Feargus speaks the bad talk again

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 9:50 pm

They could have a time compression dealy when travelling across vast desert. The random encounters can work exactly the same way as the original games.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 9:52 pm

Again, Mr. Carrot, a game being 3D doesn't automatically make it a 3rd person shooter. Despite having bland RT combat, NWN is a 3D RPG... that can't be denied. It is 3D and 'is' an RPG. My guess is that you were playing a 3rd person shooter and not a 3D RPG.

Commandos took A LOT of manpower and time and money to make those gorgeous graphics. To say realtime 3D art takes longer to develop is a ridiculous statment simply because ALL the graphics in Commandos is 3D...albeit, prerendered versus realtime ( indoors excluded ).

Ah well, I sense that you guys are actually getting 'angry' in this discussion, so I may bow out early, as its not worth getting people pissed off for no real reason whatsoever, its just not that serious folks.

Cheers

SuperH · Post by **SuperH** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 9:58 pm

The argument between 2d and 3d graphics is exatly the same as the argument between silent movies and talkies. Back when sound first became available for movies, the movies with it sucked, for a number of reasons. You now needed a silent set, the camera was heavier, now you needed tons of wiring, etc etc. This caused the first generation of talking movies to be much worse than the last generation of silent films, because silent films had been used enough and perfected.
2d graphics are obviously the silent films in this case, they have been perfected, and look beautiful. However, also like silent films, there is only so much you can do without taking it to the next level. The first generation of 3d games looked like complete crap, because of the difficulties in making them and the inexperience with the new medium. Now however, 3d games are starting to catch up, because 3d games keep being made and improved upon. To say there was never a passable 3d rpg does NOT mean there will never be... and the only way to get one is to keep making them until one works.
How many of you would truly enjoy going to see a brand new 2 hour silent movie these days? Im willing to bet nobody. 3d needs to keep being used until we can take it to the point that 2d games are at now, we shouldnt be sitting here complaining about how horrible they are... they can only get better.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 10:03 pm

Great reply....great anaolgy.

Cheers

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Fri Feb 21, 2003 11:10 pm

EvoG wrote:Actually I wanted this statment to be general...for everyone. Keep in mind I'm not arguing with you or anyone, but, I've heard this all before, you just 'inspired' me to make mention of it. I'm not misquoting you mainly because I never intended to quote you

I'm sorry but quotes mean you're quote and it was almost exactly the same words as mine, please excuse me for taking offense.

...or I would've used the quote box...so to get "pissed" is a tad extreme, no?

Welcome to DAC, enjoy your stay.

The simple fact is that what Feargus and myself are referring to with our 3D cameras is NOT a 3rd person game, where console cameras are NOTORIOUSLY horrible, but rather 3/4 viewpoint cameras. Anyway...to say that 3D cameras SUCK because they blow in console games is 'GENERALIZING'...to say, THAT is why "messing with cameras is bad" is a poor argument to validate your opinion.

Lets see I spefically said Dark Reign 2, which is botha computer game and an isometric 3/4 bird's eye view rts. I also said that the camera in this spefic game was bad because the method of managing it was horriable.

Its apples and oranges. If you gave an example of how say, DS's or NWN's cameras impeded your ability to play those games,

I didn't metion NWN because I hate that game so much that I would surly go off on a tangent, the fun was not ruined because of the camera, but that's not because the camera was good but rather there was no fun to be had. As for DS, ask S_P what he thinks of that game and you'll have my opinion.

you would have a valid argument, but to compare a shitty 3rd person camera on a console game to a 3/4 top down camera in a PC game is an unfair way to justify your opinion that indeed, 3D cameras suck because they suck in console games. Is that a run-on sentence? Haha...anyway, do you see my point? I'm being civil here... :)

If you'd learn to read then maybe you'd be better at defending your argument. Once again I cited a spefic example of pc, isometric, 3/4 top down camera that was bad. My use of console games in my initial argument, was to establish that cameras can in fact be bad, which at that time seemed not to be the consenus.

One comment caught my eye...'Graphics in an rpg are a selling gimmick?' Do you honestly believe this?

Yes I do, you got a problem with that?

