Ice Nine...

[marconelly!]

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]

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]

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 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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Rodéric]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[mech]

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]

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]

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....

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]

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

Go shoot a mip boundary then....

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... )

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.