Ice Nine... [Archive] - Beyond3D Forum

Legion

05-Dec-2002, 06:07

Remember Outcast 2 for PS2? What happened to that one? Vapor like steam over my coffee.

Now these arguments are funny. I remember having such arguments when i was back in fourth grade. Graphics don't make games fun. Hmmm now that is a relative nonsensical stance. First off part of a games draw is in fact its graphical appeal. I would have to say there are various factors that determine how fun a game is: Sound, graphics, control, story and concept.

Let me ask all you "gameplay" fanatics in here a question. How do you know all your "good" games wouldn't be more fun with more deformable levels or just plain better appearance? I am sure you will admit that graphics DO play a role in the overall gameplay.

To assume that a game isn't good because of its appearance is just as ridiculous as it is to assume that a game is good because of its appearance.

I have to laugh when i hear those people out there say "well i'll take my gameplay over good graphics anyday." Thats an empty BS statement. What is gameplay? Its just a gathering of various components. Graphics and how they are used IS a component of that. Would you enjoy playing Resident Evil if the characters were composed of black vectors and the backdrops were solid red? Of course not. The game was designed around its appearance having some kind of affect on you. Namely fear through suspense.

There are others things here getting on my nerves.

Namely all those peole who turn to rating to say a game is good or not. Does it occur to any of you that ratings are an OPINION. Everyone slight of Bill Clinton (who's opinion was his wife's) has one.

In other words I enjoyed Wreckless. It was a good game in my opinion. If your reviewer doesn't like the game that is his opinion. To tell me the game was bad because he said so is also opinion.

Johnny Awesome why are you even honoring their comments with a reply?

BTW - Logan the PS2 has taught us that good lookings games for it are often vapor ware.

marconelly!

05-Dec-2002, 06:33

Remember Outcast 2 for PS2? What happened to that one? Vapor like steam over my coffee.
Outcast team, sadly, is no more. I loved their first game on PC and was hoping for a nice sequel.

BenSkywalker

05-Dec-2002, 07:32

Graphics don't make games fun. Hmmm now that is a relative nonsensical stance. First off part of a games draw is in fact its graphical appeal. I would have to say there are various factors that determine how fun a game is: Sound, graphics, control, story and concept.

Complete and utter garbage. You ever played PC games? You ever adjust the graphics options? Would you explain how the hell graphics effect gameplay? Most people tend to agree that if anything, lowering the graphics detail as much as possible improves gameplay(as it helps the game have more responsive controls which is an actual gameplay element).

I am sure you will admit that graphics DO play a role in the overall gameplay.

Graphics only impact gameplay if it is in the negative(hurting performance, too dark- impeding the game in any way). Would SuperMonkeyBall have better gameplay if the graphics were on par with Doom3? Not a chance in hell.

To assume that a game isn't good because of its appearance is just as ridiculous as it is to assume that a game is good because of its appearance.

That is absolutely correct, although it doesn't agree with the rest of what you said.

What is gameplay?

The interactive element of a game.

Would you enjoy playing Resident Evil if the characters were composed of black vectors and the backdrops were solid red? Of course not. The game was designed around its appearance having some kind of affect on you. Namely fear through suspense.

RE has some of the worst gameplay of any game ever. It is a game that uses environment to invoke emotions, not gameplay. Gameplay is also commonly referred to as the 'fun factor' of a game. Some games in their totality may be extremely good at what they do without having even semi decent gameplay mechanics(RE being one of those). The film quality of the Godfather is absolutely horrible(the prints, which are easily comparable to grapihcs) and yet the move still is one of the greatest ever made. Was the movie fun? No. Was it supposed to be? No. Was it enjoyable is an entirely different matter, and one that is the real question. Gameplay is gameplay, it has next to nothing to do with graphics and everything to do with fun.

Namely all those peole who turn to rating to say a game is good or not.

It tells you what the consensus is. I'm sure pretty much everyone here can tell you about at least one game they had an absolute blast with despite knowing it sucked as a game.

Legion

05-Dec-2002, 08:02

Complete and utter garbage. You ever played PC games? You ever adjust the graphics options? Would you explain how the hell graphics effect gameplay? Most people tend to agree that if anything, lowering the graphics detail as much as possible improves gameplay(as it helps the game have more responsive controls which is an actual gameplay element).

You mean sort of like your test for RL running at 30 fps? No this isn't garbage. WTF are you saying Ben? Graphics is completely irrelevant for various FPSs. They are not developed around necessarly looking good as they are designed around concept. If we took something like Red Faction and took out its deformable meshes i garauntee you it wouldn't be as fun to play been. You are comparing resolution to necessarily meshes apples and oranges Ben. A lot of what you see in FPSs are client side details that are limited by the amount of bandwidth they are intended to use. This changes the way FPSs are designed to work. Now if you took any one of those titles and added a new feature in them such as deformable meshes (assuming that they are done well) the inclusion could make the game more fun. Would you play the game if it were composed of completely vectors Ben? Hell no you wouldn't. Graphics do play a part. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

Ben you are completely misrepresenting what i said. There are various componets to a game and YES graphics is one of those. Concept however is the MOST important. IN cases such as resident evil the concept is really only possible on a system powerful enough to properly convey "emmotion" of the moment.

That is absolutely correct, although it doesn't agree with the rest of what you said.

No you just didn't think about what i wrote.

The interactive element of a game.

ANd what are demforable meshes in Red Faction Ben? What are exploding meshes ben? Do those fit under interactive and graphics ben? Don't be so damn obtuse. The reason why you perceive and object to be what it is in a game is because it is capable of being descerned as an object.

RE has some of the worst gameplay of any game ever.

That is your damn opinion. I could really care less what you think. I was providing an example. I am sure there is a game out there you play that has interactive objects in it.

It is a game that uses environment to invoke emotions, not gameplay.

Can you not conceive the mere possibility that playing the game and its emmotions that it invokes could interest some one? Only 500,000 so odd people bought the game in the US alone i am sure they bought it for a reason Ben and not just its visual quality.

[quote[Gameplay is also commonly referred to as the 'fun factor' of a game. Some games in their totality may be extremely good at what they do without having even semi decent gameplay mechanics(RE being one of those).[/quote]

Gameplay? What is "gameplay" Ben? I would say it is the composition of all interactive elements of the game which includes graphics elements. Would you disagree?

BenSkywalker

05-Dec-2002, 08:20

You mean sort of like your test for RL running at 30 fps? No this isn't garbage.

Bringing up that discussion? The one where updating the screen 60 times per second is 60FPS even if it is the exact same frame....riiiight.

. You are comparing resolution to necessarily meshes apples and oranges Ben.

WTF....? Resolution....? Do you know what a texture slider is? Do you know what adjusting geometric LOD is? Have you ever seen a game that gives texture filtering options? What about AA? Ever seen a title with optional Cube Maps? What about Dot3? How about PS effects? Draw distance? How many PC games have you ever played? I stated graphics options because I meant graphics options. If I meant resolution I would have stated resolution.

If we took something like Red Faction and took out its deformable meshes

Deformable meshes can have an impact on gameplay, although that doesn't mean that they will. In some instances they are interactive where they will be a factor, in other instances they are simply cosmetic at which point they are not.

Ben you are completely misrepresenting what i said. There are various componets to a game and YES graphics is one of those.

Graphics are a component of a game, not gameplay. Acting is a component of a movie, doesn't mean it is a component of the grips however.

IN cases such as resident evil the concept is really only possible on a system powerful enough to properly convey "emmotion" of the moment.

Is that why the PSX version did so much better then the Cube remake?

No you just didn't think about what i wrote.

Funny, it came across that neither did you :)

ANd what are demforable meshes in Red Faction Ben? What are exploding meshes ben? Do those fit under interactive and graphics ben?

So now the physics engine is the same as the graphics engine in your eyes.... I'm at a loss there. How you are drawing those two together is beyond me.

The reason why you perceive and object to be what it is in a game is because it is capable of being descerned as an object.

The reason you can destroy said object is due to the physics calculations.

That is your damn opinion. I could really care less what you think. I was providing an example. I am sure there is a game out there you play that has interactive objects in it.

Interactive objects are physcis and control based- gameplay elements.

Can you not conceive the mere possibility that playing the game and its emmotions that it invokes could interest some one? Only 500,000 so odd people bought the game in the US alone i am sure they bought it for a reason Ben and not just its visual quality.

What is your point? Did I say the game did not evoke emotions? Did I say those people were wrong? Did I say the game was lacking on what it was supposed to be? Did I say any of those things?(I'll give you a hint, the answer is no to all of them ;) ).

Gameplay? What is "gameplay" Ben? I would say it is the composition of all interactive elements of the game which includes graphics elements. Would you disagree?

Yes, absolutely with the part about 'graphics' being interactive. Graphics are the representation of the underlying object that is interactive. Go try and shoot mip boundaries and see what you get.

marconelly!

05-Dec-2002, 08:47

Bringing up that discussion? The one where updating the screen 60 times per second is 60FPS even if it is the exact same frame....riiiight.
Well, all the philosophy of what the FPS mean aside, you were clearly wrong in your statement that 'few games on consoles run at 60FPS'

There's tons of them, man :)

Legion

05-Dec-2002, 08:56

WTF....? Resolution....? Do you know what a texture slider is? Do you know what adjusting geometric LOD is? Have you ever seen a game that gives texture filtering options? What about AA? Ever seen a title with optional Cube Maps? What about Dot3? How about PS effects? Draw distance? How many PC games have you ever played? I stated graphics options because I meant graphics options. If I meant resolution I would have stated resolution.

Most people are not going to fool around with AA and Level of Detail Settings. A lot of FPSs only give you the ability to minorly change certain settings in menus. Most people don't go around trying to figure out how to tweak mipmap settings in half life or quake 2 Ben. This is completely irrelevant to what i am speaking about Ben.

Deformable meshes can have an impact on gameplay, although that doesn't mean that they will. In some instances they are interactive where they will be a factor, in other instances they are simply cosmetic at which point they are not.

And it doesn't mean that it won't. Also it doesn't mean that not so perfect controles will effect gameplay either. If they are cosmetic then they aren't interactive. The point still remains the appearance does effect your experience.

Graphics are a component of a game, not gameplay. Acting is a component of a movie, doesn't mean it is a component of the grips however.

Nonsense. Abolute nonsense. What you are saying is akin to saying scenery is also not important to a movie. Its apart of what makes it believable ben.

Is that why the PSX version did so much better then the Cube remake?

Dude what the hell are you talking about? You aren't compare A demograph B size of market C Number of consoles effecting the market D other titles that could have effected this title sales and E the fact that it is indeed a rehash and not the original.

So now the physics engine is the same as the graphics engine in your eyes.... I'm at a loss there. How you are drawing those two together is beyond me.

Did i say that? Without the graphics those physics could be applied. The two do go hand in hand.

The reason you can destroy said object is due to the physics calculations.

Ben did you know the reason why you can play the game is because you have eyes. And did you know that because your brain can understand the signals and produce images you can see. Did you know that because electrons can move accross pathways on circuit boards you can play video games? This transfer of charge allows for the physics to be processed. Hmmm that doesn't change the fact that when i pull the trigger a building explodes now does it? If you didn't have a building to be destroyed would you have physics for it?

Ben this is a stupid argument. By this logic the real reason a game is fun is because of the math behind it not because of gameplay Ben.

Interactive objects are physcis and control based- gameplay elements.

that react to your actions much like your player does when you hit a button on a keyboard.

What is your point? Did I say the game did not evoke emotions? Did I say those people were wrong? Did I say the game was lacking on what it was supposed to be? Did I say any of those things?(I'll give you a hint, the answer is no to all of them ).

My point is that part of enjoying the game is the emmotion behind it. Ben you said it sucked so yes you are saying it was lacking what it was supposed to be.

Yes, absolutely with the part about 'graphics' being interactive. Graphics are the representation of the underlying object that is interactive. Go try and shoot mip boundaries and see what you get.

try moving your character without a keyboard or controller. OMG this is starting to sound like a philosophy argument.

Are we really people or are we the third dimensional shadow of a 26th dimensional object's dream?

Why is it you can interact with all things Ben? Because there is a mathmatical principle that allows it.

Man: Son did you cut down that cherry tree?
Ben: No dad i severed the atomic bonds between molecules. So i did not infact cut the tree down.

BenSkywalker

05-Dec-2002, 10:42

A lot of FPSs only give you the ability to minorly change certain settings in menus. Most people don't go around trying to figure out how to tweak mipmap settings in half life or quake 2 Ben.

What are you talking about? Name the last six PC games you have played. Either you don't play PC games very often, or you are being extremely obtuse here.

Also it doesn't mean that not so perfect controles will effect gameplay either. If they are cosmetic then they aren't interactive.

What? Controls are paramount to gameplay, I don't even understand what you are trying to say.

The point still remains the appearance does effect your experience.

When did I say it didn't?

Nonsense. Abolute nonsense. What you are saying is akin to saying scenery is also not important to a movie. Its apart of what makes it believable ben.

A crankshaft is not a camshaft, I suppose to you that means neither of them are in an engine :roll: I never stated that graphics weren't important, I said they aren't gameplay related.

Dude what the hell are you talking about? You aren't compare A demograph B size of market C Number of consoles effecting the market D other titles that could have effected this title sales and E the fact that it is indeed a rehash and not the original.

You stated that the system had to have the graphics power to make it work. The PSX didn't have shit for graphics power and it still worked. You get it yet?

Did i say that? Without the graphics those physics could be applied. The two do go hand in hand.

You brought up deformability being graphics related, it is a function of the physics engine. What you stated makes about as much sense as saying that trilinear really helps out the surround sound in a game, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Hmmm that doesn't change the fact that when i pull the trigger a building explodes now does it? If you didn't have a building to be destroyed would you have physics for it?

The building is still there in wireframe, it just doesn't look as good. Have I ever played games in wireframe? Yep.

My point is that part of enjoying the game is the emmotion behind it. Ben you said it sucked so yes you are saying it was lacking what it was supposed to be.

Either you are stupid, don't know the definition of words, or don't comprehend them properly. Go back and reread exactly what I wrote, don't put any spin on it, read EXACTLY what I wrote. You done yet? The gameplay in Resident Evil sucked. You seem to be equating out that gameplay is the sum of all the parts of the game. That is not true, that is the reason why the 'play' is on the end of 'game' in the word. Do you 'play' with the script of RE? Does it add to the game? Obviously, not everything in a game is based around gameplay. You don't 'play' with graphics and you don't 'play' with sound in games.

try moving your character without a keyboard or controller. OMG this is starting to sound like a philosophy argument.

It isn't philosophical. I didn't make up the word nor the meaning, if you have a problem with it, take up a crusade to get it changed. One plus one equals two, if you try to argue it equals ten because ten is one less then three you are wrong as the words have already been defined and related to a number. It has nothing to do with philosophy.

Legion

05-Dec-2002, 11:26

What are you talking about? Name the last six PC games you have played. Either you don't play PC games very often, or you are being extremely obtuse here.

Ben what does this prove? The vast number of games only allow for minor controls within menus. There are rare acceptions.

The Thing
UT2k3
Command & Conquer: Renagade
Undying
Quake III
Mechwarrior 4

THe "last" number of games i have played does not depict the number as a whole. It may be a growing trend to allow for more control within menus but most games don't have advanced features within their menus. Having the menus and functions also are not indicative of those who will use them.

What? Controls are paramount to gameplay, I don't even understand what you are trying to say.

You haven't even defined what gameplay is. So you can't make a comparison.

A crankshaft is not a camshaft, I suppose to you that means neither of them are in an engine I never stated that graphics weren't important, I said they aren't gameplay related.

thats BS Ben. Again you haven't defined what gameplay is so how can you say they aren't related.

You stated that the system had to have the graphics power to make it work. The PSX didn't have shit for graphics power and it still worked. You get it yet?

Ben you are being purposely obtuse. You make illogical assumption after illogical assumption. At the time the PSX was in the market lead it was a graphical standard. If it weren't as powerful as it was then it would developers probably would have had to make sacrifices in the way of graphics. Again you still haven't denied the fact that the graphical appearance makes an extreme impact on the player. It is necessary to inorder to convey the emmotion of the game. Again you are comparing apples to oranges. Secondly how the hell can you say that if a game doesn't sell well it must not be good? Isn't the worth of a game opinion? You also failed to address the issue that the PSX version sold very well. Honestly the mention of the PSX version contradicts your argument. AT the time it was considered graphically impressive.

You brought up deformability being graphics related, it is a function of the physics engine. What you stated makes about as much sense as saying that trilinear really helps out the surround sound in a game, it makes no sense whatsoever.

:lol: all the functions of gameplay are physics related Ben. You are simply taking a base, nonsensical argument and extrapolating. The fact remains if i didn't want to have an exploding building i wouldn't design physics for it. The reason why the physics are there is because of the interest in the object it is affecting. The appearance and interactive nature of the objects however Ben are graphical by appearance. When you see a building collapse do you see molecular bonds breaking? No, you see a building collapsing. The two go hand in hand ben.

The building is still there in wireframe, it just doesn't look as good. Have I ever played games in wireframe? Yep.

Again ben another ridiculous stance. There were enjoyable vector games BUT does that mean resident evil would be enjoyable as a vector game? No.

Either you are stupid, don't know the definition of words, or don't comprehend them properly. Go back and reread exactly what I wrote, don't put any spin on it, read EXACTLY what I wrote. You done yet? The gameplay in Resident Evil sucked.

Ben your opinion is not indicative of gamers as a whole. If you really want we could use another game; red faction, outcast, Battle Field 1942, MOH:AA, MOH: Frontline or any number of other game with interactive graphics.

You seem to be equating out that gameplay is the sum of all the parts of the game. That is not true, that is the reason why the 'play' is on the end of 'game' in the word.

