Graphics Whores
Senior Editor Dana Massey looks at the concept of superficial gamers and what they mean to the game industry.
Editorial By Dana Massey on November 29, 2006
 |
Graphics Whores: How They're Ruining Games
Editorial by Dana Massey
Yesterday, MMORPG.com ran its first community spotlight in which Jon Wood publicly declared his desire to see more virtual worlds and less "games" in the MMO-space. Reading this, it inspired me to give him an assignment: Ultima Online. It may be nine years old, but this game still carries the banner for the virtual-world style MMORPG and Jon assured me he isn't too judgmental about graphics. His initial reaction? He called it the crappiest game he'd ever played after about three minutes of playtime. Jon is, as many are, a graphics whore. He's higher-minded about it and claims that in theory he'd love a game regardless of how it looks, but we all know that isn't true. He proceeded to explain that he could see the "cute factor" of UO (I'd describe UO as anything but cute), but that it really wasn't for him. As someone who started on a healthy diet of skipping school and playing Ultima Online, I was appalled and promptly found him something else to play. The experience left me wondering: am I a graphics whore too? The part of me that misses sleep playing Geometry Wars on the 360 says no. In fact, I should have seen Jon's true colors earlier since he mocks me for playing "20 year old games on the most powerful game system money can buy" (well, could buy, since Sony delivered their version of HAL into all of five people's homes last week). The truth is I am a mixed bag. I'll play true greatness at any resolution, but like most, I'm not about to turn down the prettier alternative. I can't go back and play Civilization I when IV is on my desktop too and I'll be damned if I play any original XBOX games. Why? I could be playing the 360. That is human nature, I may not be completely video game superficial, but I'm not about to turn down the sexier version of something I love. The real test comes with the classics. Can you play classic games and forgive their ugly coats of paint? Jon, the superficial guy that he is, cannot. I believe I can, but I am after all farming out the Ultima assignment, so what does that say? I think everyone has a threshold. Jon, for example, is gleefully playing the Wii and doesn't seem to care that it cannot load the latest HD graphics or other jazz. It's still pretty and looks about as good as most other games. I just don't think anything on Earth could get him playing Duck Hunt. The ultimate in superficial gamers are those of you - and you know who you are - who see new games appear on our list and hype them one out of ten if you find any flaw at all in their visuals. Forget the ideas, forget the gameplay... graphics are king. Graphics whores are killing innovation in gaming. A bold statement, but one I believe. These same people who give new games a one because their graphics are not up to snuff, often sit around and complain that no one innovates. They attack companies like Blizzard and SOE for putting out games they've already played. Then, they turn around and give random indy MMO X a one rating because the visuals are not up as good as EQII! In development, ideas are cheap. It's graphics that make these multimillion dollar projects and sadly, it's graphics that often determine whether a game thrives or fails. Everyone has a threshold and increasingly, that threshold of superficiality has moved to the point where a game that doesn't have $10-million or more behind it cannot capture enough players to thrive. My suggestion to everyone is to go play Geometry Wars and give Ultima Online another try. If you have some fun, remember that the next time you see a game with suspect graphics pop up on our list. Graphics matter, I am not that naive, but I challenge you to also consider their ideas. Looks always fade, but substance lasts forever.
|
Hmmm well, I dont think most people enjoy playing atari graffix on a 2000$ gaming rig, i think thats where most people get upset on graffix mattering.
I have to disagree with the article. I think those "graphics whores" are a necessary part of the evolution of gaming. Ideas are cheap, and most of them are easily instituted in code. UO has unique features, but they are not so mind-boggling that other developers haven't been able to replicate them. The fact of the matter is that they simply haven't done it...
But with the constant evolution of gaming technology (CPUs, GPUs, etc.), it's absolutely necessary to have the future in mind when developing the latest in games. Anyone who says they don't care about graphics, and would rather play Pokemon on the Gameboy than Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is either an idiot or a liar. People want games that are BOTH breath-taking and innovative. Now, you can argue about the "quality" of the graphics in a game like WoW, but it's artisticly captivating and true to its origins at the same time.
What would happen if Ultima Online had a complete graphics overhaul? I could probably guarantee you that if it held the same level as say, Guild Wars (not the most graphics intensive, but quite stunning all the same), while keeping their unique gameplay features, it would enroll a much greater subscriber base than it has. Personally, I think people still playing UO are so hung up on their "uber" characters they have developed, they have relegated themselves to a world of sickeningly outdated graphics so they don't feel like they've wasted the last 10 years of their life...
Innovation and ideas are hard when everyone just wants a piece of the pie without baking a new one. New features and changes are a risk, and they will roll out slowly as companies dare to take chances. But when you've invested multiple-millions of dollars in a project, you don't want to stretch things too far. Indie developers can afford to have big dreams and take big chances because they have little to lose. It's going to take a visionary with deep pockets to change the flow of the industry, but they're going to have to keep up with the expectations of those "graphics whores" at the same time.
Well, I'm off to play Guild Wars or WoW, so don't try to PM me asking for a pokemon battle!
Make the mmos playable on systems that only has 512mb ram and 1ghrz comp, with an old gfx card.
To all those companies just thinking about making a mmo that req. a massive system, look at woW and, then EQ2, which one has most customers? which one is most succesful?
EQ2 is still rather hard to get on the desired gfx levels, and it looks horrid on normal systems, while wow looks quite good even on the lower settings.
So please, don't believe that everyone who plays mmorpgs has a system of 4Ghrz, 2g ram+, and the latest GFX card, it's stupid and will bring you nowhere.
