Are New Graphics "A Must" for Rpgs

[Death Knight]

I know this forum is naturally cool when it comes to many things but I myself am starting to care much less for new graphics in future games. I have been playing "Cardinal Quest", an oldschool roguelike and find it very refreshing to gaze at compared to Neverwinter Nights 2 or something with 3d.

 

I find graphics from the following games to be utter excellence-Avernum1-6, Geneforge 1-5, Avadon, Baldurs Gate 1 and 2, Icewind Dale 1 and 2, Eschalon Book 1, 2, Planescape Torment

 

I find the graphics of the games listed to be perfect in my list with Planescape as the highest one. Do most of you prefer the graphics of Spiderweb's recent games or would most of you like Dragon Age or something more high quality.

[keira]

I dislike SW's newer game graphics, the entire isometric system is very off-putting to me.

 

That said, unless you can make pretty effects look very good (EVE, X^3, Crysis), it's preferable to stick with simple and clean. I think TF2 is a good example of a more simplistic graphics system that still looks very good through other means.

[Enraged Slith]

I guess it really depends on what works for the game. If the art direction is distracting, then it isn't doing a good job.

[Alorael at Large]

I think it's much better to have a unified and clean look than photorealism. Baldur's Gate stands the test of time very well because of its hand-painted look and well-made sprites. The same is true of many 2D games: I find the 2D overhead Final Fantasy games much easier on the eyes than later installments that haven't aged as well, for example. Neverwinter Nights is blocky and dated in a way that Baldur's Gate will never be. Planescape: Torment suffers from its attempts to mix in some fancier pictures for portraits and the codex. And Homeworld managed to hit on a great look that holds up now while Myth looks its age even with updated textures.

 

 

Where Spiderweb fits in for me is mixed. The graphics are fine. Exile 3 has interface and window size problems that date it, but the sprites themselves aren't uglier now than they were when I first played it. The real problem is that Spiderweb has never had quite enough money to get really beautiful, varied tiles and sprites. The games aren't pretty even for what they are. They're fine, and they've gotten better, but with a larger graphics budget I think they could be better. Imagine the game with Baldur's Gate-style painted landscapes and meshes instead of tiles!

 

—Alorael, who can also appreciate serviceable interfaces without frills. He plays Rogue-likes in ASCII mode and enjoys it very much. But if something will go for a pretty appearance, he'd like it to be the prettiest it can be.

[Goldengirl]

I can definitely agree that simple tends to be good, and I don't really much care how many new graphics are in the next Spiderweb game. To be honest, I don't even care if there are new graphics, per se. However, there is one graphic element that irked me relatively recent. In Avadon, there's a part where someone is bound in a stock for public ridicule. The graphics just have a regular person standing next to a graphic for a stock. The contradiction there was annoying enough for me to remember, obviously, but I think that also points out what I like in Spiderweb graphics. They help to illustrate the story, and so long as they do that without contradicting it in any way, I'm happy.

[Triumph]

I think the most important thing for graphics to do is not get in the way. Games with very simple, stylized graphics can lend themselves very well to letting one's imagination fill in the details and end up being quite immersive (I think of the Exiles games, or Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, as great examples of this). Games with mind-blowingly realistic graphics can be breathtaking in their own way. I can be content with a variety of styles: the most important thing is that I can easily tell what is going on and easily identify everything I see. Games where the graphics are muddled, blurry, dark, etc., get in the way of enjoying the game. The simple graphics of LoZ:LA or Exile don't.

 

Of course, specific artistic choices may be ugly, but I don't that there's any specific level of graphical advancement (2D, 3D, isometric, etc.) I consider inherently off-putting.

[Mosquito---Slayer]

One thing that's not really related to art but goes in favor of simple+few graphics is the file size, SW has seen something of an exponential growth in this category, This wouldn't bother me too much since the size is still reasonable, but the problem is probably that there hasn't been any similar upgrade in the looks (A1 looks about as pretty as A5 and the games beyond that I found to be trying a bit too hard to look good) but still A:eftp and Avadon do show little but noticeable improvements.

[Callie]

I really like the graphics in Civ V, although it doesn't compensate for the terrible AI, but that's the only game I play with even remotely nice graphics. My favorite game graphics are from...Fallout...an odd choice I know.

[Death Knight]

I think the most important thing for graphics to do is not get in the way. Games with very simple, stylized graphics can lend themselves very well to letting one's imagination fill in the details and end up being quite immersive (I think of the Exiles games, or Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, as great examples of this). Games with mind-blowingly realistic graphics can be breathtaking in their own way. I can be content with a variety of styles: the most important thing is that I can easily tell what is going on and easily identify everything I see. Games where the graphics are muddled, blurry, dark, etc., get in the way of enjoying the game. The simple graphics of LoZ:LA or Exile don't.

