• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

[Poll]Engine Limitations/Graphics compromise

[Poll]Engine Limitations/Graphics compromise

  • No. Holding back on graphics should not be done.

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • Agree. I would prefer a game that had older graphics but much greater content and performance.

    Votes: 20 83.3%
  • Other - please explain.

    Votes: 1 4.2%

  • Total voters
    24

GRIZZLY

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 18, 2011
745
337
0
New Jersey
First off, keep in mind I'm just a fan of games and know absolutely nothing about programming. I just remember playing a lot of shooters and RTS's in the late 90's and the only thing I ever wanted was more content. More maps. More guns. More skins. More units. More scenarios. More mods. More more more. Even all the way back to 1992 when I started to play games with Super Mario World... the only flaw I found with that game is that there were only 97 levels :p

While I'm not the biggest fan of Minecraft or Terraria, I really applaud them for what they are doing. Creating a diverse and expandable world should be the focus of almost every video game. Sadly, we all know how the big companies do it... giving us a turd covered in golden graphics and withholding content like a succubus. I haven't played Donkey Kong Country Returns yet, but it seems like a good example of what I'm getting at.

Would it be possible to expand an engine horizontally instead of vertically? I hate how there are "limitations" imposed on a game because the supposed latest and greatest state of the art computer software can't handle it. And really, I never minded crappy graphics. In fact, I kind of miss the artistic style of old games. A lot of Japanese games still retain it though - and I believe the new Wii is going for this approach (Less focus on graphics, more on extensive content). (edit: Actually the new wii is pretty much entirely for graphics, dumb comment on my part)

Can't somebody just make an FPS with mediocre graphics from 5 years ago but with 50 maps, 50 guns, 50 skins, an SDK that's easier and more user friendly, massive maps that hold 256 players, environmental destruction, a system for building towers or pillboxes and laying land mines, etc. etc.? I know most companies are profit driven and it's safe to go with what has been selling millions of copies, but am I totally missing something from the programming aspect? I'm sure when Super Mario World came out it was developing by some of the greatest minds in the video game industry... But now you can download an SDK (or what have you) and making a full map is as simple as point and click, and modding is as simple as assigning a picture to a sprite. Crappy graphics also help performance and actually expand the customer base significantly by allowing inferior machines to run it at peak performance.

Soooo who's with me?
 
Last edited:

tixhal

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 6, 2011
830
105
0
Neuschwabenland
your description reminds me a lot of this.

Spoiler!
 

Major Liability

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 14, 2010
921
165
0
New York
I agree completely. United Offensive was the best Call of Duty single player campaign ever made for this reason; there must have been 100+ soldiers on screen at once in some battles. You will NOT see that these days. I still remember the first time I got to the first truly giant valley with the ziggurats in Serious Sam: Second Encounter and saw waves of enemies keep spawning until there must have been almost 200+ and I said "JESUS ****!" and had an awesome time dying 20 times before I finally made it.
 

Heisenberg

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 14, 2012
214
3
0
No. I want my games both huge and great-looking. I'm not going to play some clunky medieval game with ***-graphics like Mount & Blade just because it has 250 players. Mostly since you hardly ever really face so many enemies at once. Joint Ops had 150 players if I remember correctly but it was all spread out on a huge area so you would've had nothing more than your usual 16vs16 in the end. Of course the feeling of being within a huge battle sure is great, but in the end most devs probably think that it's simply not worth it when you can have 16vs16 / 32vs32 on smaller maps that basically represent 1/3 of a huge map.

Tbh. I think 64players is a sweet spot. Loved it in BF1942/BF2, just felt exactly right. BF3 would've been epic if they had went for BF1942/BF2 map size. Then again infantry combat in BF1942/BF2 kinda sucked and with BF3 they got it right so they probably wanted to show that off and focus more on infantry. On one hand it's great to have a better individual infantry experience, on the other hand it sucks when that means that they turn it into a cod clone.

And sometimes it's just going TOO far. For example I remember those huge Darkest Hour dh_whitepower_ssclan-v1 maps where you had to drive around 5minutes just to get to (one of) the frontline(s). That's not good. Like I said BF1942 handled it perfectly imo. With vehicles you were quickly in the center of the action but the action focused on different areas, not just one cluster****ed cod area.

Nowadays ****ty graphics, but great gameplay in new games just doesn't do it for me anymore. Both is necessary imo.
 
Last edited:

LightsabeR

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 22, 2010
1,223
606
0
I'd be perfectly fine with CoD4 level graphics (hell, even CoD: UO would be ok).

When I play MP FPS games I turn everything down in the config file anyway. All the fancy effects and graphics just distract me from what I'm supposed to be doing, which is beating my opponents.


Fact is tho that graphics sell. Most people are stupid and they buy games based on looks and not gameplay mechanics. It's much easier to market an amazing looking game with weak gameplay, than an average looking game with great gameplay.
 