It's nice to have the option to use your newest systems and set the settings at maximum in your mmorpg but make sure that the fellah on the 1ghrz 512mb ram also can enjoy his playtime, because through that people will also be able to play it on thier laptops, which is only a bonus.
"Don't rate (mentally or via legitimate reviews) games solely on a single entity - in this case graphics."
On thas basic concept, I agree.
However, the examples given are a little overblown. I will use an example given in the article to state my point.
I played Ultima Online when it first came out, and didn't give it up until EQ was released. Sure, the switch from a tilted-camera overhead view was a major influence to me. I wanted a game I could immerse myself in, and watching a little character run around the screen is a detatched sensation.
Note: I did not say "UO graphics sucked compared to EQ".
While there was obvious technological differences between the graphics engines in UO and EQ, it was not a sole determinant for my decision to abandon UO. In early EQ, we had a hell of a community, despite the lack of support of the developers to encourage things such as roleplaying or at least a "pretend" indication of a dynamic world.
UO was more of a virtual world than EQ. True. But honestly, for me, that was the ONLY thing I really missed once the newness of EQ wore off and the years passed in EQ. There were a lot of game mechanic issues I had with character development in UO and I did not particularly like the open PK system. I could go on and on with my list of issues I had with UO, but the graphic quality of the game was only one among many.
My point, relating to up-and-coming games is that not all of those Indy MMOGs are good. And I don't mean graphically. While there are some folks out there that will give 10s across the board, a 1 one for graphics, then rate it as an overall 2 or 3... those people do not seem to dominate the reviewers I have read.
When I read (or write) reviews about a game, I take in the complete picture, and spend more time looking for answers to my own questions than just reading an overall rating and going with it. Graphic should always just be a "part" of the equation. I know of no games that I have clung onto because their graphics are 10 but the rest of the game sucks. In fact, just the opposite... I've seen some gorgeous games that simply sucked in terms of innovation and I dropped them like a hot 'tater.
And for that reason I do not feel that "graphic whores" are destroying innovation. I don't particularly believe anything is destroying innovation. There are (and always will be) people trying something new in order to better the market as a whole.
But what is hurting the market is that it is still often driven by large companies who look solely at the bottom line, and would far rather have a clone of EQ or WoW on their hands than to allow any creative attempts to "break the mold". I don't blame Sony or Blizzard, because they set the standards for people to clone (though, Blizzard hasn't been as much innovative in game design as they have been in marketing and presentation). Who I blame are the companies who are all looking at Blizzard and trying to duplicate what they've done, rather than creating something that will make gamers say WoW!
In summary, I feel graphics are just as important a category as anything else, but no more important than anything else. A game doesn't deserve a 1 because it's brilliant and ugly, but it also doesn't deserve a 10 if it is brilliant and ugly.
Company's that develop their games with high-end graphics are no more or less guilty of not innovating than another company. This is part of a larger issue.
Every game put out is a financial gamble. Especially when it comes to mmo's because of their natural higher operational costs.
It's the game publishers are afraid of cutting edge and innovation. They want to see and touch what the know is and has worked in the past. I mean come on. It's about money, not the end-user or innovation.
A company that took that chance and succeeded was CCP with EVE-ONLINE. Not the graphics part. Yes, the are very high-end to say the lest. However, the mark they made was the fresh and innovative game they created. from the heavy PVP element to the single game Universe.
I think they were prepared to fail in order to put out the game they wanted. This is what has made them a success and also the potential failure of any new game.
This is why publishers are very heavy into a games design and features normally. They want to put out something that will give them some sort of respectable return and the only data they can accurately use to make that determination is what is living and breathing.
Not what someone has dreamed can be possible.
Peace
Or take L2 - I admit I played it for a while due to the (sexy) graphics, until I got pretty bored with it.
After playing games for 20 years now, very often graphical innovation comes at the price of gameplay - be it less conten amount and/or intelligent wise.
I started playing UO a few months ago - I love it, despite the graphics. Which are, in 2D ("pseudo" 3D is lousy) actually pretty well made. But you have to be old school to accept it I guess.
The reason though why I can't play many so called classic games otherwise, are certain "modern" features which one is used to - say auto-mapping in an rpg. when it comes to CiV though, I prefer Civ I over IV - so there is at least one classical game...
Now an FPS - yes, the more the merrier - great graphics & sound give great realism - take FEAR e.g (at least for me).
The market is stronger than we - if you want to play retro, you won't get it in new games.... the new generation who only encounters better and better grafx, and use games as fast food, don't seem to care too much about long lasting content.
Well, okay, I admit, MMO players won't fit into such a category.... or?
When it comes to MMO's however, it's alot different. I remember trying EQ a few years after it had come out, and a few months after I had been playin AC2. I played EQ for about an hour and gave up, because it was very, very ugly.
Also had an interface and controls I couldn't stand.
Now, it might be a great game in many other respects, but because it's an MMO, it needs something to draw you in from the bginning. As we all no, you aren't going to start out with the best looking gear, and you're going to be killing rats or some other crap for awhile. That means 1-I'm ugly and 2-I'm bored.
So, for the UO experiment mentioned in the article, I can see why the guy quit.
I applaud this article! The sole focus on graphics in alot of games is killing innovation in the game community.
Although I personally dislike UO its not because of graphics, its because of nightmares I still have of intense lag and finding myself dead from either a player or a monster and the worthless expansion that just threw down more land for building and nothing else. Although I do miss the extreme flexibility one could have with their ever changing character.