 

Of course, specific artistic choices may be ugly, but I don't that there's any specific level of graphical advancement (2D, 3D, isometric, etc.) I consider inherently off-putting.

 

That my friend is exactly why I love games like that. They let you do the work at how you experience the game and how the battles/the tactics get planned out.

[theta-soul]

I prefer 2d always. Lets the artist's ability show through much more easily than 3d, which takes an entire team and many times longer to produce a cohesive art style across all models and is, in the end, only compared to Crysis.

 

Game in op looks cool, reminds me of http://hackslashloot.com/

[adc.]

Somewhat.

 

I was satisfied at Geneforge 4's graphics already. I didn't care much about graphics anyway. Just like in Dishonored. I have an Xbox version of that game, stunning graphics and stealth-based gameplay. But it didn't matter much to me, even if that game was just like the 1995's graphics or something, it's all ok.

 

Or when I played Thief: The Dark Project, Deus ex, Hitman 2: Silent Assassin, or Porsche Unleashed demos I found on the net. I still enjoyed them on my netbook last 2 months ago. They were created on 2001, 2002 or maybe 1999. I appreciate them anyway, FPS was 30+ because graphics were good (good for me, poor for hardcore gamers)

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

-Red-eyed Phantom

[Tyranicus]

Fancy new graphics are not necessary by any means. However, they can be quite nice.

[Student of Trinity]

McLuhan! thou should'st be living at this hour. There are cool games and hot games, I guess. I guess they can both work. But maybe lukewarm games are a bad idea.

[Juan Carlo]

I personally don't care, but I have no doubt that Spiderweb games would sell more if they invested in artwork a bit more. And I mean "artwork" not "graphics." I think their current 2D engine is fine, but most of their games have no cohesive or unified art style so they end up just looking ugly or like they were assembled from a variety of sources. EFTP, for example, has like 3 different art styles--the hand drawn, cartoonish, skill screens, the actual game graphics, and then the story/title card drawings. They all don't fit very well together. And the artwork on the steamstore page for Avadon is just ugly and amateurish--it looks like something a 9th grader who's really into D&D and just took his first computer graphics course in 1994 would draw.

 

I know nothing about the sort of budgets that Spiderweb works with (next to nil, I imagine), but given how great most indie games made for nil can look I can't imagine it would be that hard to hire one artist for a game who could draw all the assets and make sure that the game has a unified and compelling art style. Then, after that, Spiderweb could revert to its old habits of milking every single pixel for like 1,000 games if it wanted, but at least things would look a bit better.

 

But, like I said, I personally don't care much. I spent a bunch on a new gaming PC to play "Witcher 2" and "Crysis 2" etc, etc, and I usually just end up playing older games and 2D RPGs on it anyway.

[Death Knight]

I prefer 2d always. Lets the artist's ability show through much more easily than 3d, which takes an entire team and many times longer to produce a cohesive art style across all models and is, in the end, only compared to Crysis.

 

Game in op looks cool, reminds me of http://hackslashloot.com/

 

I spoke with Ido from Cardinal Quest and he said that he either had to think about making the graphics pretty, or leaving it as is and working on the regular features. Its a lot of fun and I would prefer if most game developers had that mindset as the people that really care, could care less about graphics and more about gameplay. There's 3 character classes each with different ways of playing the game.

[BMA]

Most people seem to have graphics first, gameplay/audio second and storyline third in their order of priorities for ticking out a Good Game. All game developers who make games for money must therefore follow the same or similar order. Have you played any of Ikiki's games - they're japanese, free and totally awesome as his games aren't made to please the majority of the gaming market.

[Tridon]

One does not need the best graphics as long as the graphics match the atmosphere/gameplay in a productive way. A great example of nicely used, but poor graphics (amongst the poorest graphics in a game the last couple of years) is Terraria. Horrible graphics, but the visual aesthetics are nothing but beautiful. The vibrant colours, and the simple, but effective lighting effects makes the game very pleasing on the eyes, and it strengthens the general platform gameplay.

 

As for Spiderweb games, Geneforge's atmosphere makes the simple graphics work well enough, and the 2-3 first Geneforge games are perhaps the ones with the weakest graphics. For my own taste the simple and spartan visuals made the atmosphere in the beginning of the game that much more impressing, and (once again, according to my own taste) a proof that graphics and visual effects working well even though they are low end.