I'm not being confrontational, but thats a tad ridiculous.

Yes you are (but it's all cool) and just because you dont' agree doesn't make it ridiculous

Why in the hell would we 'chose' to look at poor graphics if we can have great graphics along with a great story?

Exactly, a selling gimmick. "Well both of these games sound great but this one looks great... lets get this one!"

Why equate great graphics to shoddy gameplay?

Star Wars Force Commander. Never played the game myself, but despite being able to mash ewoks, most reviews I heard of it were horriable (one of the reasons why I never bought it). BUt I remember reading something I think one of the delevloper said, sometihing along the lines of "we spent too much time building the 3d engine so we didnt' have anytime left for balanceing the gameplay and fixing things (like the path finding)" or somehting along those lines. My point is, (remember that I have nothing against 3d engines) that building your own 3d engine takes time and money, and it can seriously take up enough time that it can have an affect on and hamper other game elements. So what it comes down to is: is beautiful 3d graphics so important to our game that we can risk losing work on other areas. In some genre's like first person shooters the answer would be yes, but in rpgs the answer is no. Hwoever if you think you can pull it off, good luck, cause you're gonna need it.

Bump mapping I would argue is a 'selling gimmick', as they are a subset of graphics that don't add to the gameplay, whereas graphics DO add to the visual immersion.

Yes they do, which is important ... to genre's like fps, but to rpgs? No. story, character development, playing a role, those are important, rpgs can be fun when text based, rpgs can be fun when based completely in your imagination (DnD) but can fps? No they need the graphics, rpgs don't NEED them. It's nice to have but not if it means a loss in other areas.

But to say good quality art is a gimmick is laughable...I'm sorry.

To say you're arguing with me is laughable.. I'm sorry.

[qutoe] Humans are visual by nature...this is not an opinion, its fact.[/quote]

So who cares, the greeks had a certain way of doing things on stage, they would tell not show because the imagination is more powerful, showing it would ruin the efffect.

We love art, movies, comic books,

Yes and we love great stories, does a novel need pictures to be good? Nope. Maybe you like pictures in your books but not me.

the great paintings on the cover of PnP RPG's. Role playing games on a computer extend the worlds we visit with great graphics.

You can but you don't need to. Like I said, it's nice but not neccessary.

[qutoe] All I hear from you people is how beautiful these dated 2D engines look...yet, graphics are unimportant?[/quote]

You've never heard it from me.

Now just to make it very clear to everyone....story is very important, but, I see the whole package as equal parts of the sum.

So in other words you'd rather see a mildly entertaining story, mildly entertaining graphics, mildly entertaining graphics, and have one mildy entertainng game? Then say one really kickass story, good character delvopment, poor graphics and one really really good game?

Though we hope to deliver a story you finicky people think is interesting, with lots of interaction with the game world, I also want to make absolute sure that it is a visually stunning place to visit. I'm not making a PnP game, I'm making a computer game.

Those are some of the key elements in making a computer rpg, if fact I might be so bold as to say they some of the most important ones. Got to get those right first. And i hope you do.

Actually you know what....what I wanted to really say overall is that I think its silly for everyone to get so hot under the collar about a games viewpoint, 2D engine, 3D engine, locked camera, free camera, pretty graphics, shitty graphics...BEFORE the game is even in development...this is all entirely too ridiculous to debate. I know everyone agrees that if the game is fun its just fun...plain and simple.

That sounds to me like "I think it's silly to want your steak cooked a certain way guys.. I mean come it's a steak! Just take it however they give it to you!"

My partner had an interesting observation....you people are BASHING the guy who was a large part of delivering the world of Fallout, which you so desperately cherish...don't you sorta think that if you really loved what he gave you in the past that he just might know what he's doing to give you something fresh and equally exciting in the future? He also added that really, NO other industry( he cited the bike and car industry ) frowns upon innovation and lives in the past. I drive a pretty awesome sports car..and I can't WAIT to see what the auto maker comes up with for the next years model and so forth. Sure maybe thats a poor example only because lots of people have their favorite year car and may not want to see change, but I think you get my point. I want to see new stuff. Innovation.