...And the reason why you can play it is because its interactive....

Do you 'play' with the script of RE? Does it add to the game?

Indeed it does. It affects how the game is played and what happens within.

Obviously, not everything in a game is based around gameplay. You don't 'play' with graphics and you don't 'play' with sound in games.

and you don't play with yourself you play with the computer....and that computer has interactive elements. Those elements make up the game play. If it weren't interactive you couldn't play it.

It isn't philosophical. I didn't make up the word nor the meaning, if you have a problem with it, take up a crusade to get it changed.

Define it. You seem to be operating with a definition of gameplay. Tell me what it is.

One plus one equals two, if you try to argue it equals ten because ten is one less then three you are wrong as the words have already been defined and related to a number. It has nothing to do with philosophy.

You are equating the definition of gameplay with mathmatical facts? Please enlighten me then. What is the definition of gameplay? How can you play a game without interactive elements?

BenSkywalker

05-Dec-2002, 13:08

Define it. You seem to be operating with a definition of gameplay. Tell me what it is.

The play mechanics of a game. Level design in terms of difficulty and the relative purpose it serves based on the object of the game. The control mechanics and how responsive they are to control input including button/control stick arrangement, latency and the relative impact that said controls have versus the physics(or how they interact in general for games that lack a proper physics model) in the game. The physics engine in the game and how it relates to level design and the tasks at hand in terms of complexity and challenge along with the level of immersiveness that it offers. Enemy design and placement, are they worthy opponents, reasonable in number and difficulty and placed in a manner which conducts itself to the manner in which the game is played. Artificial Intelligence if the game has it, how it is handled, does it come of as cheap or 'smart', does it create a challenge that is line with what the game's goals. Pacing of the game- does the difficulty of the game rise in a linear or reasonable fashion, is there adjustment time given to get comfortable with the control schemes, and does the game offer a proper level of challenge based on the task it is designed to serve. Items in the game if utilized, are they useful, in reasonable supply, do they each have a purpose that enhances the game. Advancement of abilities if applicable, are the reasonable, do they match up well with the other factors in the game, is the end result worthy of the challenge presented in acquiring them.

Gameplay is all about the mechanics of a game, it has nothing to do with graphics or sound. Those are elements which appeal to an entirely different level. Sound and graphics make for a better end experience, but they don't constitute gameplay. The story also has nothing at all to do with gameplay, nor does the environment. If you strip a game down to wireframe or flat shaded models and no sound, would it still be fun? If the answer is yes, then the that is good gameplay.

The vast number of games only allow for minor controls within menus.

I have two of those you list- Quake3 and UT2K3, and both of them have a considerable amount of menu based options for graphics that have nothing at all to do with resolution.

At the time the PSX was in the market lead it was a graphical standard. If it weren't as powerful as it was then it would developers probably would have had to make sacrifices in the way of graphics.

Point filtering was of course the holy grail of real time 3D at the time :roll:

Rodéric

05-Dec-2002, 13:23

Tetris:
good gameplay, the game is fun, plenty of people spent hours on it, no physic engine, no AI, nothing special about the graphics, basic controls, still GOOD gameplay...

Pacman:
good gameplay, fun game, again, plenty of people having played it, no physic engine, minimal AI, basic graphics, basic controls, still GOOD gameplay...

I hope you can see a pattern here.

You can make the most beautifull game ever, without good gameplay your game would be nothing more than a nice tech demo.

Favortie Gameplay definition : "the art of meaningful interactions"

mech

05-Dec-2002, 13:33

But graphics CAN make nicely complement a game. MGS2 was more fun for me than MGS1, despite near identical gameplay, because it was smoother and a ton better looking. You get a better atmosphere, and get sucked into the game more.

Obviously not all game types are dependent on graphics - but for most genres, I believe it can go a long way to making a more enjoyable experience for the player. How much more enjoyable is debatable, but I think you're deluding yourself if you say graphics make no difference to gameplay, especially when considering framerate (which is part of the "graphical appeal").

Rodéric

05-Dec-2002, 13:48

AI, graphics... are a way to enhance the user experience, by either improving gameplay, or immersing the player.

But the heart of a game is gameplay which don't REQUIRE state of the art visuals, sound effects...

So I agree with you mech, they are a nice addition (and sometimes enhance gameplay [as allowing new meaningfull interactions]) but no a requirement.

mech

05-Dec-2002, 14:11

Not a requirement by any means, but in 99% of cases they do enhance the gaming experience (and hence the gameplay), but by what margin can vary - e.g. Tony Hawk was fun on all platforms, but IMHO much less fun on the PSX because the graphics were choppy and bland.

Legion

05-Dec-2002, 15:32

All of what ben said is nothing more than his personal opinion. He doesn't seem to understand that.

Art design is graphical Mech.

I find it humorous that Ben uses the term "immersion." What is he immersed in if not graphics?

I am sorry guys there is no such thing as game play without its components.

Like i said before graphics add to the fun BUT THEY ARE NOT THE FUN.

You can say what Gameplay is to you but you can't say what it is for everyone. If gameplay is the interactive elements of the game then gameplay includes graphics. So yes graphics can effect how fun a game is.

Ben seems to want to deny this.

Rodéric

05-Dec-2002, 16:34

I believe he perceived you said (as I did) that graphics MADE most of the gameplay, which we agree on, is not true at all.

Legion

05-Dec-2002, 16:36

It may be the focus of some games (IE RE) but it is not most significant. I don;t know why he assumed that when i told him my perception of what gameplay is is that its made up of all of the interactive elements of a game.

Tagrineth

05-Dec-2002, 20:29

mech

06-Dec-2002, 00:16

Let's bring this back to Ice Nine damn it!! :)

I think it looks awesome.. in actual fact my housemate is on the development team so I've heard quite a bit about it. One to keep an eye out for :)

mech

06-Dec-2002, 00:17

How much more enjoyable is debatable, but I think you're deluding yourself if you say graphics make no difference to gameplay, especially when considering framerate (which is part of the "graphical appeal").

Well I can think of some old games that play great due to a great frame rate - which look like utter crap. And the frame rate is a result of the poor graphical quality.

I know, it's all about balance. I think a game with a higher framerate but lower graphical effects can look better than a game with a lower framerate and higher graphical effects.

But it all comes down to this: the visuals DO have an impact on the gaming experience.

BenSkywalker

06-Dec-2002, 01:27

All of what ben said is nothing more than his personal opinion. He doesn't seem to understand that.

No, it's gameplay. If you don't like what gameplay constitutes, start up a crusade to get it changed.

If gameplay is the interactive elements of the game then gameplay includes graphics.

Go shoot a mip boundary then.... :roll:

Tag-

Well I can think of some old games that play great due to a great frame rate - which look like utter crap.

FZX sprung in to my mind when I read this statement. I certainly agree with you.

Tagrineth

06-Dec-2002, 01:48

If gameplay is the interactive elements of the game then gameplay includes graphics.

Go shoot a mip boundary then.... :roll:

Yeah, really. Jeeze.

The entire argument is that the meshes can be deformed, and that these meshes are the graphics.

Well, yes they ARE the graphics; however, the REASON they can be deformed is because of the physics engine. The graphics engine just lets them LOOK deformed as well. (ehehe, interesting thought, a bug where the deformable surfaces deforms 'virtually' according to the physics model but the wall remains... :lol:)

Gameplay is how the game PLAYS. You don't actually PLAY the graphics, that's the job of the artists.

GamePLAY is all about control scheme quality. Game responsiveness. Physics accuracy (or in the case of Wreckless, INaccuracy :)). AI ability (or AS in Sheep ;)). Accurate collision detection.

Elements that definitely do NOT factor in as 'gameplay': GRAPHICS, STORYLINE, OVERALL MOOD, SETTING.

Graphics (RE), mood (RE), setting (think of one; I can't at the moment), and storyline (name that RPG!) can make up for horrendous gameplay in some cases, but they are not part of the gameplay.

They are elements of the GAME but not the gamePLAY.

Well I can think of some old games that play great due to a great frame rate - which look like utter crap.

FZX sprung in to my mind when I read this statement. I certainly agree with you.

F-Zero X is, incidentally, also probably THE best example.

Nintendo traded off the graphics quality COMPLETELY. The vehicles are all 90% flatshaded (not even goraud!), the tracks use ludicrously repetitive textures. The game runs in low-res without AA. The backgrounds are reasonably scarce.

All this results in a good draw distance (required in any high-speed racing game), and a PERFECT (read - P-E-R-F-E-C-T) 60fps frame rate.

The graphics are dismal to say the least, but in trading off the graphics, they made the gamePLAY nearly flawless. You simply do NOT say that F-Zero X has bad gamePLAY due to its ugliness!

...oh, and did it occur to anyone else that the poly count on the road itself is really, really good? Did they use some kind of HOS for it? Probably Bezier... that'd allow for a great geometry rate, what with not having to worry about the DRDRAM! :)

Colourless

06-Dec-2002, 13:58

interesting thought, a bug where the deformable surfaces deforms 'virtually' according to the physics model but the wall remains... :lol:

Well, Quake 3 has the opposite bug. A number of it's organic type surfaces visually become deformed (bulges moving along, etc), but the collision boundries don't move.

lemming

06-Dec-2002, 15:47

It all depends on your definition of gameplay.

I personally think a definition that says "gameplay" is nothing but a series of definable mechanical interactions is depressinly limited and shortsighted. I know a number of people who would disagree with this however, and so I have a degree of sympathy with Legion in this case. :D

RL is 60fps BTW. A console can change the image it's generating each field from up to 60 times a second (assuming vsync). Thus at 60fps each field is made up from a distinct image, so it's a different kettle of fish to a game that is running at 30fps where two subsequent fields are made up from the same image.

Those Ice Nine shots look good, but I'd say the level of texture detail seems fairly typical for PS2. Look at the level of variety and colour in the environment textures, rather than how sharp some of the lines seem. And I'm assuming the AA won't be in the finished game (i.e. that these are PR shots). Adding AA to early screens seems like quite a common thing these days.

Vince

06-Dec-2002, 17:59

Graphics (RE), mood (RE), setting (think of one; I can't at the moment), and storyline (name that RPG!) can make up for horrendous gameplay in some cases, but they are not part of the gameplay.

GamePLAY is all about control scheme quality.

This is so very wrong. Gameplay is definatly a function of the visual appearence that you precieve. Only, as lemming very wisely stated, a shortsighted fool would not see this.

This is very simple indeed, only you and Ben have limited views of this (among other things) and fail to see the global picture. Here it goes:

I'm playing a game on a Console. This game doesn't take place within my own consciousness, it's an external stimuli thats being percieved by my PNS - which has a limited view of the enviroment around it. Thus, the game and what it portreys to my conscoiusness (which for this discussion we'll consider merely the CNS) is limited by the primary entry points of this information - in the case of video games this is visual and auditory with some tactile feedback.

Thus, the scope of the game, the portreyal of what I can and cannot go, the immersion and realism, is all dependent upon what visual stimulous you're sending to my PNS. The weakest link if you will, is infact the visual presentation.

Games like Pacman were limited in there gameplay by what they could visually portrey at that time. So, the game revolved around a 2D plane and simple sprites. This obviously is a limiting factor when you consider what could be accomplished by indroducing a 3rd dimension to the equation. The "gameplay' potential rises as the developers are given new freedoms.

Looking forward, the same can be seen. Games of today like MGS2 and SC (as a simple example) are so unbeleivably limited in their gameplay. Simple, highly limited, and repititious possible actions and animations. The limiting reaction is the inability to saturate the conscousness with stimuli. Short term we'll see the level of gameplay rise as the amount of animation, and interaction (functions of the graphical/vidual output as he correctly stated) rise. The big leap will come when we have some sort of 3D glasses that respond to head movements and digital camera based inputs (but thats another story). Can you even imagine the new gameplay potential if you could swing your head around and see from a 1st person perspective around a corner? Or, the realism of having a dynamic 'body' in a world that can move anywhere, anyhow?

Or stricly speaking of graphics, what about the gameplay potential of fighting in the middle of an epic battle with 20,000 combatents. Or a game like the Matrix - where it actually looks and plays like it. Or how about a game like FFX, where I can see the emotion, or passion, or anger clearly and totally realisticaly on the faces of characters - I want to see Yuna (example, it's a girl) shed a tear that reflects the emerging sun from behind the receeding dark clouds as light breeze ripples threw her hair after I just sacrificed my gameworld life for the greater good. When will I be able to rob a bank with my friends in Grand Theft Auto and loose the cops in a crowded city center with a crowd of 10,000 people walking around me - with the cops filtering out threw the crowd, asking random people questions, arresting suspecious individuals? Or when can I dogfight an Su-27 in my F/A-22 over my house, fly threw the crowded streets of Chicago, between the skyskrapers with a realistic and active street and population below and then pull a vertical up the side of the Sears Tower and make me believe I'm really there? When you answer these questions, then tell me how graphics don't infleuce gameplay?

Physics are merely a subset that influeneces how what we see interacts with the game world. It has limits imposed by the graphical surroundings and level of immersion. You can have the best physics engine in the world, but it would suck in Doom or whatever game where you limited to a 2D plane.

The truth is, Gameplay potential is a function of primarily the 2 way saturation of the PNS/CNS with stimulation. Computational power has been the main limiting feature to this point. We're now reaching a point where graphics are the last hurdle to jump before the burden becomes (as it already is starting to) the medium and input. Developers can still find creative things to do, but the next jump in potential similar to that between 2D->3D will be a bit. Untill then, world will become more interactive and larger (thank you graphics), but thats it.

So, in closing - at this juncture, graphics (visual stimulous) is the main factor in gameplay potental. Untill, we move away from computation limitation to the medium and input limitations.

Tagrineth

06-Dec-2002, 20:26

Or stricly speaking of graphics, what about the gameplay potential of fighting in the middle of an epic battle with 20,000 combatents.

Quick pulled sample...

That has nothing to do with the actual graphics QUALITY, that could be done easily today using Quake-level graphics, and you'd still get the same end effect of 20,000 combatants.

Yes, graphics do affect gameplay, but they aren't a part of it.

Interesting for your quote that you cut off the second statement. I'll restate the full line:

GamePLAY is all about control scheme quality. Game responsiveness. Physics accuracy (or in the case of Wreckless, INaccuracy ). AI ability (or AS in Sheep ). Accurate collision detection.

The available controls are only one part of the gameplay. :\

------------

Another thing, according to what you've said, the game's graphics are the primary function of gameplay. From that post, I get the simple conclusion that the better the graphics are, the better the gameplay is. This is true, but only in one direction.

Within one single game, yes, increasing the visual quality WILL have good results, and end up making the game a better experience (frame rate permitting, of course). (seems like this is your entire argument)

However, if visual quality is so significant, why are there so many good PSX games? Why didn't the N64 and Saturn have hands-down better games than PSX? Easy - because the PSX games had much better gameplay - phsyics, controls, style, etc. But very, very rarely did PSX games have truly "better" graphics than Saturn and N64.

BenSkywalker

07-Dec-2002, 02:19

Vince-

Gameplay is definatly a function of the visual appearence that you precieve.

No, it isn't.

Thus, the game and what it portreys to my conscoiusness (which for this discussion we'll consider merely the CNS) is limited by the primary entry points of this information - in the case of video games this is visual and auditory with some tactile feedback.

This, along with most of the rest of your post, is talking about how submersive a game is, not gameplay.

Thus, the scope of the game, the portreyal of what I can and cannot go, the immersion and realism, is all dependent upon what visual stimulous you're sending to my PNS. The weakest link if you will, is infact the visual presentation.

Which has nothing to do with gameplay.

This obviously is a limiting factor when you consider what could be accomplished by indroducing a 3rd dimension to the equation. The "gameplay' potential rises as the developers are given new freedoms.

And to this day, more people enjoy the 2D Pac-Man then the 3D ones. Moving a game to 3D opens up new gameplay mechanics, the visuals are simply a side effect as far as gameplay is concerned.

Can you even imagine the new gameplay potential if you could swing your head around and see from a 1st person perspective around a corner?

Immersiveness yes, gameplay no. Would the game play any different because of the headset? No. Would it be a more immersive experience? Yes.

Or stricly speaking of graphics, what about the gameplay potential of fighting in the middle of an epic battle with 20,000 combatents.

If you are not fighting them all at once, then the rest are simply there as a backdrop.

When will I be able to rob a bank with my friends in Grand Theft Auto and loose the cops in a crowded city center with a crowd of 10,000 people walking around me - with the cops filtering out threw the crowd, asking random people questions, arresting suspecious individuals?

That is a limitation of current hardware, but doesn't have to do with graphics adding to gameplay. Would it make a difference on a gameplay level if those people were poorly animated sprites? No. Would it hurt the submersiveness in the game? Yes.

Physics are merely a subset that influeneces how what we see interacts with the game world. It has limits imposed by the graphical surroundings and level of immersion.

What? The graphics mean nothing without the physics engine. As a general example there is a particular missile upgrade in Metroid Prime that you get by walking through a 'wall'(not shooting it out, walking straight through it. How could that be possible if the graphics engine says it's there? Because the physics engine says it isn't.

You can have the best physics engine in the world, but it would suck in Doom or whatever game where you limited to a 2D plane.

By default, any physics engine in a 2D plane is inferior.

The truth is, Gameplay potential is a function of primarily the 2 way saturation of the PNS/CNS with stimulation. Computational power has been the main limiting feature to this point.

You are talking about overall gaming experience, not gameplay.

mech

07-Dec-2002, 03:14

I think we're arguing about semantics here, i.e. the definition of gameplay...

Vince

07-Dec-2002, 22:25

No, it isn't.

Argh... yes, it is.

This, along with most of the rest of your post, is talking about how submersive a game is, not gameplay.

Wait and see.