Someone stated that ideas are cheap and just some code, well for all your pretty graphics its takes tons of code and art to produce thus upping the cost which means we pay more and more. You can't just make a model and slap it into a game without writing the code that puts the pretty model on the screen.
(to the person who suggested updating UO to a 3D game) The amount of money and time and not to mention sheer destructrion of code to rewrite an entire game to update its graphics from its current state in the case of UO would effectively destroy its community if not bankrupt the game itself. You'd be taking ages old code and basically throwing it out you can't simply Turn a game like UO into a 3D mega game which is why they scrapped a project that would do that. UO's community btw is still quite rather large. A game's community doesn't have to be WOW sized in order to make money.
And while I do enjoy a game that has beautiful graphics on my expensive computer whats the point in paying all that money for a game that looks pretty but has no substance at all.
It'd be nice if more games came out on the PC that had good graphics but were focused more on game play and story (or some sort of substance).
I've played plenty of free mmo's or ones that are atleast inexpensive to play and while they're graphics are nothing fantastic the game works, the world is interesting, and its something different. They dont' get a fair chance against people who see graphics and nothing else. Though alot of these "graphic whores" are the same ones that complain the game is boring, the game is to short, or this mechanism just doesnt' work. Well they'd have more time to focus on those things if there wasnt' a huge focus on how many pixels, vertices, and resolution they can pump out of a system.
I'm not normally a super WOW supporter but Blizzard did do something right. Their game is somewhere between middle to high ground graphics wise and there's enough substance to keep players interested. It'd be nice if there were more games designed this way on the market.
If your going to vote on a game vote on the overall game not just its graphics because some games are Pretty...and simply Awful (Horizons anyone? Star Wars Galaxies?)
heres a list of games you could check out if you wanted games that have excellent game play and horrible graphics at best:
odyssey online classic
www.odysseyclassic.com
runescape
www.runescape.com
wheel of time mud
www.wotmud.org
space merchant realms
www.smrealms.de
space pirate (eve before graphics, only unpopular because its not updated, why i dont know...)
www.spacepirates.com
land of devastation
www.landofdev.com/classic/
thats something to start with for now...to each his own but i personally have regular days of playing games that dont have uber 1337 graphics
What I fail to understand is why innovation can only be accomplished by sacrificing graphical quality?
Aside from that your editorial contradicts itself. You mention that Jon love to play games on the Nintendo Wii. It’s widely known that the Wii is not a graphical powerhouse and just isn’t in the same league as the xbox 360 or the ps3. People simply don’t play Wii games for their graphics, they play them because they are fun. The reason they are fun is because of the innovative control scheme they use. I’m almost willing to bet Jon plays and love Wii Sports. The graphic quality of that game is very low, but it’s the controls that make it fun.
It is sad when the first thing a person does when looking at a game with good graphics maybe not outstanding and say. Ug what ugly graphics why bother. These Graphic Whores can't see beyond their noise. They are blind to what makes a game truely great.. The game. I like graphic's but it has to go inhand with good gaming mechanics. You can't judge a book by it's cover or a game by it's graphics. Take the most beautiful graphic intense computer power eating game out there. I don't care what it is.. and I guarantee that it will be dead and long forgotten before checkers is.
A good game is a like a good recipie you need all the right ingediants Sadily alot of games currently equate to a big mac. Not a healthy body/mind choice.
So I beg you resist the OOOOOOHHH shiney urge that plagues so many of you. Take graphics as they should be as a part of the recipe of a game.
My point is that graphics have reached a point where you need to be a major player in the game industry to complete. Indy developers are frozen out and traditionally, it is smaller game companies with big ideas that push innovation.
I fully agree. I normally tone down the graphics to get better game play since my machine is nowhere near new. I may turn on full graphics once just to see. Even on stand-alone games I would much rather have an interesting game than just stare at graphics. Otherwise I might as well be playing a high-def screen saver.
I'd like to say that graphics are not everything but I would be lying. When I play a game that I enjoy it becomes the minium I expect the graphics to fall into. Compare Eve and jumpgate. Now I think jumpgate has the better gameplay. Eve though is leaps and bounds ahead of it graphically. I play neither game anymore but if jumpgate updated its graphics I would be seriously tempted to go back and give it a shot.
Graphics are only part of the picture though. Neverwinter Nights and City of heroes/villians also broke me for other MMOs. Not only graphically but customization. I need to be able to make a unique character now in any game I try or I end up not liking it as much. I don't mind if options are limited at character creation but the option available in the game need to be better so that I can look different from everyone else.
When I played DDO.. I looked the same as everyone else basically. To pick me out in a crowd you had to use my name rather then pick me out by my clothing style. It was a step backwards to me. NWN1 offered a similiar experience with the minium graphics I would settle for in a D&D style of game but it trumped DDO in the customization that I could do once I was in the game so I stayed with NWN1 but I didn't downgrade to say Diablo II except on rare occasion I felt like a hack and slash fest.
We are at a point right now where the majority of consumers I feel are overall happy with the graphics available to them. They don't want to have to spend thousands on upgrading their systems to run the newest and lastest games. They will stay with what they are playing until something catches their eye which really forces them to upgrade to a new system and even then it won't be bleeding edge.. cutting edge sure but not bleeding edge.
I don't feel the next major advance will be from the graphics themselves but rather the physics of the world. Making clothing acting more real, flowing hair, interaction with the enviroment. That I think will be the next real advance graphically it will be all about interacting with your enviroment. Something like this would get the average consumer to upgrade faster rather then just making the game more pretty.