Feargie doesn't love us! :'(

You guys have taken such complete ownership of the Fallout series that its BLASPHEMOUS for even Feargus to dare mention making innovative changes to the Fallout series. Just to protect that statement, if he does NOT innovate the RT combat, and it is a click fest, I will have to agree with you...but if he cares as much about Fallout as you all do, I'd like to believe that he would do it some justice in its newest incarnation.

There are both good things and bad things to having a cult following. On one hand they'll buy it no matter what, on the other they'll tar and feather you if you do it wrong.

You know what...this isn't directed at you, Payne, or anyone...I'm just expressing some thoughts. I'm done. :)

Cheers

Yeah'll well you're breathing down my neck and I'm starting to take it perosnally. Izo bring me his kneecaps.

NWN is a 3D RPG... that can't be denied.

Yes it can. It most certainly can. that game was about phat lewts. crap story horrable combat, horribale game interaction. That game can hardle be called a game.

Commandos took A LOT of manpower and time and money to make those gorgeous graphics.

This is exactly my point in good graphics, it does take alot of work. And it's not a NEED in making an rpg. Go ahead and do it if you want but you'd better make sure you got the IMPORTANT bases covered first.

Ah well, I sense that you guys are actually getting 'angry' in this discussion, so I may bow out early, as its not worth getting people pissed off for no real reason whatsoever, its just not that serious folks.

You suck at the internet. This is how things work around here.

-CHEERS M8!!

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 2:26 am

Ugh... :)

Well first off, I AM just learning to read, even as I write this, but did you have to go and point that out? Poor me... :(

Second, I'm not going to tit-for-tat with you ( I know I'm being very un-internet like :) ). Fine, everyone ( including Payne ) are able to defend their arguments and counter everyone elses that try to counter theirs, ad infinitum. So...I dunno *shrugs shoulders*. but....

...for the comment about steaks...since I love steaks...though you may have said medium rare, when have you ever tossed it on the grill(at a restaurant)? OH GOD WHAT AM I DOING!?!?!?! Nevermind...just eat the steaks that taste good...just don't ignore the ones that you 'think' will taste bad until you've tasted them.

Alright...I play all games ( only if I can read the manual first ), and a lot do suck. The funniest part of all this is that I actually share a good deal of your ideas fundamentally...but in the context of this debate, you made it appear to the contrary. I'm the biggest proponent of content over graphics, rather...graphics do not make the game...of course. I'm a artist and animator for crying out loud, yet the content is obviously what makes the game fun. BUT because developers CAN make games fun ( someone out there must know how ), now lets also make them very pretty...and sound great... deliver the whole package. I don't want to interact with just text and stats on a screen, or I'd go read a book ( if I could read mind you ). Many games have delivered the whole package...why the HELL would we not do the same for RPG's? Don't assume that you HAVE to sacrifice graphics to get strong content..thats sillyness again. Developers DO sacrifice content but not for graphics..but rather they're just lazy...they want to make these 'dumbed' down games...so then all they DO have are the graphics and sounds, which the have to make stellar in order to compensate. But to say that RPG's should not look pretty because for some reason you think content would suffer...hmmm, sure they don't NEED to look pretty to be great, but hell, if you got the artists what else are they gonna do? The designers are already covering the content. So should we tell the artists..."hey guys, don't make it too pretty, you're screwing up our content. Every beautiful piece of art you make needs to fit in the box so we need to take out content to make it fit" The designers make the gameplay, not the art. Should we fire the artists? Graphics are ALWAYS going to look superior for the most part on the titles that will have the highest sellthrough, so those companies spend the big big bucks to hire the real talent. Short of a few titles that all of you detest, RPG's are NOT AS popular in the mainstream as FPS's for example, so they won't spend a larger portion of their budget on graphics because they can save money on the 'good enough college student', ;they don't expect to sell a lot of copies. Sad but true. RPG's are my number one favorite game now, and growing up. Real art talent 'then' was tossed at these games...now...very little. The money is in FPS's and god forbid if a console game has poor graphics. I may not agree, but developers want to make as much money as possible.

Graphics do not make content suffer.