And to this day, more people enjoy the 2D Pac-Man then the 3D ones. Moving a game to 3D opens up new gameplay mechanics, the visuals are simply a side effect as far as gameplay is concerned.

Whats the diffrence between your discreet units of "gameplay" and "game play mechanics"? HA! It would appear to me that the diversity and what gameplay could be achieved is dependent upon your "gameplay mechanic" (and thus graphics). End of story, graphics define gameplay.

Immersiveness yes, gameplay no. Would the game play any different because of the headset? No.

Oh yes. Imagine playing SC or MGS with headset as described. The gameplay advantages would be huge in terms of how we navigate the mission, explore the level, or run upto an enemy. Or attacking multiple enemies.

Imagine the gameplay advantages with VirtuaFighter4 with a headset. Your telling me that the gameplay potential and that which is realised wouldn't go up a massive amount when your actually there, seeing what your character is, as the moves unfold and you counter? Or how you could quickly snap your head around to see the guy appraoching from behind?

I think the gameplay advantages would be enormous.

Enemies wouldn't have to be neutered down in their abilities and numbers to co-inside with the lack of precision and vision in a video game.

How can it not increase the potential when it's eliminating a level of extraction between the game and the player? It's alot easier for you to say to just say no, than me say yes and provide example that don't yet exist. With some imagination, intelligence and creativity, it's obvious.

If you are not fighting them all at once, then the rest are simply there as a backdrop.

Ben, your so linear in your thinking. Seriously buddy. If the graphics output of today allowed for say, 10,000 combatents fighting an epic battle, then the developer could tweak the gameplay so that your fighting skills, taunts, abilities, heroism, and courage would be reflected upon the background combatents. If you fight like ass... your side will demoralise and fight like ass. If you pull an Schwarzenegger and wipe out an entire 3rd world country yourself (with only an M-60 and 1 belt of ammo), then your side wins.

That is a limitation of current hardware, but doesn't have to do with graphics adding to gameplay. Would it make a difference on a gameplay level if those people were poorly animated sprites? No. Would it hurt the submersiveness in the game? Yes.

Yes it would. Running threw a crowd of very static sprites is hardly adding the potential that a developer could add using 3D graphics. Prime example, The Getaway and taking people hostage.

Also, realise that Developers are unwilling to sacrifise graphics, which as this board demonstrates is enough not only to make a game suceed or fail, but stimulate a tantra-esqu calibur orgasm from many.

How can you say that having in the above example, having a polygonal crowd like that to loose the police in wouldn't add levels to the gameplay which are impossible to even imagine at this point.

What? The graphics mean nothing without the physics engine. As a general example there is a particular missile upgrade in Metroid Prime that you get by walking through a 'wall'(not shooting it out, walking straight through it. How could that be possible if the graphics engine says it's there? Because the physics engine says it isn't.

Ok, then jump into the shuttle Atlantis, rocket into space and float away - hey, physics apply there too and we definatly have the power to do realistic physics in a near-zero G enviroment.

Or, go open every door in Max Payne or MoH into the room behind it - we can open some of them. Why not all?

Physics are only defined in the gameworld. In most cases, the gameworld and what can take place within it are limited by what the developers can create - which is limited by what they can show - which is limited by graphics and space.

By default, any physics engine in a 2D plane is inferior.

Thats the point.

You are talking about overall gaming experience, not gameplay

Ohh, so gameplay doesn't have an impact upon the experience now?

I'm talking about the potential gameplay - a sharp distinction between the abstract concenpt that you define as gameplay. It's easy to see how the potential for gameplay and developer oippertunities are vastly increased by the improvement in graphics.

I was just reading a preview of Shinobi and the developer from Overworks kept going on and on about how the transistion to a 3D polygonal world opened up so many new possibilities and gameplay advantages over their old 2D one. His main focus was stealth-what Shinbi actually means-and how it's impossible without 3D.

Or SplinterCell. How would it pull off the in-the-shadows style hiding if it was being rendered using the constraints of a VGA adapter or only sprites? Ben, this is so cut-and-dry.

Vince

07-Dec-2002, 22:43

That has nothing to do with the actual graphics QUALITY, that could be done easily today using Quake-level graphics, and you'd still get the same end effect of 20,000 combatants.

See response to Ben on same topic.

GamePLAY is all about control scheme quality. Game responsiveness. Physics accuracy (or in the case of Wreckless, INaccuracy ). AI ability (or AS in Sheep ). Accurate collision detection.

So, your telling me that if a developer could show 500,000 individual polygonal pieces, shards and splinters emerging from a crash in Wreckless with physics applierd to all, the physics wouldn't be more accurate?

So, let me get this strait. If I make a game where I have to hunt down the Dark matter that exists in a vacuum with no walls - that has great gameplay? I mean, Dark Matter obeys the physical laws of QT and Relativity - It has 'physics' and 'collison detection'. But, I can't see it. So, this is great gameplay?

Another thing, according to what you've said, the game's graphics are the primary function of gameplay. From that post, I get the simple conclusion that the better the graphics are, the better the gameplay is. This is true, but only in one direction.

No, your extrapolating out Laws that don't exist based on what I stated. Just call me William of Ockham why don't you :lol:

I stated that the gameplay potential is dependent upon graphics. Whether or not one uses the potential wisely is another story. But the fundimental principle stands.

However, if visual quality is so significant, why are there so many good PSX games? Why didn't the N64 and Saturn have hands-down better games than PSX? Easy - because the PSX games had much better gameplay - phsyics, controls, style, etc. But very, very rarely did PSX games have truly "better" graphics than Saturn and N64.

Wow, your even more linear in your thinking than Ben.. not a good thing. I already explained by point sweetie, read threw what I already wrote. I think it's clear enough.

BenSkywalker

08-Dec-2002, 01:54

End of story, graphics define gameplay.

Not only do they not define gameplay, they are not even a function of it. I would think if anyone, you would be the most vocal in denouncing this preposterous assumption, your line of argument supports that XBox has superior gameplay when compared to the PS2 by default.

Imagine the gameplay advantages with VirtuaFighter4 with a headset. Your telling me that the gameplay potential and that which is realised wouldn't go up a massive amount when your actually there, seeing what your character is, as the moves unfold and you counter? Or how you could quickly snap your head around to see the guy appraoching from behind?

If you are talking about a full VR unit then you are altering the control scheme which is a function of gameplay. If you are simply talking about a display unit, have you used many VR headsets? I crank the sensitivity of my mouse up and can spin around a lot faster then with a VR headset on, not to mention when spinning around frequently I don't get dizzy using a mouse.

How can it not increase the potential when it's eliminating a level of extraction between the game and the player?

You are talking about the level of immersiveness in a game. That is not a function of gameplay. I did not say that it wasn't an important aspect, or that it doesn't improve the game, I stated that it is not a function of gameplay which it isn't.

If the graphics output of today allowed for say, 10,000 combatents fighting an epic battle, then the developer could tweak the gameplay so that your fighting skills, taunts, abilities, heroism, and courage would be reflected upon the background combatents.

If the graphics allowed then the gameplay could be tweaked, sounds like you are saying they are seperate functions to me.

Yes it would. Running threw a crowd of very static sprites is hardly adding the potential that a developer could add using 3D graphics. Prime example, The Getaway and taking people hostage.

Why couldn't you take people hostage under the scenario I stated? It would not look nearly as good, nor be as convincing, but those are factors of immersion, not gameplay.

How can you say that having in the above example, having a polygonal crowd like that to loose the police in wouldn't add levels to the gameplay which are impossible to even imagine at this point.

Neither the EE, the Gekko, nor the Celery could handle those tasks right now(having that many people running around). If they were simple enough models, the GS, the NV2A and the Gekko have enough power to draw them.

Physics are only defined in the gameworld. In most cases, the gameworld and what can take place within it are limited by what the developers can create - which is limited by what they can show - which is limited by graphics and space.

It's not limited by graphics. In Max Payne(a lousy game btw ;) ) all they had to do was reuse the same 15'x15' for the 150th time. MoH is extremely linear anyway- try taking out the gunner nests on the beach before meating up with your commander. You can shoot them for an hour straight and they won't stay down. Not a function of graphics, a function of overly linear gameplay.

Ohh, so gameplay doesn't have an impact upon the experience now?

When did I say that? Gameplay is one of the functions of the overall experience, but it is far from the only one.

I'm talking about the potential gameplay - a sharp distinction between the abstract concenpt that you define as gameplay. It's easy to see how the potential for gameplay and developer oippertunities are vastly increased by the improvement in graphics.

I see more potential with more processing power, due to superior AI, more characters on screen, more realistic physics- but those could be very simplistic flat shaded objects and it would still have improved gameplay. The graphics simply allow it to be more immersive.

I was just reading a preview of Shinobi and the developer from Overworks kept going on and on about how the transistion to a 3D polygonal world opened up so many new possibilities and gameplay advantages over their old 2D one.

When I have I said otherwise? The thing is you focus on graphics being the key point behind 3D gaming which it isn't. Graphics allow for superior immeriveness.

Or SplinterCell. How would it pull off the in-the-shadows style hiding if it was being rendered using the constraints of a VGA adapter or only sprites?

Line of sight. The original MetalGear was a sprite based game and you had to sneak around in it, and it worked. Certainly the more powerful systems allow for a far more believable and immersive experience however.

archie4oz

08-Dec-2002, 09:19

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Ben on this one in the sense that graphics do not define gameplay. To say such a thing is ludicrous. It is understandable though as we are humans and humans tend to rely on sight above all their other senses.

Vince is on the right track with regards to gameplay essentially providing mental stimuli through various senses. Of course one could also say that about reading a book (pictures or no), watching a movie, playing an instrument, having sex, playing a physical sport (gasp!)...

Graphics simply exploit the most relied on sense that humans possess. Of course that doesn't you can't have gameplay without fancy graphics. Parappa and Vib Ribbon are good examples of games with extremely simplistic/primitive graphics (even though modern, capable hardware is available), yet are still quite addictive in terms of gameplay (despite their simplicity). Hell you could be blind and still enjoy 'gameplay'. Didn't any of you guys play Marco Polo as a kid? As it is videogames have finally 'truly' leveraged aural perception to a meaningful degree, however touch is barely utilized, and I won't even bother about taste and smell...

marconelly!

08-Dec-2002, 09:39

Or SplinterCell. How would it pull off the in-the-shadows style hiding if it was being rendered using the constraints of a VGA adapter or only sprites?

Line of sight.

Just to point out, gameplay in MGS2 and SC is quite different, partialy beacuse of the shadows. While MGS2 is mostly based around the line of sight avoiding (it has several spots where you actually utilize shadows to hide yourself). Splinter Cell uses shadows much more often.

Both elements (shadows and line of sight) create some new moments to think about and change the way you approach the problem. Both, if cleverly used, can enhance the gameplay, but shadows are obviously very much graphics hardware dependant, as you wouldn't really be able to have them using Wolfenstein 3D engine.

Vince

08-Dec-2002, 12:07

Not only do they not define gameplay, they are not even a function of it. I would think if anyone, you would be the most vocal in denouncing this preposterous assumption, your line of argument supports that XBox has superior gameplay when compared to the PS2 by default.

Wow, your again missing it. What I'm saying is that graphics define what gameplay can be potentially done. As I stated previously, it sets the limits on the gameplay potential.

Obviously, I'm not an idiot. I realise that XBox will in 2 or so years have titles which use it's graphical advantage to offer a gameplay experience thats not possible on PS2. Whether this is threw level size, design, lighting, polygon thouroput, whatever - it's going to happen.

You are talking about the level of immersiveness in a game. That is not a function of gameplay. I did not say that it wasn't an important aspect, or that it doesn't improve the game, I stated that it is not a function of gameplay which it isn't.

So, having a 3D headset wouldn't allow for developers to impliment forms of gameplay not possible without? I'd say your not thinking creativly- big surprise.

If the graphics allowed then the gameplay could be tweaked, sounds like you are saying they are seperate functions to me.

Like I've been fuckin saying for ever... graphics are the limiting function in what forms of gameplay a developer can impliment.. so yes, duh!! My God, lets keep reinterating the same thing over and over.

Why couldn't you take people hostage under the scenario I stated? It would not look nearly as good, nor be as convincing, but those are factors of immersion, not gameplay.

While feasible, and it would increase the gameplay potential, as I stated before developers are willing to sacrifice visual quality because of people like you whose panties get in the perverbail bundle everytime you see a rendering artifact of non filtered texel.

Neither the EE, the Gekko, nor the Celery could handle those tasks right now(having that many people running around). If they were simple enough models, the GS, the NV2A and the Gekko have enough power to draw them.

Um <scratches head and tries to find relevence>

It's not limited by graphics. In Max Payne(a lousy game btw ;) ) all they had to do was reuse the same 15'x15' for the 150th time. MoH is extremely linear anyway- try taking out the gunner nests on the beach before meating up with your commander. You can shoot them for an hour straight and they won't stay down. Not a function of graphics, a function of overly linear gameplay.

Um, so if the developer had infinate computational and RAM resources, you thin he's still impliment such a linear structure? MoH is linear because of it's root in the PSOne and it's limitations. Which harks back to the fact that the what the developer could display infleunced the type of gameplay that was possible.

Infact, good point, name me an action or otherwise closely related game between the years 1990-1997 with non linear gameplay. Then between 1998-2002.

Lets see if there's an corrilation...

I see more potential with more processing power, due to superior AI, more characters on screen, more realistic physics- but those could be very simplistic flat shaded objects and it would still have improved gameplay. The graphics simply allow it to be more immersive.

Again, you try selling a game like that. You bitch about everything and you think a developer who has to pitch his or her game to a publisher with graphics on the mind would attempt it?

Recently, with the ability to draw and store large worlds as in GTA, Mafia, J&D, R&C, or many of the RPG's - we're seeing the effects of the added gameplay potential of having a bigger world, more flexilibity within and greater gameplay potential.

I think everyone would abree that the gameplay in GTA3 far surpasses that offered in the previous, 2D, versions. Why is this? Perhaps the increase in visual/graphical presentation? I think so.

When I have I said otherwise? The thing is you focus on graphics being the key point behind 3D gaming which it isn't. Graphics allow for superior immeriveness.

Dude, read what I write. I said it's the limiting factor, this right now it is the most important as it defines what can and can't be done. This is simple.

Line of sight. The original MetalGear was a sprite based game and you had to sneak around in it, and it worked. Certainly the more powerful systems allow for a far more believable and immersive experience however.

Ohh, ok, good one. :roll:

So, MG1 had the same gameplay or superior gameplay than MGS2? I mean, it must as it should be able to according to your logic. bviously it falls very, very short.

Look at the advance between MGS and MGS2 - the added enviromental touches, the graphical effects, the shadows abnd reflections, the diversions... The list is endless.

I mean, MG1 had alotta gameplay extracted from not letting the opponents see your shadow or reflection :roll:

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Ben on this one in the sense that graphics do not define gameplay. To say such a thing is ludicrous.

Wow, thats ignorant. Bud, then how about you help Ben answer some of the above questions, ok? :wink:

Vince

08-Dec-2002, 12:18

BenSkywalker

08-Dec-2002, 14:46

Wow, your again missing it. What I'm saying is that graphics define what gameplay can be potentially done. As I stated previously, it sets the limits on the gameplay potential.

No it doesn't. I've already explained why it doesn't.

So, having a 3D headset wouldn't allow for developers to impliment forms of gameplay not possible without?

If you are simply using it as a display device, no, it won't offer new forms of gameplay. So how much time have you spent using a VR headset? I've got a couple hundred hours using one form or another.

Like I've been fuckin saying for ever... graphics are the limiting function in what forms of gameplay a developer can impliment.. so yes, duh!!

Graphics absolutely do not. So far we have one developer who has offered his thoughts, and he doesn't agree with you.

Um <scratches head and tries to find relevence>

The graphics chips we already have already can do everything you are talking about as hypothetical. The processors can't.

Infact, good point, name me an action or otherwise closely related game between the years 1990-1997 with non linear gameplay. Then between 1998-2002.

Lets see if there's an corrilation...

You confuse the advances in platforms as a whole with graphics in the singular.

Again, you try selling a game like that. You bitch about everything and you think a developer who has to pitch his or her game to a publisher with graphics on the mind would attempt it?

How many copies did DQ7 sell in the year 2000? Just under 3.8Million in one country alone? With relatively poor graphics by PSX standards, and with the PS2 available. That would seem to indicate that gameplay without great graphics can sell quite well. Actually, it rather proves it :)

I think everyone would abree that the gameplay in GTA3 far surpasses that offered in the previous, 2D, versions. Why is this? Perhaps the increase in visual/graphical presentation? I think so.

Because it is in 3D. You see 3D I assume that you instantly think of the graphics, don't you?

So, MG1 had the same gameplay or superior gameplay than MGS2?

You asked how they could implement stealth, assuming that they needed current generation power levels to pull it off it appears. They had stealth elements in games back in the 80s. Now, are you asking do I think that MG1 had superior gameplay mechanics to MGS2? You do recall that I absolutely loathe the gameplay in the MGS line don't you, you really don't want to ask me my view on that ;)

I mean, MG1 had alotta gameplay extracted from not letting the opponents see your shadow or reflection

Why does the enemy observe your shadow? I'll give you a hint, it isn't because of the graphics engine. Believe it or not, your enemy in the game isn't sitting on the couch next to you watching your TV with you ;) He is actually relying on an AI script, which is a function of gameplay.

Vince

08-Dec-2002, 20:24

EDIT: Good responces at end.

No it doesn't. I've already explained why it doesn't.

Actually, you haven't explained much and have answered precious few of my questions - big surprise.

Graphics absolutely do not. So far we have one developer who has offered his thoughts, and he doesn't agree with you.

Einstein spend the last 20 years of his life fighting the Quantum Mechanical revolution untill he finally backed it. Just because one person, no matter who, states that something is as it is doesn't make it correct.