Not one person I know has recomended Gears of War because of the graphics. They keep telling me how much fun the game is.
Graphics matter but I don't think it's to the extent of having to compare apples to oranges. WoW isn't the prettiest game on the market, but I played it. I played it because for a while it was fun. Lineage 2, EQ2, MXO, CoH, EvE, etc. are all much prettier games, but I haven't played any of them for nearly as long as WoW, with the exception of CoH.
Art style and graphics also don't go hand in hand. EQ2 has amazing graphics, but L2 has the most impressive art style of just about any game I have ever played.
Most people are graphics whores, I am, but I think that when It comes to MMO's it's the gameplay more then the graphics that matter. I also think that developers keep kicking themselves in the nuts when they produce a game that is graphically stunning and geared towards hardcore players. I've gotten the impression over the years that hardcore MMO players are less the graphics whores then the casual. The casual gamer/MMOer wants to hop into a game, play for a bit, then do something else; they look for graphics. The hardcore only needs it to look good enough to spend several hours a night with; these people I think pay a little more attention to gameplay.
Inovation has nothing to do with graphics; everything to do with gameplay. Well see inovation from a large commercial game the day that software companies loosen the vice grips from the testes of the software developers trying to make a game that can claim to compete with WoW.
A game that's pretty and allows players to truelly be a part of the world they play in. Untill then well keep on playing the newest piece of crap because it's prettier then the last piece of crap.
You don't have to choose between EverQuest 2's awesome visuals but crappy gameplay or World of Warcraft's "stylized" (a fancy word for "intentionally sub-par to access a broader demographic") graphics and addictive gameplay. You can have your cake and eat it too!
It draws a straight parallel with the film industy (at least here in the United States); over the years, storyline and acting talent have slowly been replaced by big budget special effects. Look no further than Star Wars (4, 5, and 6 vs. 1, 2, and 3) for what this has achieved (or ruined). Instead of Bruce Lee and Steve McQueen showing off their moves, you end up with a horribly artificial-looking Neo battling dozens of Agent Smiths or a ridiculously obvious CG Hellboy punching a moving SUV. This leads to the common concusion that films are either well-written and acted OR they have great special effects. Although rarely achieved, I would argue that it's very possible to have the best of both worlds, but it takes a lot of time and effort to do so (Lord of the Rings, for example).
Dana that was the best editorial this site has ever seen and I tip my hat to you! I especially loved the part about the people who slam SOE and whoever for remaking the same game and then crap all over Red Bedlam because the graphics in Roma Victor aren't good enough. Those people know who they are and probably dislike this editorial.
Graphics are NOT innovation.
I think that technology is the enemy of good game development. Graphic whores just happen to be techonphiles. Actually I think that technology, graphics and innovation are all three enemies of good game development.
I hate high poly FPS style graphics. I am more drawn toward low poly models with high quality textures. I also dislike console-Anime style combat with particle effects and other garbage. I much prefer the original models and Velious textures of EQ to that of EQ2. EQ2 does have very nice textures for its buildings I will say.
Graphics is a crutch for the children who are designing (and playing in the case of Jon Wood) MMO's today. It is far easier to use some software to crank out eye popping graphics than it is to create content that has to be crafted by hand. I don't think that most game designers today have enough varied life experience to create good storylines and game worlds.
I don't know if I fall under his description of graphics whore or not. I can play true classics today, but I will just sit back and mock a game company currently trying to peddle 3-10 year old graphics on me.
The Unreal 3 engine has gone gold. When it hits a PC game, my system is ready to run it. I have played Half Life 2 and think that engine looks good. So, moving forward we need Half Life 2 and Unreal 3 quality engines in games. The minimum I will accept is around the EQ2/Vanguard (not sure about the later, since I haven't played it) level. But honestly, I now expect games to come up to the level of the Unreal 3 engine. Why wouldn't I want something that looks better in every way?!
If you have a great game idea, license a good engine. Nothing kills my immersion faster than a game that looks 3+ years old.
WoW just barely managed to get away with what they did by doing the box of exploding crayons method. Let me just take this time to say: I really, really hate the graphical people they have over at Blizzard these days. WC3 was the ugliest modern RTS I can think of. I loved the cinimatics in Diablo 2, after that everything just started looking odd over there.
EDIT: I just read the post above me, so I thought I'd add this. Graphics need to get better and better, as I've said. But if you turn out a crap game with the Unreal 3 engine, it's still a crap game. As I expect graphics to get better and better I expect the same from gameplay, polish, etc. If somebody tries to release EQ, SWG, Lineage 2 or WoW now that it's been a few years, they should not expect to see me, I don't care if it is wrapped in the Unreal 5 engine! I expect more.
With that said, I feel that graphics are an integral component of any game, and as an industry on the whole, we should continue to improve graphically using better technology. It's good that the companies are actually doing this and not stagnating.
The truth is, there is probably a significant correlation between graphics and the sales of a game. Ultimately, money steers the companies actions and development priorities, graphics or not.
Cheers, good editorial.
For me, it would work as following:
A- Gameplay enjoyement: If above 90%, ignore everything else.
B- Feeling: If above 90% and that the gameplay enjoyement was at least 80%, ignore everything else.
C- ...