Time is not divided between content or graphics. More artists are hired if they are needed. Content is ideally designed outside of graphics, and graphics are created to support the content. Both 'support' eachother but neither denies the other attention.

Listen, I've been in game development for a long time, so I don't just make this shit up. You can trust that I have a special insight to how this all works. Developers love games and sincerely want to make a fun game, but then are literally forced by marketing ( marketing has the bosses ear ) to make a certain 'type' of game, content suffers, art doesn't of course....boom...watered down game.

Fact of the matter is that even if I sold each of you a copy of "Phoenix", and you told a friend and they told a friend, I'm still probably not going to make a LOT of money off of it. This genre has to be like BG to be financially successful...and even then copycats aren't successful. So its tough, and one of the major reasons you can imagine why Fallout 3 WON'T be what you want, assuming it would even be made. But, I really enjoy the kind of game Phoenix is gonna be, so I'm taking a bit of a risk, but hopefully with some creative management, we can keep the costs of creation down to improve that profit margin and appeal to this demographic. Sorry if you guys think that that sounds like marketing bullshit, but this is my 'job', and when have you ever not wanted to get paid for your 'job'? I want to make money so I can continue to make more of these and other types of games. I want them to be moderately successful...I think I know my market, so it will be a focused game...with really pretty graphics. :)

Cheerios

Killzig · Post by **Killzig** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 3:09 am

hey Steve, STFU!

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 3:19 am

EvoG wrote:Ugh... :)

Well first off, I'm just learning to read, even as I write this, but did you have to go and point that out? Poor me... :(

ZING!

Second, I'm not going to tit-for-tat with you ( I know I'm being very un-internet like :) ).

:(

Fine, everyone ( including Payne ) are able to defend their arguments and counter everyone elses that try to counter theirs, ad infinitum. So...I dunno *shrugs shoulders*. but....

That's the fun part.

...for the comment about steaks...since I love steaks...though you may have said medium rare, when have you ever tossed it on the grill(at a restaurant)? OH GOD WHAT AM I DOING!?!?!?! Nevermind...just eat the steaks that taste good...just don't ignore the ones that you 'think' will taste bad until you've tasted them.

First off you made assumption, and they tend to bother me. Please stop. You assume that i havn't "tasted" the things I'm judging. I've played lots of games with 3D engines and lots of games with moviable cameras. And as for the moviable cameras I've noticed that 1) they have very hard to implement correctly and B) it's an unwanted hassel. Take WarCraft 3 for example, you "could" move the camera, but you didn't have to. If you wanted to check out the pretty graphics and look out over the tree tops you could BUT you didn't have to in order to play the game. In other words it was just a gimmick, I don't think it took that long to implement so it isn't that big a deal, but I was not required to move the camera which is nice and it just showed that with that game you didn't need to move the camera to play it. Which is what I"m saying, I don't see any way you could MAKE me manage a camera and have it be fun. If you've got some ideas on this please enlighten me, but as far as I see it, making me manage a camera is a hassel, it's just there to annoy me, and any reason for making me move the camera would just be a gimmick (going back to the "whoa pretty colors!!" idea). I can't see a good reason to have a moviable camera, also of note I can't see a good reason to use the DnD liceance all the time but they do that all the time too. This has made me rather annoyed.

Alright...I play all games ( only if I can read the manual first ), and a lot do suck. The funniest part of all this is that I actually share a good deal of your ideas fundamentally...but in the context of this debate, you made it appear to the contrary.

I'm just good.

I'm the biggest proponent of content over graphics, rather...graphics do not make the game...of course. I'm a artist and animator for crying out loud, yet the content is obviously what makes the game fun. BUT because developers CAN make games fun ( someone out there must know how )

Of course they can make them fun and a cook can cook a good steak but if he goes off cooking it however he wants like say pouring gasoline all over it then smearing a fine layer of poop on it, you might have to ask yourself why you're paying for the steak.

[qutoe], now lets also make them very pretty...and sound great... deliver the whole package. I don't want to interact with just text and stats on a screen, or I'd go read a book ( if I could read mind you ).[/quote]

But can you decide how the story of a book moves or end up? There's a reason why people play text based or table top games, part of the rpg story is interacting with the story. Books don't do that (there's one exception but those books are dumb, so i"ll conviently forget about them) rpgs do.