The graphics chips we already have already can do everything you are talking about as hypothetical. The processors can't.

Wow, news flash. The XBox can draw 20,000 people fighting a Braveheart style battle. OMG, thanks for the info Mr. Perez.

You confuse the advances in platforms as a whole with graphics in the singular.

Not at all, those other added aspects of gameplay are all limited by what the developer can show you (Audio and tactile feedback is seldom used to the same extent as visual).

How many copies did DQ7 sell in the year 2000? Just under 3.8Million in one country alone? With relatively poor graphics by PSX standards, and with the PS2 available. That would seem to indicate that gameplay without great graphics can sell quite well. Actually, it rather proves it :)

This only proves that you're not comprehending whaty I'm saying. It states that the types of gameplay that a developer can impliment are limited by the graphics preformance.

Your so damn linear in your thinking. It's scary. To you, my argument is Graphics = Gameplay. Which if you look back to my posts is intirely incorrect. I even corrected this several times such as:

"No, your extrapolating out Laws that don't exist based on what I stated. Just call me William of Ockham why don't you

I stated that the gameplay potential is dependent upon graphics. Whether or not one uses the potential wisely is another story. But the fundimental principle stands.

Ben, this sort of linear thinking that your defending kills me. I realise to you the world is A+B=C, but technological advance is geometric. Realise this and move on.

Because it is in 3D. You see 3D I assume that you instantly think of the graphics, don't you?

No, because the move to 3D, with the increase in graphics that allowed for the move - has opened up gameplay advantages that are unparralleled in any previous game. I mean, common, play the games and see. How hard is this.

They had stealth elements in games back in the 80s

Thats not the point - I'm showing you that the increase in graphical power has enabled developers to open up new frontiers with regards to the gameplay potential that a Stealth based game has.

I mean, how obvious is this?? Name any game from the 80's with the stealth/tactical gameplay aspects as strong as SC or MGS2. You can't, because developers couldn't allow for this gameplay with their limited graphical power at their disposal.

Now, are you asking do I think that MG1 had superior gameplay mechanics to MGS2? You do recall that I absolutely loathe the gameplay in the MGS line don't you, you really don't want to ask me my view on that ;)

Wise-ass :wink: :lol:

Why does the enemy observe your shadow? I'll give you a hint, it isn't because of the graphics engine. Believe it or not, your enemy in the game isn't sitting on the couch next to you watching your TV with you ;) He is actually relying on an AI script, which is a function of gameplay.

Ok, thank you, thank you Ben. God I love ya...

How would the gameplay in Splinter Cell be without the Shadows graphically visable? I mean, the underlying physics is there - the AI scripts still chugging on the celery (unless he is on the couch next to me.... <peaks over sholder>)

According to your definition, the gameplay potential is the same with or without the shadows visable - aslong as the underlying mechanics are in place.

So, if graphics aren't a function of gameplay, as you state. Then their is no need for any visable shadows. Hell, lets just look as a Matrix-esque stream of raw data and play. The gameplays still there... the AI is running, the physics happening and being shown. GOTY!

Tagrineth

08-Dec-2002, 20:28

Ohh, Ben.. can you point me to the game from the early 90s or any vector or sprite based game that has gameplay potential comming from the use of reflections? I mean, the only SWAT games must have let you see the bad guys reflections in mirrors of their shadows....

Also, any games from the same era which have gameplay derived from the use of volumetric fog. I'm sure that the Apple IIe's could definatly provide you with a gameplay experience like Silent Hill 3. :roll:

And Ben, while your at it, why didn't Wolf3D have walls with diffrent sizes? I'd think the ability to explore a castle with multiple stories or enemey attacks from varying levels might have added to the gameplay.

Actually, I have another. Where can I pick up the game from the early 90's that lets me hid in a shadow so the passing sentry doesn't see me. Thanks... I've been looking for that one.

Dear God, Make him see the Light.

Vince... Wolf3D is a TERRIBLE example for your point! By your reasoning, if it had instead been a top-down shooter, it could very well have had differing wall heights, and even multiple floors! But that's with a REDUCTION in graphics quality, rather than improvement.

As far as I can see, you're arguing that graphics capabilities will limit gameplay possibilities, but that graphics still aren't really a part of gameplay. I've been arguing for the underlined, while ignoring the first part... but in that sense, you are right... however, as Ben pointed out, the graphics engine isn't what limits things like enemy AI's seeing your shadow, it's in the AI script.

The shadow (which can be a simple shadow map, which even PSX can handle reasonably well - or even a collection of dark hexagons, like Grandia II on DreamCast) is given a bounding box (AI and collision function), and when the shadow's bounding box enters into the enemy's line-of-sight (again, AI and collision data), the enemy "sees" your shadow (AI - enemy sees shadow and investigates - and collision - shadow bounding area enters enemy line-of-sight). Those could all be realised on a pure-software system featuring a Z80 and a top-down perspective without too much trouble.

Moving to 3D, with a volumetric shadow and high-quality character models is more a function of immersion and overall experience than gameplay.

Tagrineth

08-Dec-2002, 20:36

How would the gameplay in Splinter Cell be without the Shadows graphically visable? I mean, the underlying physics is there - the AI scripts still chugging on the celery (unless he is on the couch next to me.... <peaks over sholder>)

According to your definition, the gameplay potential is the same with or without the shadows visable - aslong as the underlying mechanics are in place.

So, if graphics aren't a function of gameplay, as you state. Then their is no need for any visable shadows. Hell, lets just look as a Matrix-esque stream of raw data and play. The gameplays still there... the AI is running, the physics happening and being shown. GOTY!

Well, Splinter Cell wouldn't really HAVE to have stencil shadows to have VISIBLE shadows. Like I just said in my last post (:lol:), shadows can even be Grandia II-esque collections of hexagons, as long as the bounding box is there. :)

If the shadows weren't visible the game would be a lot harder to play :) But in theory the gameplay could be the same, just that the player would be left thinking "WTF?!" a lot of the time, as he/she would be seen and wonder what on earth is going on - when in fact the bounding box for the non-represented shadow is in the enemy's line-of-sight.

Then there's also an MGS example, a few times while running through the place where you fight the tank, I've been blasted by Claymores while paying attention to my mine detector... because the visible "lines-of-sight" for the Claymores don't quite match up to the bounding zones. That isn't so much a problem with gameplay, but with graphics not quite representing what's there properly! :lol:

And with your last point: Well, in The Matrix, at the end when you see from Neo's POV, and everything is Matrix code... you can actually discern everything in the room just fine! :) The only thing is it's kinda a rip-off in the texture and palette department - the models are great, but everything has the same black and green texture... ^_^;

marconelly!

08-Dec-2002, 20:48

If the shadows weren't visible the game would be a lot harder to play But in theory the gameplay could be the same, just that the player would be left thinking "WTF?!" a lot of the time, as he/she would be seen and wonder what on earth is going on - when in fact the bounding box for the non-represented shadow is in the enemy's line-of-sight.

Well, that's the whole point. That kind of gameplay wouldn't make any sense and would go under Vince's "why render anything, let's just have AI scripts running then" remark. You NEED to have visible shadows for that kind of gameplay to work. In both MGS2 and SC you can spot enemies behind the wall by their shadow, and enemies can see your shadow. Point is, you have to be aware of that or else it makes no sense to make the game around it.

Vince

08-Dec-2002, 21:29

Well, that's the whole point. That kind of gameplay wouldn't make any sense and would go under Vince's "why render anything, let's just have AI scripts running then" remark. You NEED to have visible shadows for that kind of gameplay to work. In both MGS2 and SC you can spot enemies behind the wall by their shadow, and enemies can see your shadow. Point is, you have to be aware of that or else it makes no sense to make the game around it.

hallelujah!!

Well, Splinter Cell wouldn't really HAVE to have stencil shadows to have VISIBLE shadows. Like I just said in my last post (), shadows can even be Grandia II-esque collections of hexagons, as long as the bounding box is there.

If the shadows weren't visible the game would be a lot harder to play But in theory the gameplay could be the same, just that the player would be left thinking "WTF?!" a lot of the time, as he/she would be seen and wonder what on earth is going on - when in fact the bounding box for the non-represented shadow is in the enemy's line-of-sight.

Wow, so you think the gameplay potential is equal or better? You need help.

Believe me, your not lecturing me on anything I don't already know - I've been following graphics for long enough. Which is why I can say with full confidense that graphical advance allows for the developer to expose new forms of gameplay that were prevoiusly not able to be utilized.

You whole line or arguments is basically Ben's position, but in a more strait-forward and linear form. Everything in there has been covered by my past posts, even Ben has failed to argue against some of them, why you would choose to in such a manner is beyond me. If you really want me to go threw it line by line I can, but it's just a waste of my time as it's redundent and nothing that you, my old posts, and a bit of dynamic thinking can't comprehend.

And with your last point: Well, in The Matrix, at the end when you see from Neo's POV, and everything is Matrix code... you can actually discern everything in the room just fine! The only thing is it's kinda a rip-off in the texture and palette department - the models are great, but everything has the same black and green texture... ^_^

HA! I was talking about the raw data that Sypher (?) looks at. The end scene still has the typical spatial and temoral cohesion allowable by graphics that allow you to visually discern the scene.

Besides, according to Ben, you don't need them for gameplay. The raw code is fine.

PS. Archie, I have a line of argument against you. Don't think i forgot about you.

Tagrineth

08-Dec-2002, 22:20

Well, Splinter Cell wouldn't really HAVE to have stencil shadows to have VISIBLE shadows. Like I just said in my last post (), shadows can even be Grandia II-esque collections of hexagons, as long as the bounding box is there.

If the shadows weren't visible the game would be a lot harder to play But in theory the gameplay could be the same, just that the player would be left thinking "WTF?!" a lot of the time, as he/she would be seen and wonder what on earth is going on - when in fact the bounding box for the non-represented shadow is in the enemy's line-of-sight.

Wow, so you think the gameplay potential is equal or better? You need help.

Not better, but theoretically equal, as the behaviour would be the same.

Of course graphics can enhance poor gameplay greatly, but by the same token, graphics can detract from good gameplay - for example, a shadow without a render to represent it.

The end result would be the same level of gameplay, just things would be more confusing due to the lack of any representation of that shadow.

And of course, perfect gameplay can be destroyed by horrendous graphics and a bad frame rate.

Vince, when you came in, it sounded like you were joining in the argument 'graphics = gameplay' and that's probably where the one-sided-ness comes in, most of the counters to your arguments thus far have been trying to counter what doesn't exist, and that seems to be where all the awkward returns are coming from.

Yes, graphics capabilities can influence gameplay elements, but not always and not necessarily. I already brought up one case where less graphics could very well mean improved gameplay (Wolfenstein 3D).

Vince

09-Dec-2002, 05:26

Of course graphics can enhance poor gameplay greatly, but by the same token, graphics can detract from good gameplay - for example, a shadow without a render to represent it.

You don't debate much, huh? Yoiu just stated that gameplay is basically a function of the graphical output. Thereby vaerifying what I've been stating :wink:

Yes, graphics capabilities can influence gameplay elements, but not always and not necessarily. I already brought up one case where less graphics could very well mean improved gameplay (Wolfenstein 3D).

See, thats the thing, they can allways - in principle - alter what the developer can do. Whether or not the dev uses this is another story completely.

Archie - How would Square impliment their Spherical Grid system if the game was 2D?

archie4oz

09-Dec-2002, 05:49

Archie - How would Square impliment their Spherical Grid system if the game was 2D?

Uhhh... No different... Why should a character development system be affected by whether the game is 2D or 3D? Hell the game could've been an isometric sprite based game and the gameplay would've remained largely unchanged.

zurich

09-Dec-2002, 05:50

Er, last time I checked the Sphere board was a 2D bitmap, and you could adjust the viewing angle..

Vince

09-Dec-2002, 07:51

Uhhh... No different... Why should a character development system be affected by whether the game is 2D or 3D? Hell the game could've been an isometric sprite based game and the gameplay would've remained largely unchanged.

I never played FF, took a gamble. <shrug>

But, I can hardly imagine that there has been no gameplay advance in the FF games that has been a direct result of the increase in graphics brought about by seeing a 3D figure realistically onscreen.

I mean, look at the true Next Generation Games (or the ones I can think of off the top of my head):

Project Ego, for example, is a posterboy of this. Appearences slowly graphically reflect descision you've made in the game world and how your perceieved and approached by others. The list that support my opinion is huge in this game.

Sigma by Relic looks almost equally impressive from this standpoint. It's gameplay is based around combining elements from diffrent creatures to form new ones in your gameworld. These new creatures, which have visable features from each animal, are defined by how they look. This wouldn't have been feasible (in a fun way or how Alex has envisioned it) without the graphical power thats now avaliable. Period.

The Getaway and it's lack of an on screen GUI, which is possible due to the graphical possibility of showing actual wounds, health, directions, et al, all in-game definatly impacts the gameplay. From all indications, it's a very positive asperct of the game

zurich

09-Dec-2002, 08:02

I'm a massive FF/Square fan, but I can truthfully say that the games graphics over the years have had absolutely zilch affect on the gameplay :) Only POSSIBLE exception would be the facial animations used to convey emotion in X...

But as Archie said, X could run on the FF IV "engine" and it'd be the same game...

archie4oz

09-Dec-2002, 18:43

Project Ego, for example, is a posterboy of this. Appearences slowly graphically reflect descision you've made in the game world and how your perceieved and approached by others. The list that support my opinion is huge in this game.

Yes, but I don't think current or future graphics are necessary for this. It does help in creating a more convincing scene to convey the notion, but it's not a requirement. If anything it's more tedious game engine design and some serious case of artist abuse... :wink:

Sigma by Relic looks almost equally impressive from this standpoint. It's gameplay is based around combining elements from diffrent creatures to form new ones in your gameworld. These new creatures, which have visable features from each animal, are defined by how they look. This wouldn't have been feasible (in a fun way or how Alex has envisioned it) without the graphical power thats now avaliable. Period.

Sounds a lot like Jade Cocoon (a PSX game, sequel being on the PS2)...

The Getaway and it's lack of an on screen GUI, which is possible due to the graphical possibility of showing actual wounds, health, directions, et al, all in-game definatly impacts the gameplay. From all indications, it's a very positive asperct of the game

Bushido Blade (and the sequel) did very much the same thing on the PSX (in fact I think the series *really* went downhill when that aspect was removed for a more traditional damage meter method when Lightweight moved from us to Crave)...

Rodéric

09-Dec-2002, 18:48

FF gameplay didn't change since Final Fantasy on NES...

Vince

09-Dec-2002, 19:50

Yes, but I don't think current or future graphics are necessary for this. It does help in creating a more convincing scene to convey the notion, but it's not a requirement.

See, thats where I disagree with you. As I previous stated 4 or 5 times, the visual stimuli that the developer can present to the play is totally dependent upon the graphical ability of that time. Without todays graphics, the developer would not be able to impliment the features talked about above in the same regards.

Sure, you can advocate what Ben does and play a game without any graphics what-so-ever - just looking at the raw data streams... but thats not fun gameplay.

As graphics advance, the developer can show more and more stimuli to the player. This opens up the door for effects like above, where entire settings, backgrounds, landscapes dynamically change to reflect your actions and then in-turn infleunce the way your character is percieved.

Regardless of how you, or Ben, or anyway, trys to say this was possible before - it clearly wasn't.

If anything it's more tedious game engine design and some serious case of artist abuse... :wink:

HA! Although, in quite honesty and with no inherient offense, I'd call it developers pushing the envelope and being creative. It's quite sad if the core gameplay of FF hasn't changed at all - what Peter or Alex are doing in the above games is amazing, it's that kind of game which shows what a developer can do to extract the gameplay potential that I speak of.

Sounds a lot like Jade Cocoon (a PSX game, sequel being on the PS2)...

Similar, but I think your missing the scope of Stigma and how the enviroment of the several islands you fight on infleunces the resulting animals. Then, unlike Jad Cocoon again, the deeper genetic system is possible now that they can physically show the individual traits are dominent and recessive. The physical characterists infleunce battles (think scaring the opponent), ect... the list is big and we barely know much of the game.

I'd say this is what Jade Cocoon could have been if the developers had the resources and graphics that would allow for it.

Bushido Blade (and the sequel) did very much the same thing on the PSX (in fact I think the series *really* went downhill when that aspect was removed for a more traditional damage meter method when Lightweight moved from us to Crave)...

This I don't know of. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But the fundimental idea that you can now portrey stats that have typically been left to a GUI in the actual game is a feature that will be alot more prevelent as graphics allow for the developer to send such stimuli to the player in the game.

Vince

09-Dec-2002, 21:18

Yes, but I don't think current or future graphics are necessary for this.

Speak of the devil, A developer diary of Fable (Project Ego's new name) was released today. Lets check out an excerpt:

The Reactive Hero
Rather than displaying traditional RPG stats, we rely on morphs that we can apply to the hero. In addition, we try as much as we can to ensure the hero looks as if he's reacting to the world as events occur via tiny animation modifications and facial expressions (rather than standing about looking as if he has an explosive wet fart held in check through willpower alone -- see Max Payne).

An longer example of how being able to portrey something graphically allows for added gameplay potential (as in this case, way beyond what the dev team origionally anticipated for a asomewhat perverted sequence):

The Reactive Hero + A Simulated World
Now we add the two together, and let our test team loose. [Shoot].

Picture this: it's a warm balmy day in Bowerstone. The butterflies flutter by, and the heady scent of jasmine is carried toward you with each puff of wind. In the distance, children can be heard playing outside the schoolhouse, reluctant to end their games and begin class.

Footsteps; pad, pad, pad. Cut to a grim face outlined against the town gates, staring into the distance, out toward the schoolhouse.

