Ice Nine...

[Tagrineth]

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]

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]

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

 

[Vince]

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]

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

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]

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]

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!]

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]

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.

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

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?

 

[Vince]

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.

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.

 

[BenSkywalker]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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!

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!]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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