Many games have delivered the whole package...why the HELL would we not do the same for RPG's? Don't assume that you HAVE to sacrifice graphics to get strong content..

I'm not.

thats sillyness again.

that's assumption again.

Developers DO sacrifice content but not for graphics..but rather they're just lazy

Lets see the NWN design team spent what was it .. five years with 75 people .. and they're lazy? No I think they kept working but you know that 3d engine thing propably took a bit of work and they probably wanted to make sure their editors were al good and doing whatever marketing told them too. They were lazy, they just didn't want to make a good rpg, they just wanted to push a crap game on an unwitting market.

...they want to make these 'dumbed' down games.

Exactly

..so then all they DO have are the graphics and sounds, which the have to make stellar in order to compensate.

And now you understand why some have such a lack of faith in delevlopers

But to say that RPG's should not look pretty because for some reason you think content would suffer.

It's not "for some reason" you spend all the time and money you got trying to implemnent all those neafty features and the next thing you know suddenly you're not making dialog trees or making interesting npc's etc etc etc.

..hmmm, sure they don't NEED to look pretty to be great, but hell, if you got the artists what else are they gonna do?

I don't know.. design towns, think up good npcs. What did you hire them for if ALL they do is "draw" (note serious question, I'd really like to know)

The designers are already covering the content.

Arn't the designers building the fancy engine you've been telling us about?

So should we tell the artists..."hey guys, don't make it too pretty, you're screwing up our content. Every beautiful piece of art you make needs to fit in the box so we need to take out content to make it fit"

ZING! That's not what I said. I guess I made an assumption, that everyone would be involved in atleast most parts of the game, everyone would have their input in the direction of the game I thought. So i figured havn't Joe Artist make all those pretty goblin models seemed kinda odd if he could be designing towns or thinking up good quest or what not. Whatever making the content involves I figured everyone would be involved in some small way. Thus having the artist "draw" all the time would detract from the content. I guess I never considered that maybe the guys making that one really cool rat model had absolutely no involment in making the game. He just made that model like he supposed to.

The designers make the gameplay, not the art.

Yeah well once again I guess I just thought the artist would be involved in making the game. Sorry my bad.

Should we fire the artists?

Well they don't seem to be doing anything important so sure, fire away.

[qutoe] Graphics are ALWAYS going to look superior for the most part on the titles that will have the highest sellthrough, so those companies spend the big big bucks to hire the real talent. Short of a few titles that all of you detest, RPG's are NOT AS popular in the mainstream as FPS's for example, so they won't spend a larger portion of their budget on graphics because they can save money on the 'good enough college student', ;they don't expect to sell a lot of copies. Sad but true. RPG's are my number one favorite game now, and growing up. Real art talent 'then' was tossed at these games...now...very little. The money is in FPS's and god forbid if a console game has poor graphics. I may not agree, but developers want to make as much money as possible. [/quote]

Which is why you shouldn't be suprised to get hostilty in a thing like this. Supply and Demand, We are a demand and have no supply, becuase it wouldn't be econmical, so we're pretty pissed off about it.

Graphics do not make content suffer.

But focusing on the graphics more than the content can. That's where the fault lies. You have to make sure you got the content right before you worry about the fluf. Being the cyical person that I am, I don't think you (or any game designer) would get it right, that's why I'd prefer lower quality graphics. 1) I don't mind poor graphics, I can handle it and 2) If the most of the delvelopment time is just spent on gameplay then I'd be more confident that you're doing it right, tweaking it just fine.

Time is not divided between content or graphics. More artists are hired if they are needed. Content is ideally designed outside of graphics, and graphics are created to support the content. Both 'support' eachother but neither denies the other attention.

But you do have limited time and money, some where the resources are going have to be devided, when that point comes what do you do? Focus on gameplay or graphics, or keep it all even? Focusing on graphics, you know why that's bad, keeping it even, = medicore game and nobody wants that, but focusing on gameplay with graphics supporting it BUT not being the main focus, means the game coud be quite good.

