That looks awesome, it reminds me a bit of Rez.

it's not too much of how the char set is, but how it's used. If you've got a thrown up blob of bad characters with a crappy palette, then i don't think it's good enough to play...

It wasn't the graphics that gave those games bad controls.

There have been plenty of good or amazing low resolution games.

Also, thanks Sai'ke, exactly. Same game.

He didn't say the games had bad controls, there's much more to graphical quality than resolution, and I think Sai`ke was trying to show that the game looked and felt much different without textures.

Graphics determine detail and clarity which can affect how a game is played. Poor contrast or brightness can also make it more difficult to notice things onscreen. It's easier to be immersed in a better looking game, which will probably affect the level at which you play it.

To say that a game is the same if you take out textures would be to suggest that the textures never mattered in the first place. Although a lot of people do say "graphics don't matter" I'm sure most of them are just backlashing against an overemphasis on polygon counts.

First, you never said the textures do affect the game. They don't. Half-life Two's textures don't affect the game. At all. Not one bit.

If they weren't there, the game would be the same.

NES graphics didn't affect the game's gameplay. The resolution is smaller, which makes it slightly more difficult to control characters in certain kinds of games. Besides that, the graphics have nothing to go with gameplay. That's just absurd.

Bad graphics can ruin a game, sure. That's different. That's like saying a song would be a lot better if I wasn't getting punched at the time.

Graphics have never had anything to do with gameplay.

There were lots of games with old graphics that were spectacular. Better than modern games even. Also, good graphics are completely subjective.

The playstation had awesome graphics when it came out. Now it's graphics suck. That has nothing to do with the games on the playstation. The playstation had a lot of badass games.

So did the SNES.

And the 486 PC.

Nethack. Roguelikes have the worst graphics, but awesome gameplay. It's the typical thing to bring up, but relevant.

Symphony of the Night would have been the same game if the graphics were big blocks. And it still would have been awesome.

The main problem with games on the NES is bad controls. Bad controls, irrational levels, and difficult gameplay.

There have been lots of good MZX games.

Demon Earth for instance.

MZX has terrible graphics. People alway defend it's terrible graphics. Demon Earth was a better game than the last three handheld Zeldas combined. Graphics aren't gameplay. Otherwise MZX wouldn't work. Nothing would be any good.

Graphics matter as much in games as in literature.

This post has been edited by Elig on Dec 1 2007, 02:54 AM

I disagree with everything you said.

It is such a sweeping statement.


Let me elaborate:

Graphics are an important part of a game universe.
I can't play nethack or dwarf fortress. And I have tried. But, I can't.

I have no reason to, because the game universe is not a nice place, not a place I want to be. So I don't play the game.


As for Demon Earth being better than the last three Zeldas?

Well, I don't know about the three Zeldas, but I hated Demon Earth. It wasn't so much playing it, but more like struggling with it.

MZX does not have bad graphics. It has huge limitations, that is all. And they aren't even that bad. For instance, you can reproduce just about any color your eyes can see. And, it's based on text mode.



Graphics have an immediate impact on gameplay.
I don't know if you have seen the Portal developer commentary, but it's very interesting.

For instance, they replaced static platforms with moving platforms, not because it was necessary for the level design, but only because players tended to immediately notice moving platforms, whereas they occasionally missed the static ones.

Also, the metal spring on the player legs. They gave the player model huge springs on the legs, so people understand that they don't suffer falling damage.



Team Fortress 2. Oh boy. That game has PERSONALITY. Why? The player models are great. You can recognize a character class INSTANTLY, and react accordingly. And while it might appear minor to you, but models have facial expressions, and as such, you grow emotionally attached to the characters.

Same with Dog in Half-Life 2, which provides a great "aww :3" moment in the game.

Getting hit. In most games, there are visual cues when you're getting hit. Because otherwise, you wouldn't notice, and all of a sudden you would die. But the visual cues can't be too invasive, because then it'll distract you.


Angle, movement and prediction: In any remotely modern ship game, bullets will have an angle, and it has to be easy to see, so you can dodge it appropriately.
If the visual bullet angle is different from the direction it's actually going, it'll be harder to precisely predict its movement and dodge it, and it'll just basically look wrong. Which is why, in old games, bullets are either circular, or only have predefined angles. Direct impact on gameplay there!