The children have begun class now, ushered in with a few terse words from their teacher. One of the children stares, bored, out of the window. Was there something out there?

The man is in shadow, creeping into the schoolhouse step by stealthy step. The teacher has her back to him. She suspects nothing.

One by one, all of the children in the front room begin to stare at a point behind the teacher. The class falls silent. The teacher eventually hears a noise behind her, turns and...

...sees a burly naked man standing in the middle of a schoolroom smiling happily at the assembled class. He cheerily raises a middle finger. And then the screaming begins...

The Conclusion
It's a scene from the front pages of a tabloid. It also shows how the general game-playing public, or 'fequinbustuds' as we like to call them, abuse our entirely innocent features at the first opportunity. So, in defence of design, I'd like to note these points:

-The hero is smiling because nothing is attacking him and he feels safe.
-He's staring and smiling at the children because they happen to be nearby and he can potentially interact with them. Yes, we know, we know: he needs to blink more.
-The children are looking at him because he's a new thing in their view-cone. Admittedly, the focus point for the hero is his crotch. This is being fixed.
-They scream because 'flipping the bird' is seen as threatening behaviour

Other interesting quote(s):
"During an early period of experimentation, we found that children were incredibly emotive; their reactions had an astonishing impact on players."

"Most importantly, children stare with some intensity at anything 'interesting' (women's facial hair, breasts, poo -- anything to embarrass people, really)."

Tagrineth

10-Dec-2002, 01:52

Sounds like some great atmosphere! But really, the core gameplay isn't changed that much over stuff that's already been done. Live A Live on the Super NES, anyone?

That does sound like an incredibly immersive experience though. Uber attention to detail.

See, one problem I have with what you just quoted, Vince, is that most of that text sounds like a cutscene with no gameplay. :-? (under The Reactive Hero + A Simulated World)

zidane1strife

10-Dec-2002, 02:22

...The one thing i've been wanting for yrs is a 3d fps with deformable geometry on planetoid esque worlds... closest thing is the limited Geo-mod on red faction...

D@mn just imagine a 3-5Km+ radius planet fully destructible and all, maybe even with a nearby moon.... dozens or even 100s of char.s causing massive havoc.... WHEN WILL IT HAPPEN?!?

Vince

10-Dec-2002, 04:47

Sounds like some great atmosphere! But really, the core gameplay isn't changed that much over stuff that's already been done. Live A Live on the Super NES, anyone?

Um, I think if you take the time to research the game, you'll see just how much of an impact the graphics has upon the game. The sheer amoutn and useage of emotion that infleunces the gameplay is enormous - this would be blatently impossible without the graphical power that we now have.

See, one problem I have with what you just quoted, Vince, is that most of that text sounds like a cutscene with no gameplay. :-? (under The Reactive Hero + A Simulated World)

Actually, this is in-game, with real gameplay... quite amazing actually. I took it a bit out of context, as it was done as an example of how advanced games can be abused or twisted and get results that are totally polar to what the developer anticipated. Thats why the guys totally naked and staring at the little kids!!

The actual game has graphical respresentations of the player in a variety of cloths (even down to a thong type thing) that can be ripped or damaged, this can inturn infleunce how the player is percieved. The enviroment will change graphically to show your infleunces upon it, and the ingame characters will react to your graphical state.

That does sound like an incredibly immersive experience though. Uber attention to detail.

Exactly, it's this Uber attention to detail that allows the developer to show graphically complex ideas and actions/reactions.

The way I think of it is from a theoretical physicics point of view. If you look at the great physicics of the 20th century, they all thought visually/graphically. They (Feynman is a great example; Einstein is way to cliche) all would think up this amazing picture of an event, then work out the math later. Feynman's Diagrams are a great example, you can compress millions and millions of mathmatical steps into a series of diagrams visually. Fuck, you can show the entire S-Matrix graphically in this way.

The same goes for a game. The more detailed the graphics become, the more information that can be shown to the gamer visually in an instant of stimuli - this inturn allows for added gameplay potential. This is obvious, we've covered only a small fraction of what can be done with advanced graphics. It's hard to think this stuff up, stuff that has yet to be done; but it will come.

It's just unfortunate that this board, one of the preeminent on the 'net, refuses to think dynamically about issues such as this.

Tagrineth

10-Dec-2002, 14:02

See, one problem I have with what you just quoted, Vince, is that most of that text sounds like a cutscene with no gameplay. :-? (under The Reactive Hero + A Simulated World)

Actually, this is in-game, with real gameplay... quite amazing actually. I took it a bit out of context, as it was done as an example of how advanced games can be abused or twisted and get results that are totally polar to what the developer anticipated. Thats why the guys totally naked and staring at the little kids!!

Didn't say I thought it was prerendered, just that it sounds like a scripted cutscene in that section.

The same goes for a game. The more detailed the graphics become, the more information that can be shown to the gamer visually in an instant of stimuli - this inturn allows for added gameplay potential. This is obvious, we've covered only a small fraction of what can be done with advanced graphics. It's hard to think this stuff up, stuff that has yet to be done; but it will come.

It's just unfortunate that this board, one of the preeminent on the 'net, refuses to think dynamically about issues such as this.

I guess you could argue for better gameplay potential. I do however believe most 3D game developers need to go back and play some SNES, Genesis, and PC-Engine games, and learn what true "gameplay" is rather than pumping up graphics without adding to gameplay in the process. :-?

Most devs just don't take advantage of the increased potential of advanced machines nowadays...

BenSkywalker

10-Dec-2002, 14:50

It's just unfortunate that this board, one of the preeminent on the 'net, refuses to think dynamically about issues such as this.

You bring up a whole bunch of different points on how you see visuals enhancing gameplay but they all have one common element, they are simply an updated version/evolution of something that has been done before they simply have added visual aids. Take Morrowind as an example. People respond to you in a much more positive manner if you are clothed within their class(basic clothes for poor people, exquisite clothes for the wealthy and a bunch in between). They also respond to you in a negative fashion if you happen to catch a disease. The thing is, Morrowind is natively first person in perspective. You can't see your clothes when in that view, and even if swap the camera around you can't see that your sick(however you have an indicator to show you you are).

Factoring in that advancement in Morrowind relies on having certain people think favorably of you, differing clothes and other factors already effect gameplay elements in the title, however they do so in a manner that you have to check a menu screen or look at an icon to do it. Not seeing the clothes, or the fact that you are diseases does not effect the gameplay, it enhances the submersive factor. BTW- I'm using Morrowind as it is recent and convenient, numerous RPGs have had similar schemes in years past.

On a side not, I wouldn't trust the people at Lionhead when talking about their game. They have to be the single best example for disgustingly overhyping a game and underdelivering(Black&White anyone). It may end up being everything they say, but so far they are batting .000.

Back to one of your earlier points that I never got around to responding to-

640*480/20,000= 15.36

So for those 20,000 characters you have on screen you can draw just over fifteen pixels each for them, if absolutely nothing else is visible. Tell me, how complex do you think a fifteen pixel object needs to be? ;)

I figured the numbers out before I made the comment about the chips being able to do it. Using a geometric LOD system and repeating textures(which would be natural when you have two warring factions) and models the graphics chip would be capable of handling what you would need for the scenario, noise on the screen ;)

This opens up the door for effects like above, where entire settings, backgrounds, landscapes dynamically change to reflect your actions and then in-turn infleunce the way your character is percieved.

This is already being done in games, without visual representation. I'm not thinking linear hear Vince, you aren't coming up with any breakthrough gameplay here, just a different level of immersion.

From the shadows discussion earlier- the same play mechanics have changed from line of sight to looking at shadows. That is the extent of the gameplay differences. Is the newer way more immersive? Absolutely, but not some breakthrough gameplay technique.

BoddoZerg

10-Dec-2002, 16:10

Anyone who would believe a single word coming out of Lionhead's mouth is obviously too foolish to learn from past experience. :roll:

Vince

10-Dec-2002, 17:25

Ben, your arguments are becomming weaker....

You bring up a whole bunch of different points on how you see visuals enhancing gameplay but they all have one common element, they are simply an updated version/evolution of something that has been done before they simply have added visual aids.

Ben, I've shown quite well how increased graphical presentation has allowed for greater and greater developer fredom in implimenting new and differing forms of gameplay.

Infact, other than your sterotypical "I'm God, beleieve me because I'm Ben" responces, you've shown shit.

So, I'm guessing you approve of playing games viewing only the raw data streams? Good times.... :wink:

Take Morrowind as an example. People respond to you in a much more positive manner if you are clothed within their class(basic clothes for poor people, exquisite clothes for the wealthy and a bunch in between). They also respond to you in a negative fashion if you happen to catch a disease. The thing is, Morrowind is natively first person in perspective. You can't see your clothes when in that view, and even if swap the camera around you can't see that your sick(however you have an indicator to show you you are).

Wow, thanks for proving my point. The increased precision and computation of modern day graphics allows for the developer to do away with the indicator and add this in game. The character could cough, have red and wet eyes, breath heavily, seem faint. This can then turn into gameplay - Maybe I can hide the fact that I'm sick if I wear this, or stand like so with the sun behind me, or have some way of user controlled holding of sneezing (rapid button pushing to test tolerences perhaps). Do this with your raw data streams and game the gameplay fun.

Graphics will allow for, as in Fable, the character to tan if in the sun, if he uses his arms swinging a sword, his muscles buldge - all of these can turn into game play inhancing features if the developer so chooses to spend the time and resources doing it.

However they do so in a manner that you have to check a menu screen or look at an icon to do it. Not seeing the clothes, or the fact that you are diseases does not effect the gameplay, it enhances the submersive factor.

Ben, are you an idiot... read my posts. It does affect the gameplay as your not playing the game as you're looking threw some sub-menus or icons. But, by implimenthing these seemlessly threw graphical presentation, you can have them become focal points of the gameplay. Again, look at Fable or Sigma.

If I see someone whose visually sick or appears to be dying, I won't go near them. If I'm preparing for a battle and I see my opponents is physically huge and super phyched for battle, maybe I'll high-tail it outta there and run. Increased graphics will alow for better battlefields and realisatic forests and jungles that will be huge on the gameplay side in a stealth or similar type of game.

Not even to mention Doom3 - take away the graphically alowable darkness and shadows and you have no gameplay. Make the game as bright as Serious Sam and lets see how scary it is and how fundimentally the gameplay experience changes... Ohh, there's a monster 30 yards up under the bright florescent lighting - Sniper rifle... Scores!

On a side not, I wouldn't trust the people at Lionhead when talking about their game. They have to be the single best example for disgustingly overhyping a game and underdelivering(Black&White anyone). It may end up being everything they say, but so far they are batting .000.

Um, but of course - because Ben said so. Not onlt is this utterly and totally irrelevent, but it's a pretty pathetic attempt at discrediting something.

I think Big Blue Box & Lionhead will do fine.

640*480/20,000= 15.36

So for those 20,000 characters you have on screen you can draw just over fifteen pixels each for them, if absolutely nothing else is visible. Tell me, how complex do you think a fifteen pixel object needs to be?

Wow, thanks for showing just how linear in thinking you truely are. So, all 20,000 are doing to be the same distance on the viewplane? OMG!! That means like ateleast 5,000 of them are going to be hovering in the game at the same distance from the 'camera' as the ones directly below them!!

Um, lets think dynamically Ben - good times. If there's 20,000 soldiers, the ones in the foreground will consume more pixels opposed to those in the distence. I battle with 20,000 combatents will be over tens (maybe a hundred) square miles. Thus, in the distance the combatents will take less pixels up and thanks to that whole LOD thing consume less resources. But, this is possible - the cohesion between chacters in the foreground will be intact and in the distence, it will blur into a mob of people with the occational flaming arrow visable.

Now, each of these combatents can prove to be vital to the gameplay - regardless of distanance. The developer can pull of a LoTR: TTT type battle where you start by getting yout ass kicked and then something happens (heh) - An example is perhaps you finally arive with a necessary artifact or person that causes a rally cry to go throught the people and you win. Or perhaps the outcome of the 20,000 could be tied to your own preformance. The options are huge.

Noise on the screen ;)

It might be noise, but it openes up the possibility for gameplay options and combinatiosn that just aren't there now.

This is already being done in games, without visual representation. I'm not thinking linear hear Vince, you aren't coming up with any breakthrough gameplay here, just a different level of immersion.

Um, I think I've shown it well enough. You've still never answered most of my questions. For example, if your right (haha!), then answer this:

If the gameplay is independent of graphics, which are only a form of 'immersion;' then why don't you play your games looking at just the raw data streams - ala. Sypther in the Matrix?

No graphics needed, the gameplays still there according to you - the AI is chuggin, the physics are working. Unplug your 3D card, put in a 2D adapter and watch the debug code or whatever.

Because, Graphics are definatly a factor in gameplay. And at present are the limiting function of what a developer can and can't impliment in his gameplay.

Vince

10-Dec-2002, 17:32

Most devs just don't take advantage of the increased potential of advanced machines nowadays...

Exactly. It's definatly a shame. Just because they have more potential doesn't mean they'll use it correctly!! It's unfortunate that some people put such value and insistence into sheer graphics and visual quality, regardless of how the developer utilizes them.

This board is a prime example, we have people saying they'll only buy a game if it's Trilinear filtered or has 8 layers/pixel. It's insane.

But, there are devlpors out there who are pushing the envelope and they'll be the ones who reap the benefits.

Didn't say I thought it was prerendered, just that it sounds like a scripted cutscene in that section.

Didn't mean to insinuate that, my fault. Just saying it was all in the game.

BenSkywalker

11-Dec-2002, 12:59

Ben, I've shown quite well how increased graphical presentation has allowed for greater and greater developer fredom in implimenting new and differing forms of gameplay.

Like what? You have brought up slight alterations on gameplay elements some of which have been around for decades.

The increased precision and computation of modern day graphics allows for the developer to do away with the indicator and add this in game.

Which changes nothing in the gameplay. It simply makes the experience more immersive.

Graphics will allow for, as in Fable, the character to tan if in the sun, if he uses his arms swinging a sword, his muscles buldge - all of these can turn into game play inhancing features if the developer so chooses to spend the time and resources doing it.

Morrowind already has your skills advanced based on what you do. Everything your talking about is all about graphics, it has nothing to do with gameplay.

Ben, are you an idiot... read my posts. It does affect the gameplay as your not playing the game as you're looking threw some sub-menus or icons.

Then noone has ever been in a battle in FinalFantasy. You theory doesn't hold.

If I see someone whose visually sick or appears to be dying, I won't go near them. If I'm preparing for a battle and I see my opponents is physically huge and super phyched for battle, maybe I'll high-tail it outta there and run.

Neither of these are new elements in a game. To relay that someone is sick you can do what some older titles do and put an icon of some sort over their head and to observe that a combatant is big, you make him big.

Increased graphics will alow for better battlefields and realisatic forests and jungles that will be huge on the gameplay side in a stealth or similar type of game.

How will it change what we already have?

Not even to mention Doom3 - take away the graphically alowable darkness and shadows and you have no gameplay.

The only reason people are looking forward to Doom3 is because of the graphics, it has nothing at all to do with gameplay.

Um, but of course - because Ben said so. Not onlt is this utterly and totally irrelevent, but it's a pretty pathetic attempt at discrediting something.

I think Big Blue Box & Lionhead will do fine.

:lol: OK, it's just because I said so :roll: You don't follow PC games much do you? We were bombed with B&W hype for years about all the incredible things you could do. The game shipped and not only could you not do a slew of things they claimed, it also was entirely focused on elements they never mentioned were in the game.

If there's 20,000 soldiers, the ones in the foreground will consume more pixels opposed to those in the distence. I battle with 20,000 combatents will be over tens (maybe a hundred) square miles. Thus, in the distance the combatents will take less pixels up and thanks to that whole LOD thing consume less resources. But, this is possible - the cohesion between chacters in the foreground will be intact and in the distence, it will blur into a mob of people with the occational flaming arrow visable.

Render front to back, OD is going to eliminate nearly all combatants from being visible. You picked a very poor example to use no matter how you try and play it.

The developer can pull of a LoTR: TTT type battle where you start by getting yout ass kicked and then something happens (heh) - An example is perhaps you finally arive with a necessary artifact or person that causes a rally cry to go throught the people and you win. Or perhaps the outcome of the 20,000 could be tied to your own preformance. The options are huge.

And for those that do not have tunnel vision in the gaming market, it is a minor evolution of what has already been done. Sacrifice most likely the most noteable relatively recent example. The only thing that you are proposing to change is to move from dozens/hundreds to thousands of combatants. And for that matter, even when you get in to dozens most of the combatants can't be seen anyway(hundreds and you only see a tiny slice).

It might be noise, but it openes up the possibility for gameplay options and combinatiosn that just aren't there now.

They have an entire genre for those type of games. Look outside the console world once in a while.

If the gameplay is independent of graphics, which are only a form of 'immersion;' then why don't you play your games looking at just the raw data streams - ala. Sypther in the Matrix?

Graphics are considered to be part of games currently, and they do add to the total experience. If you are saying that you need graphics for games, you were either narrow minded years ago or perhaps too young to remember text based adventure games.

No graphics needed, the gameplays still there according to you - the AI is chuggin, the physics are working. Unplug your 3D card, put in a 2D adapter and watch the debug code or whatever.

Too much code is running to be able to read it all as it runs.

Because, Graphics are definatly a factor in gameplay. And at present are the limiting function of what a developer can and can't impliment in his gameplay.

Come up with a single new idea on gameplay then. Everyone you have come up with so far has already been done, most of them have been being done for years if not decades.

Boddo-

Anyone who would believe a single word coming out of Lionhead's mouth is obviously too foolish to learn from past experience. :roll:

Amen :)

Vince

11-Dec-2002, 15:05

Good stuff moved up top, rest is BS, but I answered them anyways:

Graphics are considered to be part of games currently, and they do add to the total experience. If you are saying that you need graphics for games, you were either narrow minded years ago or perhaps too young to remember text based adventure games.