Listen, I've been in game development for a long time, so I don't just make this shit up. You can trust that I have a special insight to how this all works.

Listen I've been playing games for a long time, so I don't just make this shit up. You can trust that i have a special insight to what I like to play, and what things are associated with those things.

Developers love games and sincerely want to make a fun game

Yeah and they also want to make money, it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

, but then are literally forced by marketing ( marketing has the bosses ear ) to make a certain 'type' of game, content suffers, art doesn't of course....boom...watered down game.

BOOM the cook just took a leak in my soup.

Fact of the matter is that even if I sold each of you a copy of "Phoenix", and you told a friend and they told a friend, I'm still probably not going to make a LOT of money off of it. This genre has to be like BG to be financially successful...and even then copycats aren't successful. So its tough, and one of the major reasons you can imagine why Fallout 3 WON'T be what you want, assuming it would even be made. But, I really enjoy the kind of game Phoenix is gonna be, so I'm taking a bit of a risk, but hopefully with some creative management, we can keep the costs of creation down to improve that profit margin and appeal to this demographic. Sorry if you guys think that that sounds like marketing bullshit, but this is my 'job', and when have you ever not wanted to get paid for your 'job'? I want to make money so I can continue to make more of these and other types of games. I want them to be moderately successful...I think I know my market, so it will be a focused game...with really pretty graphics. :)

Yeah I want you to sell your game too, that's what this discussion is for (and to tell you that I'm always right.) I'm a prospective consumer, I might be one of those who consider buying your game, so if you decided to add a bunch of flof and dumb it down, then you're gonna have a harder time selling me on it.

and trust me if that whole speil about art not taking away from content were completely true, just why then are there so many games out now that are just pretty fluf and neat features.

Cheerios

Remember to add suger.

EvoG · Post by **EvoG** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 3:58 am

I don't see any way you could MAKE me manage a camera and have it be fun. If you've got some ideas on this please enlighten me, but as far as I see it, making me manage a camera is a hassel, it's just there to annoy me, and any reason for making me move the camera would just be a gimmick (going back to the "whoa pretty colors!!" idea). I can't see a good reason to have a moviable camera, also of note I can't see a good reason

I think you're a tad too easily annoyed. Moving the camera allows you to see 'behind' stuff. I'm not doing silly 'fading' walls graphics. Thats a necessity for 2D ( they did it in DS of course ), but when you have a physical 3D world, screw it, move the damn camera to see the other side of the wall. You know...it just feels more like a tiny little world I'm playing in. Probably the same reason I love looking at those elaborate train sets people build in their basements. Little buildings with the little cars and the little coal mine and the little stuff...blah :)

Lets see the NWN design team spent what was it .. five years with 75 people .. and they're lazy? No I think they kept working but you know that 3d engine thing propably took a bit of work and they probably wanted to make sure their editors were al good and doing whatever marketing told them too. They were lazy, they just didn't want to make a good rpg, they just wanted to push a crap game on an unwitting market.

Yeah...I honestly don't know what took so fucking long other than what you said...the engine/editor. That whole project just sounded bloated when I first read those statistics. 75 people!? Sheesh, the graphics sure don't show that... :P

And now you understand why some have such a lack of faith in delevlopers

...as do I...I don't get very excited over many games nowadays...its actually sad...

I don't know.. design towns, think up good npcs. What did you hire them for if ALL they do is "draw" (note serious question, I'd really like to know)

Arn't the designers building the fancy engine you've been telling us about?

So i figured havn't Joe Artist make all those pretty goblin models seemed kinda odd if he could be designing towns or thinking up good quest or what not. Whatever making the content involves I figured everyone would be involved in some small way. Thus having the artist "draw" all the time would detract from the content. I guess I never considered that maybe the guys making that one really cool rat model had absolutely no involment in making the game. He just made that model like he supposed to.

Yeah well once again I guess I just thought the artist would be involved in making the game. Sorry my bad.

Artists only make the art assets...they can and do sit in on production meetings.

Designers create the 'game' as a whole. Usually the visionary, project lead etc...most double up as fine artists for concept work, or even programming.