This post has been edited by LogiCow on Dec 1 2007, 04:23 AM

You don't like Nethack?

Gee, they sure wasted a lot of time doing them then.

Resolution is almost always the same on NES, SNES, and PC-Engine, with Genesis offering only slightly higher resolution. And yet all of these platforms have much different graphical quality in their games.... resolution doesn't affect control precision in a 2D game noticeably unless it's very low.

It really isn't absurd, and I don't feel like repeating all of the other points I made, so I'll give an example. Let's take Sai`ke's example of removing the textures to an extreme, now let's make the graphics of a 256 color game 2 colors. And tell me it doesn't affect gameplay.

Bad graphics are not akin to someone punching you. This is not a good analogy. >_<

Just because you say it isn't true.

Nobody ever said that the quality of graphics had anything to do with the level of technology available. That's the first mistake people make in an argument like this. They also think that 2D vs. 3D is an argument of graphical quality when it isn't either.

Its graphics don't suck just because you say so.

I can't stand Nethack.

You're delusional. Maybe you would have liked it, but most people wouldn't have. You'd may as well go one step further and say music doesn't matter either. Music can't affect gameplay right? It's definitely further removed than graphics are.

Besides, if all the sprites were giant opaque blocks it would screw up the gameplay fiercely....

I really don't think that was Terryn's opinion when he made that statement.

Here's the funny thing. About halfway through you said "graphics are subjective", then you spend a lot of time describing what is terrible.

When asked "do graphics matter" the real question being asked is "how important is it to you that you that a game isn't ugly?"

To me a lot of old games and yes, MZX games as well look great because the game designer has some aesthetic sense. For a counterexample see that horrible looking Gee Geekers game.

You couldn't be more full of shit.

"game" is not synonymous for "gameplay" (which is not as rigidly defined as many would hope)

Pretty things are sellable. That doesn't make them better. A shiny car is more sellable than a dirty car. That doesn't make the shiny car better.

So resolution doesn't affect gameplay? Good to see we're on the right track.

You could make an excellent two color game. There have been good low color games.

Say, isn't MZX pretty much two color?

So Playstation games didn't have terrible graphics? They weren't even perspective correct. They were extremely low resolution, small texture, low polygon games.

The Playstation doesn't have good graphics. Look at Tenchu.

Or Twisted Metal. Both fine games with terrible graphics.

Heh.

That was an awesome game you hated because it looked dumb.

MZX games have never been anything graphically. They've had a certain style. Some have looked decent. But they're, what, two color with a few of pallet options? Extremely low resolution, usually terrible graphics, but extremely good games.

They're like Nethack.

Terrible graphics can ruin anything. That's different. A book can be printed unreadable. Bad fonts, colors, whatever.

It's hard not to laugh. Especially after you said "I can't stand Nethack."

If something sells better then it's better in the eyes of the person buying it. I know you'd like to think that you have a more enlightened and valid opinion than the majority but you can't stand on that alone when speaking against them.

Resolution does not define graphical quality.

And yet most games that aren't two colors wouldn't work well if they were. It's not that you couldn't make a good two color game, but it would severely limit you. The gaming industry doesn't strive on severe genre limitations.

Um, no? How could you even justify that statement...

For one thing, several PS1 games weren't even 3D, and looked fine. And they weren't "extremely low resolution", they were roughly the same resolution as everything else until that point, but a little higher.

Texture size and polygon count do not define graphical quality. They're much weaker limitations than the things you're talking about.

Once again was you saying opinion on graphical quality is purely subjective.

hur hur yes I don't like Nethack so I guess my opinions must be wrong. You don't see me throwing out your opinions because you think Hobo Dan is the most significant game since Super Mario Bros.

No, it was a game I never played because it's only available for Linux (and not even 64bit Linux which I have access to), but it really did look dumb, you're right. What I thought was more objectionable was the fact that they were claiming it was "old school" when really it was just terrible graphics glossed over with some minor techniques to make it look technologically limit. It wasn't old, it was just bad, which is the main distinguishing point I'm trying to make here.

No, they aren't two color, just like NES games aren't 4 color and SNES games aren't 16 color, get a clue for crying out loud.

No they aren't.

This is another terrible analogy, given that I'm sure almost no books are printed unreadable. It'd be more like saying that a broken TV can make a game unplayable.