Anyway, you get the picture. I still play Medieval Total War, despite the fact I have Rome Total War and Medieval 2: Total War. Graphic-wise, the successors are nicers. But gameplay-wise, they aren't. I love Medieval Total War 1, it is BETTER than the sequels and explaining this would take sometimes. (Take the Jack O'neil clone and put the BET-TER emphasis)
I WOULD play old EQ if they make a raid-free server, and I would be an adamant defender against newer games. But...I am part of the minority. This is why I let old EQ alone and focus on new games, anyway, you can believe that I try this raid-free server with every other MMO, it is just that pass a point, you switch to where you may convince folks. I have been refining my arguments and tries for 3 years now...hehe, slow learner I guess I am.
After reading Dana, I think he underestimate his gameplay side and overestimate in shame his graphic-whore side. I wouldn't play Civilisation 1, but it isn't because of the graphics...it is because CiV IV is a LOT better, gameplay-wise. See, CiV IV-Warlord is better, on every single aspect, and as well in an overall view (design view). The graphics doesn't mean much. I play Joust regularly! Wooohooo! I also would play Romance of the 3 Kingdoms II or Celtic Legends or Steel Empire if I could find a nice emulator that reproduce the initial game, as it was, on the Amiga500...point is, the emulators have been inferior, and downgrading is pretty hard. Now, is Civ 1 or 4 getting the best ranking in time, I guess it should be the first, due to the original breakdown, however, the fourth is definitely superior, even if it is a successor and wouldn't overank the first. Just like Throne of Bhaal is better than BG, yet never overrank it.
I find it hard to play again some older games, but again, it isn't the graphics that make it hard, it is the gameplay. See, let's take Baldur's gate, the second best game in history IMO. I couldn't play it anymore...and this is kinda a shame. Is it because of the graphics? Nah, I overplay it and new games are usually better on soo many points it is hard to go back. (it is still the second best game of all time, due to it time of release, what games where present and available back then, it will be pretty hard to beat that, but it isn't impossible...just extremely unlikely)
Despite all it claims on Gameplay, Nintendo didn't convince me yet with it Wii, it doesn't seem that worthy, gameplay-wise. Nintendo has very little strategy and RPG titles to line up, to convince me, gameplay-wise. Considering that I am a GBT fan, their failure is their own, not the "superior" graphics of the PS3/Xbox360. Oblivion has neat and awesome gameplay, which I didn't see in any Nintendo product...Advance Wars is their only product I enjoy so far and it is on the DS, going to try AoE on the DS soon as well. I just wait to see something that catch my interest, but party-wise, when I am drunk, it is going to be Joust and nothing else, so no point in trying to get me to try other party games, and not Joust 2 but, Joust for the win!
Nintendo is lining up tons of games that lack gameplay IMO...I mean, that are action-driven! 
Yet, just like Vanguard put the emphasis on the word freedom, they put emphasis on what seems to be lacking the most in their game, which is what they call gameplay. For some reasons, sellers are often focusins on weak points of products, like DDO focusing on REAL D&D...silly devs. They underline something that they think is a strongpoint, while in fact, it is a weakpoint. Gameplays in action games? Well, sound kinda limited IMO. You should have varying style and games, yet, they always line the same few gameplays, overdone, over and over and over again.
Graphics won't make your players subscribing 2 months+, only gameplay can.
My take on this topic is simple ... it's 2006, awesome graphics should just be a given. I want MORE & MORE immersion. Hell, just jack my brain in somewhere...
I think I'm in the majority here when I say that I will always want a better graphical experience when possible, but I'm willing to concede the ability to produce such graphics sometimes falls below the bleeding edge of what is possible. A game does not have to blow me away graphically for me to respect it. Anything I would rate a 7 or higher in all meaningful categories (story/plot, graphics, sound, gameplay, replayability, etc.) has my respect, shown in the dollars I spend to purchase it, and the reviews I might write for it. A seven, graphically speaking, varies depending on the platform, of course, but for PC-based MMOGs, there's really only one criterion for me: Do the graphics detract from my immersion?
UO is an excellent example. I tried to enjoy that game, and simply could not. It was so graphically archaic when I tried it, I just could not begin to care about how the game itself actually played. The same was true of Asheron's Call, to a lesser degree. I admit it, I LOVE a pretty game, and I've probably missed some great MMOG experiences because they weren't attractive enough, but that being said, I don't want companies to cater to my ideas of what is graphically "good enough." Instead, make a finished product. Make a game that looks, plays, and feels exactly like you envision, and let me decide if your vision is enjoyable. I believe that any game that is developed and tested thoroughly, and is pronounced "finished" by developers and at least 75% of your beta players is worth putting on the market, and if it's not the prettiest game out there, so be it.
Best of luck to all developers in bringing more amazing experiences to the MMO genre.
I see a lot is written on this.
Well , let me give you my point of view - as a professional graphic artist and magister of arts
The thing people dont realise , there is a diference between
simple(or old) graphic and bad graphic
example no1: Super Mario
This game has old 2d sprite graphic. But nobody can say it has bad graphic. It is simply enjoyable.
So why is that super mario games can claim they have good looking graphic even today.
The answer is simple - They are ICONIC
There are countles theories written on this subject. Like "uncanny valley" and many others.
The result is simple , as closer something resembles the "real" object , the more obvious are its faults.
The further away something is from "real" the more our brain is compensating - and thus creating perfect image
half real half imaginary...thus "Iconic"
example no2:
Just circle , 2 dots and a line...
So finnaly we come to a match made in heaven
WoW vs Everquest2
WoW uses high iconisation - deliberately sparking our imagination , making our brain to compensate
-
EQ2 goes for hyper realistic look - undeliberately producing "uncanny valley" effect , making us judge it graphics
In few years EQ2 will have highly dated graphic , while WoW graphic will be as fresh as ever - because tey are iconic and not dependant on rendering but on "style"
So in closing word.