Programmers make the engine...graphics, game rules, interface....everything you actually 'play' with.

Content doesn't suffer because the designers were always there in the first place...never has a designer been told to stop 'designing' the content of the game to be placed in the art pit to cram out better art. Any deviations from the original design doc are usually technical in nature, usually at the request of the programmer..."we can't do that easily" or "that'll take too long to implement"..designer makes changes...but again, usually only technical...such as why we can't blow up every building in the game with a rocket launcher.

But you do have limited time and money, some where the resources are going have to be devided, when that point comes what do you do? Focus on gameplay or graphics, or keep it all even? Focusing on graphics, you know why that's bad, keeping it even, = medicore game and nobody wants that, but focusing on gameplay with graphics supporting it BUT not being the main focus, means the game coud be quite good.

Artists focus on graphics...designers focus on content...programmers focus on code...no change...crunch time means more hours or subcontractors...no resource dividing...you can't MAKE a designer an artist if he's not an artist ;)

Quote:
Listen, I've been in game development for a long time, so I don't just make this shit up. You can trust that I have a special insight to how this all works.

Listen I've been playing games for a long time, so I don't just make this shit up. You can trust that i have a special insight to what I like to play, and what things are associated with those things.

Hardly a comparison. I'm a life long gamer AND a developer, and assuming as I always do( I should stop I know), but I'll wager I probably played more computer games as long if not longer than you...but I'm just assuming. Plus I've played most games in all genres, not just one genre. Developers 9.9 times out of 10 were/are gamers first and foremost. Your argument doesn't work here...

hey Steve, STFU!

Hey stop calling my house...I told you we had fun ONE DAY, that was it...I'm not interested in anything more! HI ANDY!!

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 3:59 am

And yet again Payne dissects a post and runs in circles with it.

Red · Post by **Red** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:14 am

Yeah, but runnning in circles is pointless, which is exactly what payne's doing. You need to actually add input to discussion to make it move anywhere and last I checked running around something never actually makes said thing go anywhere.

Unless this is what you meant in the first place, but I doubt it.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:26 am

That's precisely what I meant. I was being critical of paynes argument style.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:27 am

EvoG wrote:I think you're a tad too easily annoyed. Moving the camera allows you to see 'behind' stuff. I'm not doing silly 'fading' walls graphics. Thats a necessity for 2D ( they did it in DS of course ), but when you have a physical 3D world, screw it, move the damn camera to see the other side of the wall. You know...it just feels more like a tiny little world I'm playing in. Probably the same reason I love looking at those elaborate train sets people build in their basements. Little buildings with the little cars and the little coal mine and the little stuff...blah :)

I'm a consumer. I"m allowed to be lazy. And it seems to be a case of different strokes for different folks. You like looking at all the pretty details whereas I like figureing out the story and not messing around with the stupid details, like what's behind that rock. It's not interesting to me in an rpg, sure in one good thing about Morrowind was that you felt like you were exploring and you could look all around and all that good stuff. But then again, I thought Morrowind wasn't a very good example of a rpg, and I hated the character deveopment.

Yeah...I honestly don't know what took so fucking long other than what you said...the engine/editor. That whole project just sounded bloated when I first read those statistics. 75 people!? Sheesh, the graphics sure don't show that... :P

And I don't understand why the game was such crap, oh wait yeah i do. They wanted to make it for the lowest common denominator. Yay them.

...as do I...I don't get very excited over many games nowadays...its actually sad...

That's why you're here. To put an end to that. And that's why we're here, to make sure you know that if you don't do it right we'll egg your house.

Artists only make the art assets...they can and do sit in on production meetings.

Designers create the 'game' as a whole. Usually the visionary, project lead etc...most double up as fine artists for concept work, or even programming.

Programmers make the engine...graphics, game rules, interface....everything you actually 'play' with.

Content doesn't suffer because the designers were always there in the first place...never has a designer been told to stop 'designing' the content of the game to be placed in the art pit to cram out better art. Any deviations from the original design doc are usually technical in nature, usually at the request of the programmer..."we can't do that easily" or "that'll take too long to implement"..designer makes changes...but again, usually only technical...such as why we can't blow up every building in the game with a rocket launcher.