Some people don't care about graphics very much at all, but only the most delusional extremists will claim that they're entirely irrelevant to video games.

I somehow don't think anyone else is laughing at me for not liking Nethack. Sorry I'm not hardkorr enough, but I figure it's more agreeable than most of the things you've been saying here.

Elig good graphics doesn't mean that the graphics are _technically_ good. It means they look good and are appropriate. And now a quote from the author of Bob the Angry Flower.

"I've heard grumblings about the Wii's graphical strength in relation to the PS3 and 360 and even I will admit the Wii cannot push nearly as many polygons as those august systems. However, Galaxy displays creativity and taste, two things you just can't fake even with access to every polygon in the universe. The colors are generous and soothing, Mario's planet-to-planet swirls and cosmic arcs exhilarate profoundly, and everywhere everywhere glitters twinkle and wink at the lucky player. Ahh, so nice."

I'm laughing because Nethack is awesome. How can you not like Nethack? Everyone likes Nethack. That's like saying Super Metroid sucks.

Don't tell me you hate that one too.

I'm also laughing because I really think you're completely wrong. I don't understand your point of view. At all. I think what you're saying is laughably absurd.

Sorry, I just completely disagree with everything you've said.

Graphics don't matter.

This post has been edited by Elig on Dec 1 2007, 06:11 AM

Actually not everyone likes Nethack. Many people don't like Roguelikes at all, and some people who like them actually don't like Nethack either.

I haven't played it.

That's fine for you, I happen to feel the same way about everything you're saying.

Of course industry trends have proven something entirely different, and most of the people in this thread haven't been insane extremists about it like you have.

You do realize it's quite a different kind of stance to say that graphics have some value and graphics don't have any value. If I was saying that graphics of the utmost quality are vital to a game's success then I'm sure you'd have a reason to laugh at me.

Since most game reviews have a big fat "graphics" category I'm going to take a big leap and believe that a significant number of people actually do value graphical quality.

Elig what I gather here is that you're so unbelievably shallow as to have never been emotionally affected by a video game in part on account of its visuals, or so unbelievably retarded as to have no recollection you were.

Or perhaps you think the emotional effects of a game are irrelevant? Or maybe you're just defending a strict and utterly useless distinction between entertaining gameplay and whatever's tacked on to it? That's patently batshit insane, though, seeing that approximately no one considered Half-Life 2 a landmark video game only for its learning curve, level layout, and innovation in the field of fake shooting crap.

You should play Super Metroid, though, Exophase. It's probably the pinnacle of atmosphere achieved through smart video and sound design in the 16-bit console era, among other things. That's one important thing that made it such a great fucking game to play. Because running through gray tunnels and shooting spheres would have been boring as shit.

Partially agreed, but Super Metroid would have been just as fun that way.

Partially agreed with what

Art direction >>> Technical prowess when it comes to graphics. The Wii can't push nearly the amount of polygons as 360 or PS3, or have nearly the level of shaders, or even have the resolution of the other systems... but damn, SMG looks far better to me than say, Gears of War, due to the aesthetics and art involved.

This is the stuff (though I don't agree about SMG, but that's just my opinion - I prefer the art of GoW over SMG). If something looks good artistically it makes up for the lack on the technical side. However, more advanced technology allows for technically better looking graphics. This does, through extention, allow you to create games that are artistically better looking aswell. And art is very subjective.

Bad graphics can ruin games, but generally it has to be pretty damn bad to accomplish that. Basically, if you can't see what the hell something is...

Also, Nethack is probably the most boring Roguelike I've played. It's basically you VS the random number generator.

It would not have the same atmosphere and thus probably not have been as enjoyable.

When it comes to games with crude graphics color choice and layout can make or break the game. As long as the graphics enhance the mood and the feel of the game I have no complaints.

edit: !

This post has been edited by Seventh Shade on Dec 1 2007, 06:13 PM

Gears of War to me has some of the ugliest character designs I've ever seen (gravel-faced characters), enemies that all look the same (half of the time you can't tell whether or not they're your enemies or fellow soldiers) and ugly, overly bump-mapped yet still lifeless environments in such a dull color scheme. The game itself is fairly decent, though, it's got some balance issues.

Sounds like an instance of graphical direction affecting gameplay...