Good or bad graphic is not function of age , or rendering engine or new directX
It is in hands of clever design and good eye for art (and knowledge of human visual mind)
To me a game can be viewed as a orchestra with string(Game play), brass(Content), woodwind(Skill system), percussion(Graphics) and the Conductor(Developer) keeping them all in sync. Sure a orchestra could play with a lousy section or even missing a section, but the music would not be as pleasant as if it contained all parts. It could also be said that it could be played with one or two sub-par sections and one superb section, the music still wouldn't sound as sweet as if they all were all highly exceptional and in sync.
So having that example I would say if the Conductor can not get all his sections synced together and working together, or if one part is off key while the others are playing great, the music itself would be effected as a whole. While some might not mind that it sounds a bit flat or off key, most will probably say this just doesn't work, or is just plain awful. The same could be said about graphics in a game,for some it might be acceptable to play with stick figure characters from a overhead view but everything else is great, while for most will see that as not being innovative, or just be plain unplayable.
So back to the original editorial, while graphics might not be the top of everyone's list, they are apart of a whole. With the amount of money and time being invested into a game these day, and the amount of income they can produce if they are successful, it baffles me to no end how so many developers go so wrong with totally missing out on one section in favor of another, not only graphic wise. If you can manage to be innovative in all aspects of a game and put it in sync, you would be hard pressed to produce a dud. But all too often Producers/Developers of a game feel they have to get a game out as fast as possible to join the MMO bandwagon before it gets away, if that means just make some eye candy so be it. So I disagree that it is graphic whores fault innovation is not taking place, but more on the greed of a developer to cash in with as little time and investment involved. It just seems like graphics are easier to improve upon then having to come up with a storyline, raids, quests, skill systems, character creation, ect...
Since a lot of people like to use WoW as the example and probably the most familiar, here it goes. Blizzard took the time to piece all parts of a game together and put it in a nice sync where no part is sub-par, while nothing in wow is really innovative, the fact that they where able to put a lot of pieces from a bunch of different mmos best parts into one that worked, well I have to give them that it worked and in itself is innovative. So it is less about the Graphic Whores, being games like WoW are not just eye candy as WoW's graphics are not all that great. It's the part of putting together many great aspects of other MMO's which makes it a innovation.
I realized I was a graphics whore just recently. Dark and Light opened my eyes to my true inner being. I always claimed innovation and ideas, gameplay, features and content were more important, with graphics and sound bringing up the rear.....but i was wrong, I read everything about Dark and Light, and really thought it had a lot to offer, and then I paid 50 doallars for it.
I was burned, I forced myself to play it for two days, and then I never signed on agian. It made me take a look at what matters in a game, and I realized that it is immersion. A game must have style, something that makes me forget my little computer room, an d graphics have to hold my attention long enough to get to the innovative game play.
I finally laid Star Craft to rest recently also, Dawn of War series was good enough for me to no longer play the rts giant. I didnt care that the graphics on a '93 game were very outdated, they still had style, of course until DOW came along, now I expect that level for my rts games.
So I guess i'm saying I agree...I was a closet Graphics whore who has finally come out.
Graphics get me looking at a game. I normally read an article on a game based on some screenshot that is included. I might go and buy a game based on graphics but long term playability such as a MMORPG needs more. Games like EQII got my initial $50 but I eventually got bored and quit paying the monthly fee. A game can look great but something more is needed to keep players following that dangling carrot of an MMORPG, at least from my opinion.
Another scary thing is that if MMORPG.com feature a game lacking in graphical pizzaz then normally it means that the game is being done by a small company, or that the company is behind on production allowing the graphics to become dated, or that quite possibly the gameplay will be as boring as the graphics. I've played good looking games and ugly games that stunk on the game-play/fun-factor side so it is always a coin toss but I tend not to even look at a Shadowbane or a Dark and Light anymore. It's very rare that a MMORPG is going to release with 1998 graphics but some stellar innovative incredible gameplay design in todays market. Now if only I could say on the other side of the coin that an impressive graphic engine meant I was going to see stellar gameplay then it would all be so easy.
I don't believe it's a focus on graphics that's hampering the evolution of MMOs, but the fear of failure. Developers and publishers stick to an existing mold because there's a precedent for its success. They know people will line up to play the next sword and sorcery level grind, but a wild new idea is a big risk. Instead of spending their development dollars on unique, innovative gameplay, they try to differentiate themselves from one another with a few minor details (offline bazaar! yay!) and prettier graphics. Others rely on popular licenses to bring in customers, but most of those still start with the tried and true MMO model first, trying to shoehorn in the licensed property after the fact. Star Wars Galaxies and Lord of the Rings Online are two huge properties that could offer very unique gameplay experiences that truly reflect their respective worlds, but both have relagated themselves to the standard class-based level grind. It's disappointing.
If they don't, it shows they have low production values, a small budget, or both and it doesn't exactly
fill me with confidence in the rest of the game.
Since graphics are what you are looking at all the time when playing the game, it is not the place for devs to skimp.
If you want to emphasis excuses and justifications for some low budget, crappy art design game, go ahead.
Personally I'd rather play games that had both great graphics AND great gameplay.
Radicalism isnt a good idea in either case, whether the game has great content but poor graphics, or the other way around, great graphics but poor content. The game is defined not by 1 aspect, but rather by combination of many. Its true that some companies concentrate on one aspec more then the other, and then we see bad games with great graphics, or great games with very poor graphics. Logicaly speaking, the graphics should be just slightly behind content, because graphics can be upgraded without major changes to the game at any time (at least a well designed game).