But I think I did read you say, that the head honcho can double as a artist not to mention, you can't just make a pretty picture and cam it into the cd, you have to make the program which displays it. The coders have to design the graphics engine, and designing the engine which lets you have pretty colors is not making the towns and scripting the npcs. Now hopfully you can do both but you have limited funds and time. So lets hope it works out but lets try and remember that some of this you NEED to not only get done but do right the other stuff isn't as important.

Artists focus on graphics...designers focus on content...programmers focus on code...no change...crunch time means more hours or subcontractors...no resource dividing...you can't MAKE a designer an artist if he's not an artist ;)

"You know George this new town map your making looks great but we got just found a way to implement those snazzy particle effects with the railgun and we really need you make'em look all pretty for us."

Hardly a comparison. I'm a life long gamer AND a developer, and assuming as I always do( I should stop I know), but I'll wager I probably played more computer games as long if not longer than you...but I'm just assuming. Plus I've played most games in all genres, not just one genre. Developers 9.9 times out of 10 were/are gamers first and foremost. Your argument doesn't work here...

Please don't hurt me boss I only forgot that you were the end all wisest man in the world for a second. Such an arrogant tone, not good not good...

But wait you say you've actully played games not only in more than one but most!! WOW!!! That's amazing! I mean in all the fourteen years in playing video games I had, I don't think I could ever play more than one genre!! THAT AMAZING!@!

"By gamers for gamers" Sound familer? People who get in the games industry tend to like games, but people in the marketing industry or the publishing industry aren't so lucky. Not everyone involved in designing and publishing a game is a gamer, by todays standards I'd say the gamers are outnumbered. And the gamers tend to be more willing to sacrifice art for money then the marketing slugs will sacrifice money for art.

And yet again Payne dissects a post and runs in circles with it.

I havn't anything better to do, let me have my fun.

Yeah, but runnning in circles is pointless, which is exactly what payne's doing. You need to actually add input to discussion to make it move anywhere and last I checked running around something never actually makes said thing go anywhere.

Unless this is what you meant in the first place, but I doubt it.

I even like to pace. :)

SuperH · Post by **SuperH** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:46 am

lol... one person saw my last post before all your arguing back and forth... nice...

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:49 am

SuperH wrote:lol... one person saw my last post before all your arguing back and forth... nice...

No I saw it, but it was crap, good points but still yeah.. And I hate your sig. So there.

Red · Post by **Red** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:51 am

Oh crap... that reminds me I actually wanted to mention it was a really good analogy. Forgot about that while reading (part of) the rest of the thread...

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 4:52 am

Red wrote:Oh crap... that reminds me I actually wanted to mention it was a really good analogy. Forgot about that while reading (part of) the rest of the thread...

Good job mate now you've gone and hurt SuperH's feelings and after he made such a good anaolgy.

SuperH · Post by **SuperH** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 5:01 am

I like how people dont agree with you so you bash everyone. Anyways... now you'll just be more upset... so yeah... i can't wait to see the witty and offensive thing you have to say next!

btw, try watching a silent movie sometime, maybe it would make you hate the talking ones.

axelgreese · Post by **axelgreese** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 5:06 am

SuperH wrote:I like how people dont agree with you so you bash everyone. Anyways... now you'll just be more upset... so yeah... i can't wait to see the witty and offensive thing you have to say next!

btw, try watching a silent movie sometime, maybe it would make you hate the talking ones.

I'm just giving you a hard time! Geeze man don't take it so personally.

And I do like silent films. Much like 2d graphics it isn't as main steam so when people decide to make that sort of art, they tend to be more inclined for it to be actual art. Rather than the next big money maker. 3D graphics are real nice and flashy, but I dont' need them in rpgs, if fact I perfer they don't be there.

Red · Post by **Red** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 5:08 am

Now THAT reminds me there was a show in my town 2 years ago with the older Alfred Hitchcock movies with live piano.

[edit] Anotherthign which reminded me of this is that I'm currently watching THE BLOB... Although quite different, a bit crappy and in colour...