 

So no, high end graphics are not a must for making a great RPG now, but it's no secret that great graphics can help when they are done "right".

[inohsinhsin]

I'm rather disappointed with SW's approach on graphics. I'm a fan of the games up to Nethergate, even up to the Avernum rehash. Each time I check back at SW, I find another rehashed game from the past, with perhaps some additional content, better mechanics, and graphics that are just bad--my opinions are: it's better to have good 2d graphics and subpar 3d ones (don't get me started on the animation). In other words, a successful 2D is better than an awkward, fail 3D.

 

I'm really hoping to see more growth from game to game, especially in the story... I really want to play more SW games, but frankly, I'm tired of the same thing--it's only under a different mask.

[mauvebutterfly]

I also find the 2D graphics to genereally age better than their 3D counterparts. WarCraft 2 is still a beautiful game, for example, while WarCraft 3 only looked good right after release. Now that 3D graphics have greatly improved, WarCraft 3 doesn't hold up as well. Same issue with Heroes of Might and Magic 3 (2D) and Heroes 4 (3D).

 

I've never understood the obsession with 3D graphics to be honest. I find that 2D graphics not only look better most of the time, but that they also provide the same information in a much clearer and cleaner way. Also, game designers have a tendency to think that they're being clever by hiding things behind walls in a 3D environment, which can get annoying.

 

If anyone here has played Eador: Genesis and seen the 3D remake Eador: Masters of the Broken World, you'll see how they've taken these beautiful handdrawn sprites, and swapped them out for models that have a more generic feel to them. They've then put everything into a 3D space that can make it difficult to see important details on the battlefield (such as corpses being difficult to see in tall grass) while concerns over aesthetics can make it difficult to see where one terrain type ends and another begins.

 

Spiderweb's gradual evolution over the years has been interesting to see. As much as I love the old Exile graphics, I must admit that my initial reservations regarding the transition to Avernum ended up being unfounded. I also couldn't really imagine playing Geneforge in a 2D space, although a part of that might be that the real-time aspects of it would feel somewhat out of place in a 2D presentation. Then again, I don't think I'd want a 2D Nethergate either. One thing that Spiderweb has done very well is avoiding the trap of making things pretty at the expense of clarity. There are very few instances that I can think of where the graphics of a Spiderweb game actively interfere with my gameplay, and the few issues I have had are easily dealt with with experience (e.g. knowing what you can pick up in Avadon and what is random trash or dungeon dressing.)

[Student of Trinity]

In any kind of style, the only good thing about pushing the envelope is that it pushes the envelope. Look at old clothes, old cars, old appliances. The things that went for a classic look still have it. The things that look old are the things that tried to look new. This is obvious if you think about it. Newness is precisely the thing that ages fastest, by its very definition.

 

If nobody ever tried to look new, I guess we'd have only boring old things. So if you want to try for a new look, and you don't mind making something where the thing itself is just an excuse to try something new, then that's good. If you want to make something that lasts, though, I don't think it's good to try to look new.

[Prince of Kitties]

I feel like this topic is a repeat somehow?

 

Anyway, like some others here, I've always been put off by the isometric graphics in Avernum. IMO they don't look good, and they get in the way of gameplay.

[Student of Trinity]

I feel like this topic is a repeat somehow?

it's a timeless classic that will never get old. See?

[corallus]

I have been a member of this forum for years now but rarely post.. Only when games are due for release and during beta.. But I thought I would add my 2cents to this thread..

 

Imo 'nice' 2D/Isometric graphics will outlast 3D graphics..easily..for reasons already stated.. The creme de la creme of rpgs for me are the 'BigBitmap' engine driven games such as Baldurs Gate,Icewind Dale + their expacs.. And then ofc the ISometric games like Avernum.. the old skool Exile graphics are also very nice, and can be pretty timeless..

 

The thing is 3D tech moved VERY quickly, and the initial 3D games in the rpg genre just didnt look as nice as the previous games.. Look at Neverwinter Nights, Biowars first proper /fully 3D rpg...as already mentioned it looks very dated now..and I for one find it very hard to imerse myself into the world now... and tbh I found it hard going when it was new..I much prefered the older Infinity engine games..

 

Infinty Engine games are full 3D scenes, that are then saved as Large Bitmaps, hence the name 'BigBitmap Engine.'... They can then use either sprites OR 3D models in their worlds and they look very nice, immersion is very easy..