I know I don't post much... being that I seem to be an off-and-on MZXer. However, here's my two cents:

I hate advanced graphics in MZX. One of the reasons why is, it seems to be setting the bar WAY too high. MZX may have the option to edit graphics, but if you want to make a game that has high-quality graphics, go download Game Maker.

MZX, to me at least, is about a simplistic way to make games. You have a relatively (key word) simple programming language, and a relatively simple interface to go with it.

The games themselves don't need to be simple, but to set the bar so high that your common MZX game-maker has to jump through so many hoops just to make the game on-par is kind of frustrating. Yes, I agree about minor edits. Personalizing the game is fine. Color palettes should certainly fit the mood of the game. And you should certainly attempt to make the game interesting.

<stereotype>But to have every game have overlay characters with a sword engine and music that sounds like it came straight from the orchestra is a bit...</stereotype> daunting to a new MZX programmer. *Of which I am one*

I dunno. The character models were fairly bleh, I agree, but I never had any issues telling enemies from my fellow soldiers. Personally I liked the enviroment. The color schemes felt right, considering the enviroment game is in. Regardless...

I was going to make an example of when graphics affect gameplay, but then I realised I had no pictures of such games.

Instead I took a picture from WoW and decided to use it to elaborate the point of "graphics does matter in gameplay" with really absurd examples. Joy.

Meet a rogue I played with back in the beta.

(IMG:http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2446/wowscrnshot122706151146wc6.th.jpg)

Even without having played the game, it's fairly easy to tell that this is some form of melee character, based on the claws and the clothing. The hood and shirt shows that this is some kind of thief, assassin or maybe a ranger class character. With a bit more experience in the game, it's fairly easy to tell that this is a human character - showing that he's part of the Alliance and not the Horde.

There, that's some stuff you can make out from just looking at the character thanks to the graphics. If the graphics of the game were more in the lines of this: (IMG:http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7469/gubbe1ef8.jpg) (didn't make that picture =P), without the characters changing appearence or anything like that, it'd be far harder to tell things like that. This would have a signficant impact on Player VS Player, where you wouldn't have any bloody clue what the hell was heading your way, or you'd have to rely on the user interface to tell you such things in words, and you may be to focused on trying to kill whatever it is to pay attention.

It's a pretty terrible example. Anyone who plays WoW will also probably want to tear me apart for this terrible analogy, but I think it shows my point =P.

The more eye candy, the better. MZX can still do that in spades. The only limits are cpu and the nature of the 256 character set and 16-color palette.

In response to Elig and the argument he started, I think the biggest problem here is that he and the people replying to him are failing to make the distinction between GRAPHICS, which are a purely technical quality, based around what a system is technically capable of displaying and what aspects of that system are used by the game; and ART, which is an aesthetic quality, based around what is pleasing to the eye and conveys the meaning intended by the game developer. In this case, those aspects of the game's visuals which facilitate gameplay are more correctly understood as part of the art of making good games, not graphics.

Here is a major point that Elig missed: good graphics are important because they make it easier to create art. You might be possible to make a good and artistic version of HL2 that used only 16 colors and no 3D acceleration. But it would be extremely difficult to pull it off successfully, and it would still be an inferior version of the game. There is a level at which the graphics no longer significantly affect the gameplay and the art, but it's definitely higher that that. Claiming that the game with the textures ripped out, like Sai'ke posted, wouldn't affect the gameplay, is just absurd. To use an equally absurd anaolgy, Elig would have us believe that if we boiled the graphics of HL2 down to Nethack (keeping the same controls and game mechanics of course), that the game would be no different. After all, Nethack is awesome.

Completely unqualified statement of the day: Nethack is largely an artless game. Its only real recourse to anything resembling art is randomly dispensed wittiness.

Kudos to asgromo for pointing out what should be obvious: Elig is an extremely shallow person. If you take a look over his posts for the last couple years, you can see that whenever he expresses an opinion (most of them), it's either "X is the best/coolest/awesomest thing ever", or "Y is the worst/stupidest/most unnecessary thing ever." I don't think I've EVER seen him formulate an opinion that could be considered balanced or thought out. His is a world of extremes, and he seems perpetually trapped in a false dichotomy. So when he encounters something like this, he's already pared things down to two polar options: either graphics are the most important aspect of a game, or graphics are completely inconsequential. Since retro games are the best thing ever, his decision is already made, and now he must defend that extreme no matter how ridiculous his argument becomes.