So, what your saying is that a text based game (Yeah, I know that they are) has the same gameplay potential as a modern game using the full power of graphical presentation?

I think your arguing just to argue.

Too much code is running to be able to read it all as it runs.

Exactly, but as I advocate, we can take this raw code and use some spatial and temporal cohesion, make a graphical view of it and we're barely even saturating the PNS.

Increased graphics will allow for developers to have more and more of those things you talk of run - how this won't infleunce gameplay is beyond me.

So, would you say that the gameplay is still there? So, if we could have, say a 3+ moniter surround gaming enviroment and you could see the entire data flow - would your gameplay be the same as someone playign with graphis?

Come up with a single new idea on gameplay then. Everyone you have come up with so far has already been done, most of them have been being done for years if not decades.

So, what your saying is that the forms of gameplay that we've already had are the only forms that we'll ever have in the future? I think it's appearent how much BS you preach.

As I'm not a developer and already stated how hard it is to come up with new gameplay example, I can list some that I think have newer forms of gameplay based on the potential given to them by increased graphics:

Age of Mythology
Combat Mission (CMI was a revolution)
Grand Theft Auto / Mafia
Shenmue
Fable
Doom 3
Deus Ex
Halo MP/ Tribes
Duke Nukem Forever (if it ever emerges)

Last 3 are weaker, but it's off the top of my head.

Then noone has ever been in a battle in FinalFantasy. You theory doesn't hold.

And as we established, FF is hardly the series to talk about when the topic of new forms of gameplay comes up.

The only reason people are looking forward to Doom3 is because of the graphics, it has nothing at all to do with gameplay.

Um, maybe you you your graphic fetish - but explain how the game would work if it was text based.

And didn't Carmack himself say they were focusing on using the graphics to enhanse the spookie/horror type of gameplay? (ie. Their making a real game)

Render front to back, OD is going to eliminate nearly all combatants from being visible. You picked a very poor example to use no matter how you try and play it.

Wait, I thought they were all equal distances from the viewplane?!? :wink:

In all seriousness, I can see each of the few thousand on screen during the LoTR: TT battle... so, render order is going to eliminate visable pixels? Where I come from thats a problem.

The only thing that you are proposing to change is to move from dozens/hundreds to thousands of combatants. And for that matter, even when you get in to dozens most of the combatants can't be seen anyway(hundreds and you only see a tiny slice).

Funny, Braveheart and Patriot come to mind in these circumstances.

They have an entire genre for those type of games. Look outside the console world once in a while.

When I do, you (a) ignore it (b) say the dev sucks, your a god. So, whats a guy to do.

BenSkywalker

12-Dec-2002, 01:49

So, what your saying is that a text based game (Yeah, I know that they are) has the same gameplay potential as a modern game using the full power of graphical presentation?

No, they do utilize the physics/environment calculations to their advantage also.

I think your arguing just to argue.

You are the one arguing with the established definition of a word, not me.

So, would you say that the gameplay is still there? So, if we could have, say a 3+ moniter surround gaming enviroment and you could see the entire data flow - would your gameplay be the same as someone playign with graphis?

If your mind was capable of comprehending it all, pretty much. Would it be immersive? Not at all.

So, what your saying is that the forms of gameplay that we've already had are the only forms that we'll ever have in the future? I think it's appearent how much BS you preach.

You have a very, very serious comprehension problem with this one. Your line is that graphics are a driving force behind gameplay which is of course absurd(by definition). Expanded AI and improved physics are going to drive gaming to new levels. The graphics will simply make them more pleasing to the eye.

As I'm not a developer and already stated how hard it is to come up with new gameplay example, I can list some that I think have newer forms of gameplay based on the potential given to them by increased graphics:

What do they offer outside of the move to 3D which is mainly physics?

And as we established, FF is hardly the series to talk about when the topic of new forms of gameplay comes up.

And it is regularly looked to as a graphics standard. The two are not coincidental.

Um, maybe you you your graphic fetish - but explain how the game would work if it was text based.

And didn't Carmack himself say they were focusing on using the graphics to enhanse the spookie/horror type of gameplay? (ie. Their making a real game)

They are making an RE/ED style experience with real time graphics. There is nothing remotely 'new' about the gameplay experience, Alone in the Dark came out nearly a decade ago IIRC.

In all seriousness, I can see each of the few thousand on screen during the LoTR: TT battle... so, render order is going to eliminate visable pixels? Where I come from thats a problem.

So you see all characters a few pixels high when in combat? That sounds like a great example of graphics ruining gameplay completely.

Funny, Braveheart and Patriot come to mind in these circumstances.

It would be even funnier if they had thousands of combatants on screen at once(I have them both on DVD and they include behind the scenes). What would be funnier still is if they were showing thousands of combatants at once while showing Mel Gibson in battle.

When I do, you (a) ignore it (b) say the dev sucks, your a god. So, whats a guy to do.

Lionhead? Start up a thread and ask how many people thought the game was remotely close to what Lionhead promised for years. Not exactly the same mind you, remotely close. I fully expect id to deliver exactly what they are promising with Doom3, an incredibly immersive shooter. The only revolutionary thing they are talking about is the graohics.

Magnum PI

12-Dec-2002, 12:49

It's just unfortunate that this board, one of the preeminent on the 'net, refuses to think dynamically about issues such as this.

fortunately i have someone to witness on your side.

and it is no less than Seamus Blackley, while he was still employed by microsoft. you can read this in an interview he gave to gemespot australia during the E3 2001.

GS: Given that the Xbox capabilities are totally unique, can you give us a technical example from a commercial product that really impressed you?

SB: There are a lot of them. I mean, take lighting and shadow, for instance. When you take a walk around the show and go look at the theatre presentation you'll see Shrek. These themes have real lights and shadows. And it's pretty easy to do on Xbox, and it makes all the difference in the world to the reality of the game. I mean suddenly, instead of having a very videogame kind of look, characters have a very kind of "character" look, something that is appealing to a bigger audience. Well at the same time all of that lighting enables you for instance Shrek or in Halo, that lighting allows you to do radically different kinds of gameplay. Super intense kinds of action, right? Using lighting and self shadowing.

well said seamus !

cybamerc

12-Dec-2002, 13:04

Magnum PI:

How does lighting make a difference to Halo's gameplay... and where's the self-shadowing? Shrek looks good... did lots of thing in 2001 that we see games such as Doom 3 and Halo are getting a lot of attention for. That said, the game is supposed to be utter shit - great lighting or not.

And Seamus Blackley is a chump... squeeled like a little girl when he beat Itagaki at DOA3.

mech

12-Dec-2002, 13:15

This thread is getting stupid.

I think you must be mad not to think that graphics could affect gameplay.

But hey. If that's your opinion, so be it.

Vince

13-Dec-2002, 04:54

This thread is getting stupid.

Yes it is. Ben has this tendency, similar to that saying, "argue with an idiot and he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience" - except that instead of stupidity, he'll totally ignore the big picture or most of the picture and instead make an argument out of the 1 or 2 sub-points that he has a chance of winning. So, in the end, he's draged you down, and your (a) arguing in circles, (b) arguing about an unrelated topic.

You have a very, very serious comprehension problem with this one. Your line is that graphics are a driving force behind gameplay which is of course absurd(by definition).

No, thats not my 'line' - maybe if you'd go back and read what i wrote... you'd understand what I'm saying - just like everyone else :roll:

Unrelated, but just a thought, have you ever seen Enemy at the Gates? The use of shadow and lighting (reflection, even to blind others) would definatly open up a whole bunch of new gameplay opertunities. The possibilities are huge if developers are given the ability to draw it. Going to be fun times.

Legion

16-Dec-2002, 08:11

Vince i totally agree with you on this.

what is "gameplay"? Again it is the sum of all interactive features of a game you will run into while playing a game. This includes graphical features.

How can you say graphics don't contribute to gameplay experience?

marconelly!

16-Dec-2002, 08:59

OK, can someone comment on how the shadows that your and enemy characters cast in MGS2 and Splinter Cell, that you can use to spot enemy behid the corner and vice versa, do not affect gameplay?

How would such a feature be implemented in a game using wolfenstein engine, or something even less advanced?

BenSkywalker

16-Dec-2002, 13:22

OK, can someone comment on how the shadows that your and enemy characters cast in MGS2 and Splinter Cell, that you can use to spot enemy behid the corner and vice versa, do not affect gameplay?

It is simply a differing visual cue for an existing formula. Instead of using line of sight directly, you can use line of sight on the shadows. It helps immersion, it still is the same gameplay mechanics.

marconelly!

16-Dec-2002, 18:50

It is simply a differing visual cue for an existing formula. Instead of using line of sight directly, you can use line of sight on the shadows. It helps immersion, it still is the same gameplay mechanics.
I think it's completely different, actually. If I can see that someone is behind the corner, throw a bomb and kill him, it's very much different than placing him into my line of sight and risking to be seen and shot by him. How is that not a different gameplay? It changes the whole way you approach and play the game, actually.

london-boy

16-Dec-2002, 20:37

i think what ben is trying to say is, basically if your character was visible but turned the other way so that he doesnt face u, u'd still throw a bomb and kill him.....

the shadow thing is only a different situation which doesn't necessarily add anything to the whole stealth gameplay.... u are still *sneaking around people*.... the fact that u only see his shadow means that u are more *hidden* than other situations........

dont think i made myself clear :lol: :lol:

BenSkywalker

17-Dec-2002, 02:05

I think it's completely different, actually. If I can see that someone is behind the corner, throw a bomb and kill him, it's very much different than placing him into my line of sight and risking to be seen and shot by him. How is that not a different gameplay? It changes the whole way you approach and play the game, actually.

In the old MG for the NES you could see when an enemy was around the corner without a clear line of sight and could toss a grenade around the corner without risking being seen. This was done back in the 80s. The difference now is in graphics presentation which leads to a more immersive experience, not new gameplay elements.

marconelly!

17-Dec-2002, 02:31

Vince

17-Dec-2002, 02:33

In the old MG for the NES you could see when an enemy was around the corner without a clear line of sight and could toss a grenade around the corner without risking being seen.

While your pondering that one, tell me how you'd duplicate the addition of real-time reflections (ie. a mirror) addition to gameplay in games that utilize CQB or Special Tactics style games?

Or how you could provide a gameplay experience like Combat Mission - which is unilaterally agreed to be a revolution in wargaming - using 2D or your text-based games.

Or how you'd pull off AoM type gameplay additons using the AoE engine, or, better yet, your text based examples.

I could go on...

Vince

17-Dec-2002, 02:37

So what about him (the AI enemy) being able to see my shadow and act accordingly? It again changes the rules as I have to watch out for every light and to know where my shadow will go before I start running around.

Exactly, I hear that in SC - people watch for the light placement and then will find areas where their shadow will be behind them (as to infront of) and only then sneak on on their enemy - otherwise their toast.

Or what about the ability to shoot out lighting to provide a tactical advantage - ala SOCOM or Spec Ops2 & Delta Force (to an extent).

BenSkywalker

17-Dec-2002, 03:01

Marco-

So what about him (the AI enemy) being able to see my shadow and act accordingly? It again changes the rules as I have to watch out for every light and to know where my shadow will go before I start running around.

The AI adds that gameplay element. The AI script isn't sitting next to you watching the screen. :)

Vince-

While your pondering that one, tell me how you'd duplicate the addition of real-time reflections (ie. a mirror) addition to gameplay in games that utilize CQB or Special Tactics style games?

Another line of sight issue. All the interactive actions that are based on them are AI based.

Or how you could provide a gameplay experience like Combat Mission - which is unilaterally agreed to be a revolution in wargaming - using 2D or your text-based games.

Not familiar with the game, although 3D does add gameplay due to the physics engine. Looking it up over at GR-

Think of the world around us - it's all 3D. True 3D LOS, 3D spotting, 3D terrain, and 3D trajectories are a lot more realistic than 2D approximations, so that is what CM delivers!

Line of sight, trajectories and terrain, using 3D physics to add gameplay.

Or how you'd pull off AoM type gameplay additons using the AoE engine, or, better yet, your text based examples.

While AoM sports a new graphics engine and three unique factions, on the whole it plays very much like its predecessors. Too much like its predecessors, if you were hoping for a truly different game experience.

http://www.gamespy.com/reviews/november02/ageofmythologypc/

I could go on...

With more examples of physics and AI changing gameplay, or with more examples of gameplay not changing much at all moving to 3D? :)

mech

17-Dec-2002, 03:51

What about you being able to see other people's shadows, and that adding to gameplay?

And obviously it's not just graphics - you could have that AI there WITHOUT the graphics, but it wouldn't be the same would it?

You're being extraordinarily obtuse here BSW.

BenSkywalker

17-Dec-2002, 04:02

you could have that AI there WITHOUT the graphics, but it wouldn't be the same would it?

It would be significantly less immersive to be sure.

As far as being obtuse, 2+2=4. No matter what anyone says, it does. Gameplay is not related to graphics. Immersiveness is, gameplay isn't.

Vince

17-Dec-2002, 05:02

Another line of sight issue. All the interactive actions that are based on them are AI based.

My actions - gameplay - are all based around what I percieve in the gameworld. I'd like to think that my conscousness isn't based around AI. Actually, by definition of AI, t's not.

WTF your attempting to show by this is overshadowed by your utter stupidity.

Not familiar with the game, although 3D does add gameplay due to the physics engine. Looking it up over at GR-

How can you attempt to tell me I'm wrong, having never played it? Physics? Not like your thinking, It's fucking turn-based tactical wargame.

Line of sight, trajectories and terrain, using 3D physics to add gameplay.

Your a fucking idiot Ben. It's a perfect example, here's how:

An American Armored column is approaching the town that I, as the leader of the remnents of a smashed German contingent of soldiers, am attempting to hold. Defeat is enevitable, untill I find from my reconcosence that the Americans are massing their Armor and attempting to cross the sole bridge left into town. I send several of my men into the top floor of a building that overlooks the bridge with their anti-tank weapons. Thanks to my gameplay descision based on information that I wouldn't have had in a 2D wargame of old, I won the battle.

Ever do any reading on the Battle of Stalingrad, or any Urban fighting? Try to reproduce any form of warfare in an Urban Centre with 2D - it's impossible.

Your a fucking moron. Play the game.

While AoM sports a new graphics engine and three unique factions, on the whole it plays very much like its predecessors. Too much like its predecessors, if you were hoping for a truly different game experience.

What is this shit? Play the game.

Your Deity can inflict damage upon your opponets by means such as tornadoes that pick up your buildings and units and send them flying off, or darkness that grows over your land and obscures movement, meteors will fly in from the heavens and utter destroy the opponents and deform the land, creating terrain based advantages to attacking/defending.

How can you even say this and back it up with some POS quote?

With more examples of physics and AI changing gameplay, or with more examples of gameplay not changing much at all moving to 3D? :)

Your an idiot. Have you ever: Been in the Military or played Airsoft or Paintball? I Airsoft and Paintball frequently, and have many friends who were in the service - you're going to tell me that my gameplay and descisions I make about a situation in tactical games aren't limited by graphics? Go do these things in the real world, where your visual and auditary imput is the only thing on your side, and then tell me that the reason your experiences and gameplay in a game-world aren't like the real-world isn't because of the visual stimulation.

In the mean time, I know I'm not the only person who thinks your a fuckin idiot.

Still ahven't answered the question about lighting and games like Socom and SpecOps2 - then again, you're still backlogged from page 2.

Another example: Gameplay in War of the Monsters compared with Rampage. Tell me that the graphics don't make a diffrence there.

Vince

17-Dec-2002, 05:22

It would be significantly less immersive to be sure. [Vince - referring to having AI without a graphical representation

Page 3:

So, let me get this strait. If I make a game where I have to hunt down the Dark matter that exists in a vacuum with no walls - that has great gameplay? I mean, Dark Matter obeys the physical laws of QT and Relativity - It has 'physics' and 'collison detection'. But, I can't see it. So, this is great gameplay? - Vince (Thats me.. heh)

So, this is what your advocating? No wireframe, no visuals at all are necessary according to you as long as the underlying physics, AI, and collision detection is there - as it is in my parallel.

Makes sence to me :roll:

Hey Ben, go outside and find me some Dark Matter. Comeback after you've got some.

marconelly!

17-Dec-2002, 05:24

The AI adds that gameplay element. The AI script isn't sitting next to you watching the screen.
If there wasn't for the visual representation of my shadow, I wouldn't know what to do. It has nothing to do with AI. In such case, AI would be a complete nuisance and ruin the gameplay. Only with the visual representation of the shadow, the situation changes, I know what's going on, and such gameplay experience makes sense.

Vince

17-Dec-2002, 05:31

Only with the visual representation of the shadow, the situation changes, I know what's going on, and such gameplay experience makes sense.

Excellently articulated.

Poor Ben's like the Bismark or British at Yorktown at this point.

BenSkywalker

17-Dec-2002, 05:32

Vince-

It's obvious you are starting to realise how hollow your arguments are, how much longer before you give up this absurdity?

Your Deity can inflict damage upon your opponets by means such as tornadoes that pick up your buildings and units and send them flying off, or darkness that grows over your land and obscures movement, meteors will fly in from the heavens and utter destroy the opponents and deform the land, creating terrain based advantages to attacking/defending.

Having tornados hit, 'fog of war', meteors crashing in to the land, deforming and changing the landscape. All of these were done in either SimCity 3K, which was 2D, and WarcraftII. I haven't been arguing that 3D doesn't offer new things yet you seem hellbent on showing that it doesn't. My end has been on graphics not adding anything to gameplay, you continue to bring up examples of things that have been being done for ten years or more.