What I disagree with is that graphics whores are killing anything other then their own finances and respect from the player base. Unfortunately bad products do exist, and lots of them. But so do good products. What we, as a community, can do is simple, dont buy products from companies without trying them first, and dont believe all the fancy screenshots or videos. I dont think people are dumb enough to buy something that looks pretty but tastes like poo, at least not more then once (yes, im an optimist, heh)
I partially agree.
I wouldn't call graphics as something that destroys games (not an only reason at least). [afraid] Producers, [afraid] designers and crappy coders is what is the worst. They prefer to make simplistic clones again and again, instead of doing something better, more original (of course there're exceptions, but rather rare). But that requires effort, more work, more imagination, more support, more time, more complexity. Why bother ? It's all about the money in the end. And simplistic, proven "solutions" work, supported by tremendous amount of PR bullshit. Regardless if it's mmo or single player game.
Good graphics does help medicore titles in staying afloat though.
In mmo realm, take for example L2 - a terrible game with incredibly broken game mechanics on practically, every level imaginable. With one of the worst CS. Yet it's still alive in NA. Why ? Decent graphics. Big, pretty, shiny, glowing weapons, cute armors, panties visible on every occasion, silicon DEs. Everything else seems to be secondary. Besides grpahics, people also love to self-brainwash themselves and force into liking crappy, unfinished halfproducts, and then literally drool to pretty screenshots and a few numbers. A lot of current players can't even comprehend an idea of a mmorpg without a grind. That's sad.
OTOH hard to not agree with the OP - by today's "standards", the amount of time spent on game engine (or even on using one already made), textures and animations is far more substantial than a few years ago. Time that could, and should in most cases, be spent somewhere else.
If AoC and DF flop, I think I'll lose my faith into mmorpgs completely. In the recent few years, there's been a lot of cancellations of promising titles, and a lot of letdowns. Not that sp games were much better (but there were at least few nice titles there).
Spiritglow
What a nice, simple, short explanation. This is the best post I have ever seen in mmorpg, that explains a lot for me in gfx success of a game. I enjoy nowadays some old games gfx and now I know why thanks to you.
And btw, gfx are a part of a game. Not more, not less. UO had good mechanics but lacked atmosphere due to the old gfx and animations, that hurt game inmersion a lot. Nowadays, there is no excuse to bring both gameplay, sound, gfx and support at a high level. And take the Rattrap explanation as a rule to judge what a good gfx means truly in a game.
Ding!!
And this is why so many games are lacking in any real depth, but I don't think this is so much the developers fault but the company that is making the monetary investment in the game to start. Pretty games sell; so if you make the game really, really pretty with few features you are more likely to sell a ton of copies up front. MMO's also start in the black more so then a single player game. All those servers to pay for and run, the CS department to fund; I think that software companies focus on getting a return for all the money they put out before anyones ever bought the game that they go for the "safe" thing and overload on graphics in an ettept to sell more.
I think that it won't be long before software companies learn that MMO players are not the same as single player console gamers, and we require more depth to our games.
I recently played Civ IV at a friends and was inspired to go replay the original Civilization. I remembered the hraphics as better than they were, but the gameplay was still the best Civ out there.
People complained mightily about the graphics of WoW but 6 million of them seemingly overcame this deficiency. Imagine if WoW had "better graphics".
Lately Im playing Second Life, where your beginner avatar is literally what you make of it. After a few months of tweaking and 4000L of skin upgrades, hair, walks and clothes I have a pretty hot chick looking back at me. So when I saw the bag of suet that passes for an avatar in NWN II I was frankly apalled. I couldnt stand any of the EQ II avatars and their plastic hair at all. My SWG avatars are holding up well for the most part when I checked up on them a few months ago, and when I played the retro EQ servers for a few months, the avatsrs, for all their chunkiness were "home" and I didnt mind at all. I actually preferred the original models to the Luclin models.
Maybe Second Life is the future of graphics. Let the players do the work and concentrate on making a great game.
I have to say that i might count meself as a "Graphic Whore", if graphics of a new game does not meet the standart of what is possible (especialy on a high end machine) then the rest of the game doesn't intrest me unfortunaly, i noticed this when i went into beta of Carpe Diem, from what i have read the gameplay looks awesome, but when i went into the game itself it looked horrible this time and day (kinda like games back in the 90"s then it looked nice) i really could not force meself to look at those horrible graphics and listenen to really wierd noise( wich was ingame sounds wich i couldn't really reconize).But graphics need to be consistent with the gameworld aswell work great and feel realistic, this is what is possible today so why settle with less, some may argue that not everyone has top notch machines, but i think a good gamedeveloper can make a game work on both low and high end machine's (think WoW can be apricciatted on both kind of machine) There are also games that really look cool but play horrible for me Cabal online is such a game.
But to be a "graphic whore" does not neccesary mean i can not enjoy older games, but those games can't be from a series of the same sort cause then i'm tempted to play the newest version as most become upgraded or become better over the years, unfortunaly some don't change that much and get lost in the mass of games.
For those that have seen the World Of Warcraft intro movie, i'm still waiting for games to look like that and hopefully one day play like what you see in intro movies. When games are that high of quality i think i can finaly say to games the words Nex-gen if it comes to pc games!