 

The slightest defect in 3D games and we the player notice their flaws, and it breaks immersion.. Nowadays the quailty of the games graphics from AAA+ titles is much greater (If done well with a decent budget) so its not as much of a problem.. Look at WoW:MoP or Skyrim.. Both fully 3D, with very different art styles.. and the art style can make alll the diffrence.. I find the better looking 3D games DO NOT try to be photorelasitic... That is where the problem of the 'uncanny valley' lie..where humans percieve something 'wrong' or 'not quite right' about the game world..

 

2D doesnt try to be realistic ..so imersion isnt broken by the player thinking "Oh thats just doesnt look right" or "omg that looks bad" Thast why cartoonish, 2D graphics will always outlast those that try to be photorealistic..

 

Its similar to the way games went from being text driven (Dialogue wise) to voice acting.. Nowadays there are many who simply wont play games where they have to do a lot of reading... I have several friends from my guild on WoW who 'love' rpgs, and I tried hard to turn them on to spiderweb games, but they just do not like reading...so cannot getinto the games.. (All of these people are much younger than me, and some work in the industry as well)..

 

So some of it comes from what you grew up with...

[NCreepy]

The graphics on the older games made by spiderweb is slightly below my "pain treshold", but i bought them because i want to support the man behind the games It's in my oppinion important to support ppl that make games that has gameplay BEFORE graphics and fluff, like voise acting and "state of the art" graphics. I started playing games in the 80s and i have played just about every type of game there is. I must say that these games are the kind of games i continued to play after my " trial and error " days. The so called CRPGs we get today are more FPS or 3rd person shoter games than anyting else, and it's good to see someone actually making CRPGs that is worth being called CRPGs. Good graphisc and voise acting is useless to me because all it does is reduce the quality of the gameplay and story in these type of games. Continue the good work and make more games like this, and i will surely buy them and have great fun playing them

[Ohsky]

chess have been chess over centuries, no, graphics are not important.

[Alorael at Large]

2D doesnt try to be realistic ..so imersion isnt broken by the player thinking "Oh thats just doesnt look right" or "omg that looks bad" Thast why cartoonish, 2D graphics will always outlast those that try to be photorealistic..

I agree, attempting realism is setting yourself up for failure. But that's not an inherent property of 3D, just a flaw that's hard to attempt in 2D. Spiderweb hasn't attempted to be realistic, though, and I think the games hold up fine with isometric sprites.

 

—Alorael, who thinks a threshold may be approaching. Photorealistic games are approaching actual photorealism and are at the very least deep in the uncanny valley. With hardware improvements it may be that soon, or even today, games attempting to be realistic in their appearance will be good enough to look good years down the line. And maybe then graphics will stop being a huge selling point and designers will have to focus on gameplay or story! But given the success of Avatar, there's always room for prettier graphics.

[corallus]

I agree, attempting realism is setting yourself up for failure. But that's not an inherent property of 3D, just a flaw that's hard to attempt in 2D. Spiderweb hasn't attempted to be realistic, though, and I think the games hold up fine with isometric sprites.

 

—Alorael, who thinks a threshold may be approaching. Photorealistic games are approaching actual photorealism and are at the very least deep in the uncanny valley. With hardware improvements it may be that soon, or even today, games attempting to be realistic in their appearance will be good enough to look good years down the line. And maybe then graphics will stop being a huge selling point and designers will have to focus on gameplay or story! But given the success of Avatar, there's always room for prettier graphics.

Did you see that program where they built a simulator.. and played Battle field III on it ..? They made a special floor, so no matter where you walk, no matter what direction, you stayed on this special floor.. and to the user it was just like walking around for real... they put it inside a big dome... and made it so where ever the user looked... thast where the screen was.. and then they also had paintball guns shooting at him when the AI counterparts aimed at him...

 

It was proper awesome... When he came out he as sweating and was out of breath, everything... they had him linked to various monitors and he was actually scared... he said it ws so real it was unbelievable... and then they got that SAS guy to go in it and test it... They used all top end harware... it really was amazing.. I cant wait until home entertainment gets to that kind of level.. lol

[Kelandon]

Corallus: Ellipses are not periods. It's hard to read when you use "..." where you mean "." and we respectfully request that you attempt to differentiate better.

[BMA]

chess have been chess over centuries, no, graphics are not important.

 

I did take a fancy to that 3D chess they had back in the days of dos. So long as it doesn't interfere with the gameplay or make it hard to differentiate between the pieces, having animated Chess characters is quite okay.

 

they built a simulator.. and played Battle field III on it ..?... it really was amazing.. I cant wait until home entertainment gets to that kind of level

 

Even if it doesn't go home-level, having a game-cafe dedicated to such stuff would be great.

 

-CC-

Edited March 1, 2013 by Fading Grin