An American Armored column is approaching the town that I, as the leader of the remnents of a smashed German contingent of soldiers, am attempting to hold. Defeat is enevitable, untill I find from my reconcosence that the Americans are massing their Armor and attempting to cross the sole bridge left into town. I send several of my men into the top floor of a building that overlooks the bridge with their anti-tank weapons. Thanks to my gameplay descision based on information that I wouldn't have had in a 2D wargame of old, I won the battle.

How does one shred of that have anything to do with graphics? Using high ground to set up a superior defensive position is something I was going in Nobunga's Ambition for the NES. Can you come up with any examples?

Have you ever: Been in the Military or played Airsoft or Paintball?

Comparing paintball to the militarty :o :lol: That one is rich :lol:

Go do these things in the real world, where your visual and auditary imput is the only thing on your side, and then tell me that the reason your experiences and gameplay in a game-world aren't like the real-world isn't because of the visual stimulation.

It is called immersion. This must be extremely hard for you, keeping track of two different words at the same time and all, particularly that part of them not having the same definition.

In the mean time, I know I'm not the only person who thinks your a fuckin idiot.

Like your assertion that developers would agree with you. So far all of them that have voiced their oppinion say that you are wrong.

Still ahven't answered the question about lighting and games like Socom and SpecOps2 - then again, you're still backlogged from page 2.

That was an actual point? An example of AI relates to graphics...? Why does shooting the light out change anything? Because the AI script tells it to. Does that honestly need explaining? I understand that some people see things on the magic moving picture box and think that is how everything involved works, you know, looking at the magic moving picture box. Those people don't realize that there is actual this program running in the background when it comes to video games, and that programs has different portions which are not tied together. The AI script and physics engine being a seperate issue then the graphics engine as one that seems to give these people a particular hard time.

Another example: Gameplay in War of the Monsters compared with Rampage. Tell me that the graphics don't make a diffrence there.

Again, moving from 2D to 3D is mainly a function of the physics engine. The graphics are there to further enhance the game on an immersive basis.

Vince

17-Dec-2002, 05:50

It's obvious you are starting to realise how hollow your arguments are, how much longer before you give up this absurdity?

HA!

Using high ground to set up a superior defensive position is something I was going in Nobunga's Ambition for the NES. Can you come up with any examples?

Even better the Genesis game? Hehe. Shogun's gameplay totaly eclipses that I hear, wonder why :roll:

But beyond that, I think you need to play Combat Mission as my words are falling upon deaf ears.

This is to say nothing of the strategic possibilities in and of themselves; the introduction of full 3D terrain opens up a whole realm of tactical wonder for the genre. Whether you're ordering a machinegunner to the top floor of a house or using a now-vulnerable spotter atop a particularly large hill for extended visibility, the immense value of the environment and its potential will never cease to strike you.

Comparing paintball to the militarty :o :lol: That one is rich :lol:

Comparing it to the experience of playing Paintball or Airsoft (which I knew is as close as you'd ever come to a physical activity, and thats stretching it) and the diffrences in gameplay mechanics as seen on the PC or Consoles. Whats richer is that your answer is an obvious no.

It is called immersion. This must be extremely hard for you, keeping track of two different words at the same time and all, particularly that part of them not having the same definition.

Wow your so dense.

Like your assertion that developers would agree with you. So far all of them that have voiced their oppinion say that you are wrong.

All of them = 1? He's a programmer.

That was an actual point? An example of AI relates to graphics...? Why does shooting the light out change anything? Because the AI script tells it to. Does that honestly need explaining? I understand that some people see things on the magic moving picture box and think that is how everything involved works, you know, looking at the magic moving picture box. Those people don't realize that there is actual this program running in the background when it comes to video games, and that programs has different portions which are not tied together. The AI script and physics engine being a seperate issue then the graphics engine as one that seems to give these people a particular hard time.

Actually, Marco already referred to this well, as did I.

Again, moving from 2D to 3D is mainly a function of the physics engine. The graphics are there to further enhance the game on an immersive basis.

Obviously, you haven't played the game. As the graphics are an integral part. Taking of pieces of buildings and attacking your opponents with them. Knocking over buildings to create obsticles, collapsing buildings over and onto players. Throwing players into buildings, which will collapse on them.

Play the game and you'll see. Just as you would if you played Combat Mission or

BenSkywalker

17-Dec-2002, 08:05

But beyond that, I think you need to play Combat Mission as my words are falling upon deaf ears.

This is to say nothing of the strategic possibilities in and of themselves; the introduction of full 3D terrain opens up a whole realm of tactical wonder for the genre. Whether you're ordering a machinegunner to the top floor of a house or using a now-vulnerable spotter atop a particularly large hill for extended visibility, the immense value of the environment and its potential will never cease to strike you.

This quote has absolutely nothing to do with the graphics engine, it has to do with the physics engine and AI. Do you understand the difference between them?

which I knew is as close as you'd ever come to a physical activity, and thats stretching it

Why do you assume that I don't do any physical activity? Never had anyone who met me face to face assume that. In terms of war games, I live and was raised in New Hampshire. I owned my first semi auto rifle at 14(Ruger 10/22, parents bougt it for me for Christmas). Paintball is actually rather popular up here, but not nearly as big as putting the toys away and actually hunting living things firing real bullets.

Comparing it to the experience of playing Paintball or Airsoft and the diffrences in gameplay mechanics as seen on the PC or Consoles. Whats richer is that your answer is an obvious no.

Paintball is a nice game for kids to play. Problem comparing it to military training is that the level of caution that real world situations demand that children's games don't. Back when I was a teenager I played a few times with a few of my friends who joined the military(one Army, one Marine, two National Guards) and the ones who spent the most time training for actual combat always faired the poorest in paintball(of course, the real danger of getting shot is not in the slightest way comparable to getting a slight stinging from a paintball). Out of the people I played with, the two that were always the best both came from familys who were huge into hunting, and neither of them were trained in military ops.

Before any paintball fans get their panties in a bunch, I supposed I should expand on why paintball is mainly a kids game and nothing like real life. First off is the range of the weapons. You go out over 150' and you aren't going to hit much of anything reliably, if you can hit it at all. The accuracy and range of the weapons are as limited, if not moreso, then BB guns. This leaves you with close quarter combat as the only reasonable useage for PB, something that is more akin to Police SWAT team activity then military ops. What is an easy shot at 200 yards with say, and AR-15 becomes an impossibility with a paintball gun, and hence many of the combat techniques you would utilize in a real combat situation don't work at all. Hunters tend to do fairly well here(at least, those that I know) because they spend quite a bit of time with muzzle loaders and even more closely related, bow and arrow. Having a paintball battle is nothing remotely like real combat situations, the updated laser tag is far more accurate(including disabling your weapon as soon as you are 'out', no 'accidental' cheating when you 'don't know' you've been hit). Paintball might be OK to try and recreate eighteenth century firearms battles, but that is about it. It is a good game for kids, although disheartening that so many states have taken their anti gun rhetoric to far that they banned juveniles from using them without parental supervision. Paintball is a great game for kids 10-16. After that, time to put down the toys and pick up the real thing ;)

All of them = 1? He's a programmer.

A programmer, someone who understands exactly what part of the game code is doing what, doesn't agree with what you are saying. That doesn't surprise me in the least, yet you don't seem to grasp why that is.

Obviously, you haven't played the game. As the graphics are an integral part.

You keep saying the graphics are an integral part of gameplay for games that I have played where it isn't the case, why should I assume it is different in this case?

Taking of pieces of buildings and attacking your opponents with them. Knocking over buildings to create obsticles, collapsing buildings over and onto players. Throwing players into buildings, which will collapse on them.

That's all physics.

Vince

17-Dec-2002, 08:39

This quote has absolutely nothing to do with the graphics engine, it has to do with the physics engine and AI. Do you understand the difference between them?

Yes, infact I do, and this is the fundimental diffrence.

Your looking at this from a strictly 'gamecode' point of view. To you, the fundimental aspect of the gameplay experience is the code. The game runs this code in the background, this is the game, this is the gameplay.

I, and many others here, think that the fundimental aspect of the gameplay experience is the player. Without the player, his immersion, his feelings, his actions, his tempations, you have no gameplay.

This is obvious from your utter bullshit idea that you can play a game that has no visual output - that it just looses 'immersion'. I disagree. As The developer himself stated:

Vince is on the right track with regards to gameplay essentially providing mental stimuli through various senses. Of course one could also say that about reading a book (pictures or no), watching a movie, playing an instrument, having sex, playing a physical sport (gasp!)...

The act of playing a game is infact fundimentally similar to the action he listed (watching a movie, sex, sports) in that all these experiences revolve around the conscousness inherient in a person.

You can have all the physical laws in the Universe, or game code for that matter, and without a conscousness in Ben's little body percieving it - it ain't worth shit.

The gameplay isn't in the game, it's in the player - his actions, his thoughts, his temptations, his ambitions.

Just ask Will Wright where the game is and he'll point at his head, which is something I'll never forget. And this my friend, is whats up.

But, this in itself is besides the more material point, which is that graphical advance is infact the limiting feature on what gameplay can be shown/given to a player threw his game.

EDIT: EXAMPLE: GTA3+ isn't "immersive", but it's gameplay potential is enormous because the developer gives us an open ended world and we can play out our wants, desires, thoughts, ect (as Will said) in our mind and act on them. This type of game, with this type of open endedness, wasn't possible 5 or 10 years ago. Only with the recent graphical advance has it been.

Why do you assume that I don't do any physical activity? Never had anyone who met me face to face assume that. In terms of war games, I live and was raised in New Hampshire. I owned my first semi auto rifle at 14(Ruger 10/22, parents bougt it for me for Christmas). Paintball is actually rather popular up here, but not nearly as big as putting the toys away and actually hunting living things firing real bullets.

We all hunt, not all of us hunt humans - which is why I brought up Airsoft and Paintball.

Paintball is a nice game for kids to play. Problem comparing it to military training is that the level of caution that real world situations demand that children's games don't.

Obviously, the point is that paintball is popular. I didn't know if you play Airsoft, Paintball is more popular. Logic buddy.

Before any paintball fans get their panties in a bunch... Paintball is a great game for kids 10-16.

Ouch! Actually, Paintball isn't a 'kids game' at all... that demographic is playing on the 'Cube :) Actually, the group I paintball with are all in our 20's and the guys we meet generally range in the mid-20's, early 30's. Depends where you go.

Seriously though, Paintball isn't suppose to be a serious recreation of large scale modern battlefield tactics. It's morphed in the past few years into a more mainstream sport thats very fast paced and is a quite exciting parallel to Airsoft. It does however provide an CQB experience thats like pure adrenaline man, it can get intense.

If you're looking for a more structured, realistsic sport, then Airsoft is your game. It's the closest you'll get without enlisting, and is a hella lot of fun. Alot cheaper too :) I just didn't figure on you (a) Paintballing (b) Knowing what Airsoft is (c) Beng exposed to Firearms... will have to respect Ben again.. lol

A programmer, someone who understands exactly what part of the game code is doing what, doesn't agree with what you are saying. That doesn't surprise me in the least, yet you don't seem to grasp why that is.

Hehe, thanks for supporting the above part... Code vs. Player...

That's all physics.

Se bud, no it's not. While it may be 'physics' thats guiding that, I as the player don't see the physics. I don't manipulate the physics, I don't play the game according to the physics. I play the game according to what I see. I play the game as I 'play' life - by what I see.

I don't drive based on mathmatical calculations, I don't jump over a hole based on the mathmtically expressed physics - I do all this by sight.

As I stated time and time again, graphically you can compress so much data threw the spatial and temporal cohesion in a typical scene. Don't you pick up on this stuff? Graphics allow for you to express this in the game. Immersion my ass.

Cool example: Using rain direction (think advanced MGS2) to show the player which direction the wind's blowing in for a Stealth based game where noise/smell travels with the wind. Compressing the data visually to have impact on the gameplay.

PS. Sorry bout the Mouth before, you just have a way with me.... I owe ya a drink when I finally catch up to you (after I bust out the Aluminum bat that is ;))

marconelly!

17-Dec-2002, 09:36

rain direction (think advanced MGS2) to show the player which direction the wind's blowing
Completely OT, but you actually can tell the direction of the wind just by looking at the rain in MGS2, and it changes every now and then (another one of those things in MGS2 that noone notices :P). Other visual cues, like smoke from the towers and water splashing over the deck also act accordingly. I think all that's removed in the Xbox port, though, as it looks like if they simply randomized the rain particle directions.

Quaid

18-Dec-2002, 00:17

graphics are not part of gameplay.

to those who are talking about the evolution of 2d to 3d, and having games with thousands of characters, etc, are missing the point. it is not the 3d graphics that changed the gameplay, its the 3d physics and AI. big difference. the two are not mutually inclusive.

same with the thousands of characters/players argument. its not improvements in graphics which allow more players/objects, it is improvements in programming and game design concepts. any game can have thousands of characters playing at one, if enough graphical details are stripped out. but those thousands of characters would still be playing, and the gameplay would be the same. its the physics and unseen processing that allows those thousands of players to play, while the graphics only serve to represent what is being processed/played. the

someone already used the PC FPS as an example, and it is a very good example. say a group of people are playing [insert popular FPS here] on a LAN. some people have less powerful computers, so they must lower the graphical details in order to keep a high frame rate. did the game magically become less fun, and was the gameplay magically decreased along with the graphics details? :roll:

mech

18-Dec-2002, 01:18

You're an idiot. You need the 3D graphics FOR the 3D physics. You can't have one without the other. Therefore graphics have an effect on gameplay.

Vince

18-Dec-2002, 06:58

someone already used the PC FPS as an example, and it is a very good example. say a group of people are playing [insert popular FPS here] on a LAN. some people have less powerful computers, so they must lower the graphical details in order to keep a high frame rate. did the game magically become less fun, and was the gameplay magically decreased along with the graphics details? :roll:

Your the exact kind of linear thinking 'person' that got me into this debate. You have no clue what we're talking about, nor do you grasp what I'm saying - please don't tell me we're wrong based on your dumb assumptions we covered on page 1/2. Go back and read the debate.

Nobody said Graphics = Gameplay. Nor did anyone propose a directly proportional relationship between them that would allow us to say - Wow, '+3' in graphics = '+3' in gameplay. We're talking about giving the developers power to create increased gameplay possibilities thanks to the increase in graphical power. We've been threw this over and over. Your killing me here.

EDIT: Mech = good :)

BenSkywalker

18-Dec-2002, 13:01

I, and many others here, think that the fundimental aspect of the gameplay experience is the player. Without the player, his immersion, his feelings, his actions, his tempations, you have no gameplay.

What you are talking about here is all immersion. How a game makes the player feel is the immersive elements of the game.

The act of playing a game is infact fundimentally similar to the action he listed (watching a movie, sex, sports) in that all these experiences revolve around the conscousness inherient in a person.

Gameplay can provide mental stimuli, if it didn't noone would be able to play a game. Text based adventures provided mental stimuli.

But, this in itself is besides the more material point, which is that graphical advance is infact the limiting feature on what gameplay can be shown/given to a player threw his game.

I strongly disagree with this. Graphics aid immersiveness, not gameplay. The limitations on gameplay are code, CPU power, RAM, media etc, not graphics.

EXAMPLE: GTA3+ isn't "immersive", but it's gameplay potential is enormous because the developer gives us an open ended world and we can play out our wants, desires, thoughts, ect (as Will said) in our mind and act on them.

GTA3 has next to nothing for gameplay, it is abysmally poor in that aspect. GTA3 is all about immersion, nothing else.

This type of game, with this type of open endedness, wasn't possible 5 or 10 years ago.

GTA3 certainly could have been realized on the DC(which came out nearly five years ago) and on PCs prior to that.

If you're looking for a more structured, realistsic sport, then Airsoft is your game.

When I feel the need for physical intesive competition I'll stick with football or TKD(although I haven't done much of either of those recently). The combat sim games don't do much for me, never really have either. It always felt like something I would have enjoyed a great deal more had I played when I was 10-15 years old.

I just didn't figure on you (a) Paintballing (b) Knowing what Airsoft is (c) Beng exposed to Firearms... will have to respect Ben again.. lol

If you posted in the General forum a couple of years back you would have picked up on it. I still lurk there and post once in a great while, but figured out some time ago that it was the same thing over and over and gave up on entering discussions most of the time.

I don't drive based on mathmatical calculations

Ever raced at any level? I'll tell you that taking an off camber decreasing radius corner has me figuring out several calculations real quick ;) Same with drag racing(although there if you screw up by 1/100th of a second you lose which isn't the case on a road course).

PS. Sorry bout the Mouth before, you just have a way with me.... I owe ya a drink when I finally catch up to you (after I bust out the Aluminum bat that is ;) )

Hehe. You know, if we ever had an event that brought all the B3D posters together and discussed a wide range of topics you and I would be with about five other people against almost everyone else on the forums(I think you can figure out what I mean there ;) ). If we do ever run into each other, we'll definitely have to grab a drink and shoot the shit for a while. Which part of the country do you live in? Perhaps we'll both be at E3 one of these years.

Tagrineth

18-Dec-2002, 15:33

Quaid

18-Dec-2002, 19:46

You're an idiot. You need the 3D graphics FOR the 3D physics. You can't have one without the other. Therefore graphics have an effect on gameplay.

:roll: wow, I thought this place was relatively troll free. you through that theory right out the window.

anyway, as was already pointed out to you, yes there can be 3D physics without 3D graphics. it was been done for many years in the 2D days. sports (John Madden and NBA Live on SNES and Genesis) and many overhead style games are the best example.

so, you are wrong, and have nothing useful to say, so just call them an idiot if you dont like what they say. what an original and smart person you are :roll:

mech

19-Dec-2002, 13:39

You're an idiot. You need the 3D graphics FOR the 3D physics. You can't have one without the other. Therefore graphics have an effect on gameplay.

