so forth.
What this should tell is this:
Art = "You never get a second chance to make a first impression." It is up to us, as developers, to decide exactly what our potential customers see, and if we hope to compete on a commercial level, then those first shots should be commercial quality. The fact is, if people don't like what they see on the surface, they aren't likely to look any further.
Gameplay = "Beauty is only skin deep." If the player likes the eye candy, but hates the sucky game play, then he'll stop playing it. What's worse is that he will discourage all of those within his sphere of influence from buying your game. In the case of those who write game reviews, this can be disastrous.
Story = "I don't think were in Kansas anymore Toto." Story can have a profound impact on a game, and more importantly the level of entertainment, and immersion that it offers to the player. To illustrate my point, I'd like to use an example:
Does anyone remember Soul Reaver (the Legacy of Kain) for the PS 1?
Lets put this title under the proverbial scope for those of us who remember:
Art/ Graphics: The artwork for this game (IMO) was on par with the level of detail for it's time, considering the technology of the day. The presentation was smooth and professional, and lent much to the overall "mood" of the game.
Gameplay: Some interesting innovations here, again, IMO. Really liked the melee system of locking onto, and always facing an opponent in melee. Also nice execution with ranged combat, i.e. spears, etc. Gliding was a nice touch, and the movement controls were always tight and dead on in my experiences.
Story: Ahhh, the story... this is what kept me coming back for more. Let's face it, as far as content goes, Soul Reaver actually weighed in on the lean side. There was more open space in that game than what I am used to. Even when encountering a baddy, you rarely got more than two at time. I understand WHY it was done this way, but it did make the game feel a little empty at times.
So what drove that game to be a hit on the PS 1? STORY! The story was fantastic inasmuch as most games offer. I, like many of my friends could not wait for the sequel, and like to had a fit when we realized that we'd have to wait for PS 2 to play it!
Now I'm sure that there are those who have a different opinion on this title, but the point is: Art drew me to the game :: Gameplay kept me playing it :: and STORY drew me back to it, and even had me recommending it to my friends!
01/24/2003 (12:01 pm)
My thoughts on this topic are a little fuzzy so please humor me...In part, I think all facets of a game, i.e. Art/Graphics * Gameplay * Plot (if applicable) are all on pretty well equal footing.
The net effect is that of trying to strike a balance between the three facets of game design, with the three facets of game consumption... purchase, play, and replay.
The fact of the matter is, whether we want them to or not, that most consumers will make their first impression of a game by what they SEE, whether it be on the box, or on the website.
If a gamer likes what he sees, but isn't willing to part with his cash on a gamble, he'll likely research that title to see if it's worth the purchase, that's where the other two come into play.
Furthermore, if the game is to his liking, he will recommend it to his friends, and so forth.
What this should tell is this:
Art = "You never get a second chance to make a first impression." It is up to us, as developers, to decide exactly what our potential customers see, and if we hope to compete on a commercial level, then those first shots should be commercial quality. The fact is, if people don't like what they see on the surface, they aren't likely to look any further.
Gameplay = "Beauty is only skin deep." If the player likes the eye candy, but hates the sucky game play, then he'll stop playing it. What's worse is that he will discourage all of those within his sphere of influence from buying your game. In the case of those who write game reviews, this can be disastrous.
Story = "I don't think were in Kansas anymore Toto." Story can have a profound impact on a game, and more importantly the level of entertainment, and immersion that it offers to the player. To illustrate my point, I'd like to use an example:
Does anyone remember Soul Reaver (the Legacy of Kain) for the PS 1?
Lets put this title under the proverbial scope for those of us who remember:
Art/ Graphics: The artwork for this game (IMO) was on par with the level of detail for it's time, considering the technology of the day. The presentation was smooth and professional, and lent much to the overall "mood" of the game.
Gameplay: Some interesting innovations here, again, IMO. Really liked the melee system of locking onto, and always facing an opponent in melee. Also nice execution with ranged combat, i.e. spears, etc. Gliding was a nice touch, and the movement controls were always tight and dead on in my experiences.