Then you have to figure the developer side... Screenshots and videos don't say much about gameplay. It tells the player everything about graphics. Until we can get an accurate gameplay review about each game, then players must rely on screen shots and graphics to choose which games they play.
Also Major_Skillz, your avatar on this site looks almost exactly like my char in EVE.
UO's target hardware was some time in the early to mid 90's. I don't care how great the game is, it's not targeting today's hardware, so it will be somewhat unappealing to gamers who just spent $2000 on a new computer. It's probably equivalent to a board game at that point.
It's 2006. If you're going to create a game to be released in 2007, then the game should be fun, and it should take advantage of the latest technology. Period.
I think the term "Graphics Whore" is based on something else completely. My take on that term is when i see people bashing a game based on a screenshot, and they haven't even played the game yet. That's what I mean by a balance between gameplay and graphics. If the graphics are 'good enough' for its time, but the gameplay is really fun, people will play it. If the gameplay is really good and the graphics are bad, people won't play it. If the gameplay sucks and the graphics are incredible, some people will buy it just to see how it runs on their machine, but they probably won't play through the whole game, and they definitely won't buy the sequel. ;)
The highest rated upcoming game on MMORPG.COM right now is Warhammer Online.
Graphics:
Now, I'm sure Warhammer is using the latest shader technology and the highest graphic development out there, it doesn't look like it to me. All of the screenshots/videos I have seen seem to look about on par for 1 or 2 years ago. (I hate to say this, because I do not think they will be similar at all, but the screenshots look like the graphic quality of WoW)
Gameplay:
It's being developed by Mythic (I still play DAOC, my second favorite MMO, right behind the original UO) & it's based on one of the most successful tabletop games. These two gameplay elements combined are why I'm looking so foward to the game.
The graphics are below my personal standards for a "next-gen" game, but they are acceptable, which is why I hyped the game at an 8 instead of a 10. 5 for gameplay 3 for graphics. If the graphics had blown me away I would have definitley rated it as a 10.
I'm not and hopefully never will be amongst those known as graphics whores, but then again, I come from the age of the NES, just after the age of the ATARI, so maybe its the inbread oldschool tendancies in me that keep me from the road so many born in this era of gaming travel.
Hell I'm not sayin I don't like graphics either. Just so long as the gameplay is there, I'm not down on those who see graphics as the top either, as they generally can't help it, they were raised in a time of shiney things so it is natural for them to want more, of course some always want and strive for more.
I am always excited when a new engine is released, not for the graphical entity attatched to it, but for the range of options that are introduced, the new tools available for people to use to give them a chance at making something original, of course anyone who says anything bad about the little companies who can't afford to buy rights to use the new engines or who foolishly think all designers and developement teams can afford those rights,
well all i can say is, some of us have great ideas, but financial limitations. should we all be absorbed into the huge emotionless dying beasts of other corporations? NO!
I support those with fresh ideas no matter the limitations. for once they have the resources they can implement graphical greatness to their idea and make a reality of their dreams, everyone should have that option!
ONE thing to remember.
We are not cattle to be used for the purposes of the massive corporations. those small companies aren't as strong and they are groups of creative individuals. I say support those at the bottom, for they need it most.
First, the current lack of innovation is due to HIGH RISK, and not much else. When the budget for a project costs multi-millions, then risk increases so much that everyone is scared to death to do much innovating. Could two brothers hook up with some programmers and create a new genre game now (myst)? IF myst was going to cost 30 million to develop, then the answer is a flat NO. Graphics are visibly tangible and generally safe things to push to the max... that's why it's being done, i.e. it's a relatively low-risk area to put effort into, as opposed to some new and never before tried innovative gameplay idea. Eventually, someone will come up with a new innovative hit, and it will get copied 20 times for another 5 years.... but until then, it's such a big business, it's going to move slow.
Second, graphics includes a lot of aspects that I think get ignored. There is the modelling, the texture, and the consistency of the overall presentation. For example, to have a really high level of detail in the character and his clothing, running around on a poorly modelled world, walking along the meeting edge of two large polygons, is terrible imo. With that in mind, I thought wow "graphics" were better than eq2. Eq2 had great detail for some things, then I see this side of a building with no breaks, nothing but a big flat polygon with a texture slapped on it. Or I'm running along a hill top and go 40 feet along this perfectly straight joint between two huge triangles... It's INCONSISTENCY all over the place. The GOAL of graphics is to achieve a 'suspension of disbelief'. As long as game is consistent and interesting, with varying and interesting modelling, styles, and colors, then one 'believes' they are there, and that's the whole goal of graphics imo. WoW did a phenomenal job with that... realism is not the goal, but believability is.
Finally, I'm definately a graphics whore; push it to the limit. Software and hardware each push the other. That keeps me upgrading my system, pushing my 179 deduction to the limit every year.... Of course I long for innovation, but I dont' see the graphics push as a replacement for that, it's just the least risky aspect to work on in a very risky business... so keep pushing it devs. (just be bold and do some new stuff too)
I AM A GRAPHICS WHORE AND DARNED PROUD OF IT!!!!
In all honestly, I don't believe game devs should rely solely on the graphics. Game mechanics and the overall plot of the game are just as important. But I don't think a game should be knocked just because it's pretty either. I like pretty games. Pretty games add to my enjoyment of the game. Whereas, crappy game mechanics can suck the life out of even the prettiest game. But you add crappy game mechanics to crappy graphics and it becomes a blackhole (the hell-place in the movie Event Horizon), no one wants to visit...ewww (my least favorite game ever...RYL). I've enjoyed 2-D games just as much as 3-D games.