Actually you can certainly have a 3D physics engine without 3D graphics, it'd just need a lot of complex sprite work and would look somewhat odd and confusing at times. (Hey, he's right on top of m- oh, wait, no, he's 100 feet in the air, whoops! :lol:)

For example, in Zelda: Oracle of Seasons (GBC) there are enemies that jump. Normally touching them hurts you, but if you run under them while they jump, you'll just pass right 'through' them.

Then there's also StarCraft which has three levels each of ground and sky, but VERY 2D graphics.

Granted these are very limited examples of 3D gameplay in a 2D environment, but they do exist.

Ah, but to see 3D physics, do you not need some sort of 3D graphics? After all, "3D graphics" are just 3D space represented in 2D anyway. You can't have 3D physics with text input for example - therefore graphics influence gameplay.

Speaking of which, text input games are an excellent argument for graphics influencing gameplay.

You're an idiot. You need the 3D graphics FOR the 3D physics. You can't have one without the other. Therefore graphics have an effect on gameplay.

:roll: wow, I thought this place was relatively troll free. you through that theory right out the window.

anyway, as was already pointed out to you, yes there can be 3D physics without 3D graphics. it was been done for many years in the 2D days. sports (John Madden and NBA Live on SNES and Genesis) and many overhead style games are the best example.

so, you are wrong, and have nothing useful to say, so just call them an idiot if you dont like what they say. what an original and smart person you are :roll:

Whatever dude, if you didn't say such silly stuff I wouldn't have to call you an idiot now would I? I'm not trolling by pointing out flaws in your argument.

Gollum

19-Dec-2002, 15:36

Ah, but to see 3D physics, do you not need some sort of 3D graphics? After all, "3D graphics" are just 3D space represented in 2D anyway. You can't have 3D physics with text input for example - therefore graphics influence gameplay.
I agree with that except for the conclusion, following your argument it should be "therefore graphics influence physics" (and vice versa). Wether physics influence gameplay was already briefly discussed, depending on the game physics can be mainly for show and add nothing to the gameplay experience, while in other cases the physics almost ARE the gameplay. Arguing that graphics and physics can be connected doesn't proove that graphics must influence gameplay at all though IMHO.

Speaking of which, text input games are an excellent argument for graphics influencing gameplay.
I disagree, take an adventure - gameplay wise there is little difference between typing "take object" or clicking on take and then clicking the object - you can still design basically the same game around both types of controls as its essentially the same action, the same gameplay principle. Of course the graphics make the whole action feel differently, but that's not because the game design or concept has changed, its the interface that has changed to seeing/clicking instead of reading/typing. This text/graphics example would be better suiter for an argument about how graphics can enhance game controls and those in turn can improve the experience and increase game complexity.

Note I'm not saying that controls, physics or graphics can't influence gameplay! While IMHO gameplay especially in concept and design is largely independent of the two, I think that how the player experiences the gameplay can be changed or enhanced a lot by a number of other factors in the game too, most notably control interface, graphics, AI and physics. It might be possible, like Ben argued, to design the same gameplay as in Morrowind or Fable with a textbased interface, but it would hardly be very accessible or fun...

Vince

20-Dec-2002, 00:50

So much bullshit in this thread. People can't think, I'm convinced of it. All those years defending the average American - wasted.... :wink:

Didn't any of you persuit a higher science? If "Graphics" isn't related or in anyway influece "Gampeplay" - then you could totally remove any visualization from the equation and it [gameplay] would remain intact.

Remove the moniter or TV from the equation, play according to Sound and Tactile feedback. The "Gameplay" as defined according to Ben, Tag, and You - which is composed of AI, Physics, and Collision - are still present. Thus, playing this way should allow for the same "gameplay" experience.

Obviously, This isn't so.

Even with your idea that "Text based games" allows for the gameplay is wrong. Gameplay - what the player thinks, reasons, feels, wants, desires -can't be attained to the same level as using graphics.

As I've stated numerous times (pissing me off) graphics are a way of compressing information using the spatial and temporal cohesion (and your Neurological recolection to compare this to, but thats OT) that would be impossible to describe using text.

EXAMPLE: GTA Vice City: I'm on a crotch-rocket, attempting to get away from the Bank after the robbery. The number of choices I can make concerning the escape routes and way the graphical enviroment can infleuece my outcome (ie: Gameplay related) are near infinate.

'Words' (ie: text) are a horrible way to convey this. You could fill hundreds of pages with nothing but little details about the enviroment that could make or break the situtation and my ingame life. I could fall on a curb, or a small rock in the ground, or a pedestrain thats walking; I could jump a fence and run threw the grass to a parked car, ect, ect.

The number of choices are theoretically approaching infinate. When you consider that words, "text", takes probobly 10X the amount of data to convey the samew thing in the same detail; aswell as the monsterous latency involved in reading and comprehension, aswell as the limited STM thanks to your neurological make-up, you'd never be able to replicate the same thing.

Besides, who the fuck could write up text for ever possible gameplay situation in GTA alone?

What you are talking about here is all immersion. How a game makes the player feel is the immersive elements of the game.

Negative Ghostrider (Top-Gun referense). If you talk to any of the high-tier developers like Will Wright, Shigeru Miyamoto, Hideo Kojima, Sid Meier, Peter Molyneux, Gabe Newell.

They will all tell you your wrong.

The Sims, arguably the biggest game of all time - right there. It's draw [read Wright] is that you can reflect your own life, desires, thoughts, ambitions out on the game. The game isn't on the computer, it's in your head. People love the game and gameplay because of this attachment. The gameplay is in your head, you aren't 'immersed' into the game like you keep thinking thanks to the graphics (which suck ass), but are immersed into the game itself, the gameplay. Thus, the graphics are what allow for the gameplay and allows you, as the player, to interact with the game which isn't in the physics, AI, or collision detection.

Don't you see this?

Gameplay can provide mental stimuli, if it didn't noone would be able to play a game. Text based adventures provided mental stimuli.

You totally missed my point, why do I even talk. Hello Wall, lets talk M-Theory... :roll:

I strongly disagree with this. Graphics aid immersiveness, not gameplay. The limitations on gameplay are code, CPU power, RAM, media etc, not graphics.

Then answer the one fucking question already:

Does playing a game without a moniter or TV (just sound and tactile) allow for the same gameplay experience to the player as playign with the moniter?

I've stated this god-damn 5 times with the Dark matter example, are you not comprehending or what?

GTA3 has next to nothing for gameplay, it is abysmally poor in that aspect. GTA3 is all about immersion, nothing else.

Um, thats not what the majority of the world is saying. Ever read a review of the game?

GTA3 certainly could have been realized on the DC(which came out nearly five years ago) and on PCs prior to that.

Your too linear. Could GTA3 been on the PSX? With the same gameplay? (GTA's < 3 = joke). What about a GTA on the AppleIIe?

When I feel the need for physical intesive competition I'll stick with football

Footballs awesome when your with a bunch of friends and you're in the mood to physically hurt someone. Good times...

The combat sim games don't do much for me, never really have either. It always felt like something I would have enjoyed a great deal more had I played when I was 10-15 years old.

Well, thats your perogative. Not that I agree, but hey. Maybe I just started playing too late <shrug>. I think I'm addicted to the adrenaline.

Ever raced at any level? I'll tell you that taking an off camber decreasing radius corner has me figuring out several calculations real quick ;) Same with drag racing(although there if you screw up by 1/100th of a second you lose which isn't the case on a road course).

Again, I'm talking in day to day life. Stop thinking so linearly ( A + B = C) and think about this stuff. You also have a tendency to bring the discussion down to levels that have nothign to due with this topic.

I mean, we're talking about the physics calculations in a game. I don't sit in my car with a calculator and pencil and work out the physics as I drive. This is the point.

Hehe. You know, if we ever had an event that brought all the B3D posters together and discussed a wide range of topics you and I would be with about five other people against almost everyone else on the forums(I think you can figure out what I mean there ;) )quote]

Ha! So true.

[quote]Perhaps we'll both be at E3 one of these years.

I've thought about it before, make a weekend out of it with with friends (LA or Vegas baby!) but we've always had something going on or baggage (both work and the worse, estrogen friendly, kind). Besides, from what I hear, I don't think we'd last too long before we got fed up and throw-down with the pathetic guys malesting the booth-girls. Stuff like that just turns me off to the base of this industry.

Vince

20-Dec-2002, 01:03

I disagree, take an adventure - gameplay wise there is little difference between typing "take object" or clicking on take and then clicking the object - you can still design basically the same game around both types of controls as its essentially the same action, the same gameplay principle.

I disagree even more. First off, "Take Object" is a control issue. Second, replacing graphics with just Text is what we're talking. As, you can't portrey the number of objects in a room, the ways in which they can be used, or manipulated to further the game threw text alone comparable to a modern game. This is impossible.

While, your little example of "Take object" would seem to have the same effect as pressing "X" and having the character pick it up - you not thinking dynamically at all.

How do I know what to take? How do I know what the object is? How far it's range it? How I can use it in battle or otherwise? Ect, ect

For example, a battle (I'm not war-like, I'm peaceful I sware - there just good examples) thats explained in just text will have nowhere as close to the gameplay as one which you can see. A 'text-based' VF4 being equal to VF4? Um, no.

Or the entire platorm genre. "Attempt to Jump 10 feet with 2deg down angle and 55deg lateral rotation." Or there is a platorm that extends from (15, 2, 100) to (30, 2, 100) in length and to (xx, 10, 100) in length. Now, there are 15 similar platforms in the room at.... Please jump using your DualShock or Wavebird to the platform of choice. Your present location is (01, -10, 75). Good times...

Or an F1 Sim. Your current location = xxxx, speed = xxxx, nearest opponents location = xxx, xxx, xxx (*15other cars) with their speeds of xxx, xxx, xxx... Please move the dual shock now.

Hey and guess what, thats just a small slice of the text needed to describe one frame... multiply that by 60 and there you go.

And this has the same gameplay potential as a graphical display? Er... no.

20-Dec-2002, 06:09

Gameplay in videogames = Amount of changing command inputs per second*Amount your heart rate raises by.

:)

Gollum

20-Dec-2002, 15:17

Vince, I don't know why you're barking at me like that, didn't you take your medicine or what is yor problem? ;)

I never claimed graphics, controls etc. can't influence gameplay, I even said that they all offer possibilities to enhance and expand both gameplay complexity and experience. As for the example I gave, I just disagreed with mech's conclusion that text based "input" (which he was talking about) is an argument for how graphics can influence gameplay, a statement which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me in that context! Like you also pointed out, this is a control issue which IMHO may or may not have an effect on gameplay, depending on the type of game, and I don't see how it has anything to do with the graphics discussion. Graphics and text based controls aren't mutually exclusive, you need only look at Ultima 6 to see that...

As for your other arguments, I take it you don't read all that much do you? Because of the way you constantly rave about myriads of small details I conclude that you must vastly prefer movies over books, because those can't describe all the fine little details that are all over the place in movies. Certainly the essence of a dramatic scene can't possibly be translated into text form when all those tiny things as "a curb, or a small rock in the ground, or a pedestrain" can't be described in explicit detail in words without boring the hell out of anyone. I understnad how questions like how big is the pedestrian, what does he wear, what is his hair colour, what's the rock's colour, etc. have a huge impact, without this information the whole scene becomes totally pointless, yes? Ever heard of a thing called abstraction? I guess when someone tells you "let your own mind fill in all the details" you laugh at them? Ever thought of the possibility that wether there is one pebble more on the ground in front of your character while he's being chased by the police doesn't make a difference at all to the overall impact a situation can have?

Again, I'm not even arguing that you could pull off every game imaginable with text based controls, much less a text based gameworld, but the possibility of just displaying more details alone certainly doesn't enhance gameplay by itself. It offers you more options, that's for sure, but it depends enormously on the specific game and genre. Take the case of adventures, there has been very little gameplay enhancement at all going on in the past decade regardless of enhanced graphics or control mechnism. The pinnacle of that genre was reached like a decade ago and today's adventures can barely rival the fun and entertainment of the classic Lucas Arts games (and that's not just nostalgia).

The same holds true for some sports games, ever played the Sydney 2000 game? Even the old Summer games had almost the same gameplay and controls, the graphics are 100x better but the game is almost the same. And even today there is hardly a soccer game that can match the fun of Sensible Soccer on Amiga! Take these as example of how having to pay too much attention to filling every pixel of a high-res screen with graphical detail can also take away from the actual gaming experience. Some games would be far better off focusing more attention on gameplay design, perfect controls and fun than graphical detail, often it would do more good for them than better graphics!

Vince

20-Dec-2002, 21:31

Vince, I don't know why you're barking at me like that, didn't you take your medicine or what is yor problem? ;)

No, just sick of repeating the same shit over and over because people can't seem to grasp this.

As for the example I gave, I just disagreed with mech's conclusion that text based "input" (which he was talking about) is an argument for how graphics can influence gameplay, a statement which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me in that context! Like you also pointed out, this is a control issue which IMHO may or may

I merely disagreed and (a) showed you how your example way wrong [control issue] and (b) How a text parallel is very, very valid.

Graphics and text based controls aren't mutually exclusive, you need only look at Ultima 6 to see that...

<Starts taking off shoe-laces> Your killing me here. It's not text-based controls I and mech are talking, only you made that wrong distinction. We're saying, if graphics aren't a function of gameplay, then remove them completely and the gameplay should remain the same.

This proves the point well, but you can also use a "Text" based discription (since it's not totally graphical, but this is a grey area) of the scene - I then showed how ubsurd this idea was.

As for your other arguments, I take it you don't read all that much do you?

I don't read Fiction, never really have, or so says my mom.

Because of the way you constantly rave about myriads of small details I conclude that you must vastly prefer movies over books, because those can't describe all the fine little details that are all over the place in movies. Certainly the essence of a dramatic scene can't possibly be translated into text form when all those tiny things as "a curb, or a small rock in the ground, or a pedestrain" can't be described in explicit detail in words without boring the hell out of anyone.

I prefer books for knowledge, everything else is visual. I attended a round-table talk earlier this year on Documenting the Unimaginable and it was interesting the conversation between the documentary producers and film studio owners was on how hard it was to show "tragic events and realistic blood and emotion". Whats funny is that the phycologists and neurologists responded quickly that the problem was extrapolating the "event' and all the sensory information that the PNS was exposed to and somehow extrapoling this in terms of "words" which are from a limited pool of "words" and manifestations of the authors views and ideals. You're adding another [huge] layer of extraction between the viewer and the actual event. This is why documenting something like September 11th is so difficult, as one philisopher who illudes me at the moment once said, It's a feeling that starts deep within and escapes words, which is basically what it is.

Now, the same is true of games and 'text' - seing the world, the options, the reactions to your actions, the choices you make - are all dynamic to you. You won't complete a mission in GTA:VC as I will, nor will you have the same feelings (damn Hatians) towards certain gangs or people that will drive you to choose one option over another.

Without graphics driving the game, you add a layer of extraction from the game - one in which severaly kills any gameplay potential. Thus, graphics define gameplay.

I understnad how questions like how big is the pedestrian, what does he wear, what is his hair colour, what's the rock's colour, etc. have a huge impact, without this information the whole scene becomes totally pointless, yes?

So linear in thinking. Lets move beyond this ok?

Ever heard of a thing called abstraction? I guess when someone tells you "let your own mind fill in all the details" you laugh at them? Ever thought of the possibility that wether there is one pebble more on the ground in front of your character while he's being chased by the police doesn't make a difference at all to the overall impact a situation can have?

My example was just that, but how many times have you fallen off your motorcycle in GTA because you hit tht curb thats probobly 5 pixels in hight? I do it all the time, it affects gameplay because when I hit it and fall, the nearby gang or cops then kill me. This is obvious. Same in a racing game or say, Midtown Madness (or whatever it is)

As for "letting your mind fill in the details" in the context you put - What if his shirt is that of a rival gang? What it it's a cop, whose after you because you robbed a store? What if it's Vance or someone in your gang?

What if in the future, with the increase in graphics and animation, you pick out a 'look' on the face of someone on the street that foreshadows the speedy death by driveby thats comming down the street after you.

And as for "letting your mind fill in the details" on a more abstract level, then, well, ok, make up the entire game yourself, hell, you'll save yourself alot of money.

But the possibility of just displaying more details alone certainly doesn't enhance gameplay by itself. It offers you more options, that's for sure, but it depends enormously on the specific game and genre.

Um, yes it does. It opens up the possibility for more gameplay - which is all I'm trying to show.

Take the case of adventures, there has been very little gameplay enhancement at all going on in the past decade regardless of enhanced graphics or control mechnism. The pinnacle of that genre was reached like a decade ago and today's adventures can barely rival the fun and entertainment of the classic Lucas Arts games (and that's not just nostalgia).

Thats (a) Your opinion, (b) because no-ones pushing the envelope.

The same holds true for some sports games, ever played the Sydney 2000 game? Even the old Summer games had almost the same gameplay and controls, the graphics are 100x better but the game is almost the same. And even today there is hardly a soccer game that can match the fun of Sensible Soccer on Amiga! Take these as example of how having to pay too much attention to filling every pixel of a high-res screen with graphical detail can also take away from the actual gaming experience.

Your kidding me, right? I refuse to argue about specific titles like that as thats a developer choice, not because he doesn't have the ability to push forward the genre.

Some games would be far better off focusing more attention on gameplay design, perfect controls and fun than graphical detail, often it would do more good for them than better graphics!

Again, this is a developer choice. As we covered back on page 2 (or 3) with Tag, this means nothing. Nobody is trying to prove that "graphics=gameplay" (pages3 & 4), what we're saying is that the developer is empowered to have added gameplay potential because graphics are the limiting function to the complexity and potential gameplay the dev can use, whether or not he uses that is another story.