Story: Ahhh, the story... this is what kept me coming back for more. Let's face it, as far as content goes, Soul Reaver actually weighed in on the lean side. There was more open space in that game than what I am used to. Even when encountering a baddy, you rarely got more than two at time. I understand WHY it was done this way, but it did make the game feel a little empty at times.
So what drove that game to be a hit on the PS 1? STORY! The story was fantastic inasmuch as most games offer. I, like many of my friends could not wait for the sequel, and like to had a fit when we realized that we'd have to wait for PS 2 to play it!
Now I'm sure that there are those who have a different opinion on this title, but the point is: Art drew me to the game :: Gameplay kept me playing it :: and STORY drew me back to it, and even had me recommending it to my friends!
#24
Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 Arena are in the same genre and were release at comparably the same time. Unreal was superior in almost every way (more fun, more unique weapons, required more skill) but Q3 had better graphics, and a better response from the press as a result of those outstanding graphics.
Q3 went on to sell exponentially more copies commercially.
I don't agree with it, but that's how things work sometimes.
01/24/2003 (2:32 pm)
I believe in gameplay and story over graphics any day, but from a marketing standpoint, nothing beats a real world example.Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 Arena are in the same genre and were release at comparably the same time. Unreal was superior in almost every way (more fun, more unique weapons, required more skill) but Q3 had better graphics, and a better response from the press as a result of those outstanding graphics.
Q3 went on to sell exponentially more copies commercially.
I don't agree with it, but that's how things work sometimes.
#25
Gameplay is always king, but for some games, the graphics are part OF the gameplay. For others, presenting information cleanly is more important than graphics. RPGs on the other hand, story is usually most important. I've played RPGs all the way through that had average grahpics and an average combat system (Arcanum anyone?), but the story kept me playing.
I think its important to realize what type of game you are making, and which of these elements is most important to YOUR game. Don't worry about super graphics in a puzzle game, and too much story can hamper an FPS game.
01/24/2003 (3:12 pm)
I don't think all games are equal in this respect. FPS games depend a lot more on creating an immersive visual environment. Turn-based strategy games and war games do not. Take a look at some of the fairly new strategy games that came out like Europa Universalis. The graphics are fairly simplistic compared to Quake or Unreal, but I doubt that hurt it one bit.Gameplay is always king, but for some games, the graphics are part OF the gameplay. For others, presenting information cleanly is more important than graphics. RPGs on the other hand, story is usually most important. I've played RPGs all the way through that had average grahpics and an average combat system (Arcanum anyone?), but the story kept me playing.
I think its important to realize what type of game you are making, and which of these elements is most important to YOUR game. Don't worry about super graphics in a puzzle game, and too much story can hamper an FPS game.
#26
01/25/2003 (7:54 am)
While I agree with the rest of my team that graphics are important, especially in a simulation MMORPG, we have limited resources and people to work with. Since we have set a goal of having at least a single player "intro" version of this game out by the end of the year, we have to sacrifice some graphics quality in order to design a wealth of vehicles, equipment, spacecraft, etc. so that the game will be immersive. But now that I'm thinking about it, would it be a better idea to go for a little more eye-candy in the first release to get good reviews? As it is now, we're not too concerned about the performance of the second release as the engine will be a custom one made to meet our requirements (500,000 product limit set by GG in the Torque license confirmed our plans to make a more advenced engine with a second release).
Torque Owner Very Interactive Person
The text from the newspost was something like:
One of the news readers replied this:
Ok, 1 reply from 1 specific person is not representative... but I've heard more of these on other game sites/forums.
If you make a 3D FPS, you will be compared to Quake/Unreal. If you do not meet that standard, chances are big you get a lousy rating for graphics.... for a lot of teenagers that's enough not to buy the game. Offcourse the market is bigger then teenagers, but remember they are a huge chunk of your potential buyers.
I'm not defending graphics here... I don't think it should be important. My standards are a lot lower then most gamers out there, but that does not mean I will neglect the graphic part when making our game, perhaps that's becuase I'm more of an artist then a programmer.