Heisenberg

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 14, 2012
214
3
0
:rolleyes: Awesome graphics =! **** gameplay

Crysis 1 had the best graphics to date and fun, relatively open gameplay with many things to do
 

LightsabeR

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 22, 2010
1,223
606
0
I never said the two are mutually exclusive.

Crisis 1 was a PC game and thus not limited by console hardware.

Fact is that making a game for the current gen consoles that exceeds peoples expectations both in terms of graphics and gameplay is rather difficult to do. This means developers have to put more focus on one or the other. And since marketing a good looking game is easier than marketing a bad looking game, developers tend to focus more on making their game look good, and less on implementing innovative and complex gameplay mechanics.
 

Moyako

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jan 10, 2008
2,163
636
0
Venezuela
www.xfire.com
As someone who plays lots of GoG stuff, I don't care about graphics. Of course it's awesome to play a game with amazing looks, but I don't see it as a must.
 

Heisenberg

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 14, 2012
214
3
0
I never said the two are mutually exclusive.

Crisis 1 was a PC game and thus not limited by console hardware.

Fact is that making a game for the current gen consoles that exceeds peoples expectations both in terms of graphics and gameplay is rather difficult to do. This means developers have to put more focus on one or the other. And since marketing a good looking game is easier than marketing a bad looking game, developers tend to focus more on making their game look good, and less on implementing innovative and complex gameplay mechanics.
They don't implement innovative and complex gameplay mechanics because a) it's risky b) gaming audience has become more casual as opposed to the years that people here are referencing to.

Besides, what (at least mainly) console games have great graphics but becuase of that poor gameplay? Gran Turismo 5 is as complex as ever, Uncharted has perfected the Tomb Raider gameplay style. BF3 doesn't look half as good on consoles but is still far ahead of your average cod clone in terms of gameplay/gameplay variety.
 

Major Liability

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 14, 2010
921
165
0
New York
I think DooM 3 is a perfect example of what happens when graphics are more important than gameplay. They shouldn't have even called it DooM, it has nothing in common with its predecessors except the setting. There should have been huge swarms of demons, but instead you got psuedo-horror mixed with a corridor shooter that didn't accomplish much in either arena.
 

Heisenberg

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 14, 2012
214
3
0
I think DooM 3 is a perfect example of what happens when graphics are more important than gameplay. They shouldn't have even called it DooM, it has nothing in common with its predecessors except the setting. There should have been huge swarms of demons, but instead you got psuedo-horror mixed with a corridor shooter that didn't accomplish much in either arena.
Rather just ID Software only producing **** over the last decade
 

kapulA

Grizzled Veteran
Jan 4, 2006
2,240
405
83
28
Croatia
I have to agree, I often find myself wondering why no one does a 128 or mayhaps even a 256p MP WW2 shooter with ground vehicles or maybe even aircraft as well on an older engine akin to UE 2.5 or somesuch, but I guess that it just wouldn't be profitable enough to warrant the extensive funding of a dev team that would make it feel right. :/
 

The Masta

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 23, 2005
4,141
908
0
30
Elitist Prick Flight School
I have to agree, I often find myself wondering why no one does a 128 or mayhaps even a 256p MP WW2 shooter with ground vehicles or maybe even aircraft as well on an older engine akin to UE 2.5 or somesuch, but I guess that it just wouldn't be profitable enough to warrant the extensive funding of a dev team that would make it feel right. :/
WW2OL? :p
 

kapulA

Grizzled Veteran
Jan 4, 2006
2,240
405
83
28
Croatia
Don't they have a subscription system of some sort? I'm not really big on games that require me to pay on a monthly basis :/
 

Oldih

Glorious IS-2 Comrade
Nov 22, 2005
3,418
412
0
Finland
There should have been huge swarms of demons, but instead you got psuedo-horror mixed with a corridor shooter that didn't accomplish much in either arena.
Doom 1 never was really that much of a bullet hell in similar sense as Doom 2 would be if you say used Ultra-Violence\Nightmare as base difficulty. Anything below that and Doom 1's most maps were pretty vacant compared to Doom 2, and even Doom 2's maps were kind of something inbetween until later levels.
 

CandleJack

FNG / Fresh Meat
Dec 2, 2009
3,408
1,060
0
VIC
Personally i like games to have a certain standard for graphics.

Other than that, focus on gameplay.
 

=GG= Mr Moe

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 16, 2006
9,798
890
0
53
Newton, NJ
I wouldn't mind slightly less detailed graphics if I thought the game included more features, content, and better gameplay. However there is a limit, and the graphics shouldn't be too dated.
 

RedFlagWaver

FNG / Fresh Meat
Oct 8, 2011
258
150
0
Europe
GAMEPLAY OVER GRAPHICS.
GAMEPLAY OVER GRAPHICS.


I've been chanting that for years. Damned graphics whores everywhere.