"It's okay Bender, there's no such thing as 2."

Textmode quake is still quake.

Edit; And thanks for insulting every post I've ever made. How nice.

This post has been edited by Elig on Dec 2 2007, 12:22 AM

Oh god, did you even bother to read a single word he typed about all of that? :/

Have you tried playing textmode Quake? It's more of a proof of concept than anything else. Would you WANT to play that instead of the normal Quake?

This post has been edited by Spectere on Dec 2 2007, 12:30 AM

Doesn't anyone understand.

It's the same game. The same fucking game. The same enemies, the same power ups. You people are so stupid it defies anything else I can say.

The graphics don't change the game. You're calling me shallow? It's insanely shallow to think that graphics affect gameplay, which they don't. You'd have to be an idiot to think they did.

If graphics affected gameplay, Mario would suck, so would Donkey Kong, Quake, Doom, Commander Keen, and every other game made before the XBox 360. They don't have good graphics. Sorry, they don't.

Oh, yes, Symphony of the Night had good graphics. That's because it was just hand drawn pixel art.

Taking away the textures doesn't change half-life, you fucking idiots. That's an insult to halflife to even suggest. You're saying that nothing else in Half-Life fucking matters. That's bullshit.

Oh, but you're not saying that. You'd like to suggest that graphics add so much atmosphere that games are unplayable without them. This means that levels, those things are bullshit, graphics are what really make a game playable.

This is an absolutely absurd argument to be having on DMZX.

We use MZX, and despite what anyone may say, MZX games don't have good graphics. None of them. Never. At all. Not even close.

Half-Life Two would have the same levels, the same events, the same Everything except fucking textures. Are you so shallow that you think Textures make a game good?

Half-Life Two's textures sucked anyway.

So did Quake's.

The visuals of a game aren't anything. Level design, monster placement, difficulty. Do you know how many bad but pretty games there are? Lots.

Lots of games with lovely atmosphere that Suck. Lots of games with no atmosphere that kick ass. Are you so shallow to think that without graphics Super Metroid or Quake or Half-Life would be shitty games?

Do you play games for the graphics? I hope not because that'd be totally insane. Watch a movie. Better yet, Look at Real Art. Paintings and shit by famous people.

You know what made Super Metroid good? It sure as shit wasn't the graphics. Those graphics sucked. Super Metroid was about the graphics last. You know the last thing made in Super Metroid? THE GRAPHICS.

The first thing? The level design. Before the engine, before the music, the level design. Because games are about the Game, not about the music. If you want music, listen to a fucking album. If you want graphics, go to a fucking art gallery. This is about Games.

Game developers aren't musicians because they don't need to be. They're game developers. The music, like the graphics, is among the last things added to a game. This is because the actual Game is more important.

Graphics affect the sellability of a game but not the quality. Look at all those terrible but pretty games. There have been lots of great looking but shitty games. You'd have to be an idiot to not have played ten of them. They're insanely common.

Shaders don't make good games. Neither does nice art by a good artist. The game has to be good.

No one remembers Quake because it had good graphics. Lots of games had graphics like Quake before Quake. Ultima Underworld, for example. That was a good game though. I'd better use a bad game like Corridore Seven. Oh, but that wasn't fully 3d. But Bethesda's Terminator game was, and it sucked.

Half-Life Two's shaders and textures are meaningless. You're trying to say that without the textures, the enemies wouldn't fucking move. Of course they'd move. Everything would go how Half-Life normally goes. All the puzzels would be intact. All the gameplay. Everything.

Are you so shallow that the only reason you played Half-Life Two was for the textures?

If you think Nethack sucks your opinion is completely useless anyway. Nethack is one of the greatest games ever made. Anyone who doesn't like Nethack has fucking shitty taste in video games. And I'll stand by that.

Exo, you have unbelievably shitty taste in video games.

No one played Commander Keen because it looked nice. They played Commander Keen because it was an awesome fucking game. Sure, the pixel art wasn't bad. But it wasn't a fucking work of art. It was a game, and people played it because the game rocked.

Doom was never good because of the graphics. The graphics could have sucked. It would have been just as good.

Why?

Because the level design and enemy placement was what made Doom awesome. Not the fucking textures, that's crazy. You'd have to be completely shallow to think that the textures in Doom affected it's gameplay. That'd put aside every other awesome thing about Doom.

Doom didn't even have good graphics.

You can say that a game has good graphics. Shit, you can even like a game for having good graphics. But it does Not affect how good of a game it is. That's just shallow and absolutely insane.

You're saying the levels in Doom wouldn't be worth playing without those exact textures. That's like saying that nothing in Doom mattered except that Those textures were on the walls. That's inane.

Lots of games have gone for awesome graphics. Too many have given up everything else for graphics. There have been so many terrible games with awesome graphics. The graphics never made the game, because they never had anything to do with the game.

What is Quake? Quake is running around shooting things with grenades, and avoiding getting hacked to bits by god knows what. Quake is pressing buttons and killing things, avoiding lava, and jumping over spiked shit. Trying to dodge rockets and grenades at fifty health looking for a healing kit. That's Quake. Not the graphics, not the textures.

Quake is a Game. It's not a picture. It wasn't designed to be a picture. It was designed to be a good game.

Katamari could have had the worst graphics ever and been perfectly awesome. It wasn't the graphics that made Katamari good. That style of drawing Has Been Done Before. A lot. It's been around. Quite a bit. No one said "Hey look at those weird graphics." Everyone said "Holy fuck you just picked up that building."

Katamari was about rolling around picking up weird shit that stuck to a ball. That was the game. It was a damn good game too. And it had nothing to do with the graphics. They could have been photo-realistic, or two color. The game would still have been the same. Rolling around picking up crazy shit.

Anyone can make a game look pretty. Better textures, more artists, better shaders. That's nothing. It's meaningless. What makes games good is the gameplay. That's why you're playing a game instead of visiting an art gallery.

And Exo, I know you're just replying to be an asshole to me. You seem absolutely bent on replying badly to everything I ever post. What the fuck do you want from me? You already dated my wife, asshole.

Zelda was about the gameplay of Zelda. Same with Super Metroid. That's why Demon Earth, with entirely terrible graphics, was so fucking good. It was Super Metroid and Zelda. The graphics didn't have anything to do with that game. It was an awesome fucking game. Don't tell me they were good. That's just crazy. You were stuck in tiles in a two color two fifty six pallet option game. And they were bad anyway. It was the awesome game that made it worth playing.

Dungeon Master was never about "Wow, I'm in a dungeon." Hundreds of first person dungeon games came before Dungeon Master. Dungeon Master was about the awesome game. The puzzles, the traps, the monsters, the equipment, the spells. Anyone could do a first person dungeon crawl. Dungeon Master made a better game.

Fallout Two could have been done in Wasteland's graphics because Fallout Two was never about the graphics. Fallout Two was about the ingenious writing, the wonderful story, the brilliant characters, the amazingly fun gameplay, the quirky easter eggs, Finding the Geck. That's what it was about. That was what made it good. It was finding the Geck. No one cared that you were staring at fucking desert the whole game. It didn't matter. You needed to kick ass and find the Geck along the way.

Mario wasn't good because of graphics. Mario's graphics Sucked. They were absolutely terrible. Even for the time. No one cared because the game rocked.

To say any game is dependant on it's graphics is an insult to game development. And shallow.

I've already said pretty much all of this. If you don't believe me, then shit, you're just shallow. Or you have terrible taste in video games.

Later.

This post has been edited by Elig on Dec 2 2007, 01:50 AM

Shortened for brevity and sanity. Here's the funny thing, Elig thinks he's an artist but has decided to unilaterally discount that the most prominently understood form of art, visual art, has anything to do with what makes games enjoyable. What everyone else understands is that graphics facilitate visual art, and that visual art IS important to the game experience. It's not that games must be 1080p HD and have light blooms and particle effects to be good games. It's that those things can be used in a meaningful way to affect a game.

Again, Elig's entire post comes down to saying "it's all or nothing guys, you either agree with me and think that graphics are completely pointless and a waste of time, or you're an idiot and you think graphics are the only important things ever." It's his inability to understand the middle ground where most truth falls that makes this post (and his arguments in general) shallow reasoning.

"Less is more."

:laugh:

This post made my 2007.