The "shinny" factor...

[unmerged(76922)]

With everything that has gone on with the launch, this seems a reasonably place/time to toss out this discussion:

Games keep pushing graphics further and further, more detail, more colors, pretty, and all around more shinny. On one hand, I can understand wanting something to be pretty and to take advantage of the ever increasing power of systems/platforms.

BUT...

Speaking personally for myself, I've played every game (yes, literally every game) I've ever owned on the minimum graphic's setting. Because, frankly, I just don't care all that much about pretty. I want a good game, one that has fun/addictive gameplay that catches and keeps my interest. Pretty pictures won't/can't do that -- only the game behind those pictures can. They can, however, slow down a game, eat up processing power, and also development funds.

Which brings us to things like SOTS2 right now. Speaking for myself, I would not have had the even the slightest issue with SOTS2 using graphics no better/more advanced then SOTS1. SOTS1 graphics are perfectly good enough for me, even when playing on minimum settings, when I play SOTS1 after all. So I find myself looking at SOTS2, which is gorgeous visually, but non-functional as an actual game (and yes, for me its not 'buggy' or 'lacking in polish' or 'crashing' -- its true non-functional. Can't get out of the opening menus to start playing AT ALL. I'm waiting patiently, I'll give 'em a shot. Still annoying. Anywho...)

And so I find myself wondering -- if Kerebos had ripped the graphics from 1, spent minimal time and effort on adapting them for 2, then devoted the time/budget spent on 'pretty' towards 'functional' instead, would we have a 'okay-looking great game' instead of the 'gorgeous but completely broken game' we have received? Cuz I gotta tell you, I know which one of those I would pick every single day of the week, and twice on sunday.

Anyone else feel much the same with me? Or feel the complete opposite, that graphics are the key to a good game? Or lie somewhere in between?

 

[unmerged(255320)]

I think you mean "Shiny". Not to be a grammar nazi, but it's not good to have a typo in the title of a thread.

As for topic, I always considered gameplay > graphics, however there are some games that i simply loved before that I can't play any more because after years of being spoiled with fancy graphics, those old games look horrible to me.

 

[s1234567890m]

People prefer better graphics

 

[unmerged(76922)]

I think you mean "Shiny". Not to be a grammar nazi, but it's not good to have a typo in the title of a thread.

As for topic, I always considered gameplay > graphics, however there are some games that i simply loved before that I can't play any more because after years of being spoiled with fancy graphics, those old games look horrible to me.

I do indeed mean shiny, but since (to the best of my knowledge) I can't edit thread titles... *shrug*

And yeah, there are a few games that are at that level for me too, but we are talking like late 80s, early 90s original super mario brothers or worse level graphics. Not anything produced in MANY years. And heck, there are even a few games from that era that I still enjoy popping out once in a while.

People prefer better graphics

I'm part of "people" too. And I don't, not if given the choice between graphics and game/performance. You are making a really broad statement with nothing to back it up.

 

[Mivo]

Well, you assume that the reason for the game's release state is that a large portion of the budget may have been spent on graphics, and if that had not been done, there would be no issues. I don't believe this is the case, so the question is very hypothetical and a little baseless. I don't feel that proper code and stunning visuals need to be mutually exclusive.

 

[s1234567890m]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?562708-Why-do-people-need-good-graphics
that and battlefield 3

 

[stryhf]

4x game players, the primary niche for this game prefer gameplay over graphics.

What I don't understand with SoTS2 is they took all the common criticism for SoTS and threw it out the window to push ahead with new ideas. The problem isn't only the "shiny" eye candy factor for the game, it's also the "shiny" feature bloat from the game designers.

Compare 1 vs 2 in the ship design editor. Original game provides a function component in the lower left hand area and then majority of the screen presents the ship graphically with helpful via the (I) diagram explainations. The new system loses the functional component for pure eye candy. This is horrid HCI (Human Computer Interaction). You can look no further than your smart phone to see why this is a horrible design decision.

Next take the combat engine, barring the graphical rendering, the UI component is yet another horrid design and shows the least polish of the game. Here it's obvious what wasn't completed due to time constraints.

The main strategy window interface is barren and requiring "too many clicks" to get to the details, and none of them are intuitive. One of the complaints of SoTS1 was lack of useful details "at a glance" and what did they do, obfuscate it even further. The design decision should have been use proper icons or other signifiers to denote data that could be further drilled down.

I understand their intention is not have another spreadsheet game, but quite honestly an Excel spreadsheet is easier to use.

 

[Davor]

I don't think the graphics in SotS II are really that good. SotS I seems so much smoother, and better. I don't know, I just do not like the graphics in SotS II yet. Guess I will get use to it.

As for a game where graphics were more important than over game play, look no further than Civ V. Too much hype was on how "purty" it is. Yes it looks good (that is if you are zoomed out, once zoomed in all the way, it's ugly worse than Civ IV graphics) and game play was very very bland.

Right now, I do not really see the good graphics in SotS II yet. SotS I, Masters of Orion 2, so far seem better to me. Here is hoping the fixes come in and my opnion will change then.

 

[unmerged(188007)]

Well, you assume that the reason for the game's release state is that a large portion of the budget may have been spent on graphics, and if that had not been done, there would be no issues. I don't believe this is the case, so the question is very hypothetical and a little baseless. I don't feel that proper code and stunning visuals need to be mutually exclusive.

I agree with this. For all my anger to the state and misinformation of this launch, I don't think improved graphics engine had anything to do with it.

And, also, better graphics is not something simply to scoff at. Seeing the ships I designed in great detail, and laying into enemy ships with the weapons I researched... this is a great source of enjoyment as the game goes. Of the few things working with SotS2, I can honestly say the ship designs and special effects have impressed me, although the Depth of Field is a bit extreme...

 

[Sunfighter]

graphics are just one of the various things people expect to improve with each version of a game. I thought this was originally going to be a complaint about the glare that you can get off some of the ships lol.

 

[unmerged(76922)]

I'm not assuming anything (which would require me to believe this to be the case), just wondering and making a comment on the industry in general. And while I agree that while the two aren't mutually exclusive, in a case like this where we got one but not the other (and this isn't the only time I've seen such) I always wonder if shifting the focus a bit more off pretty would have resulted in a better overall game by freeing up that budget/those programmers. Don't know that that is the case here, or anywhere, but its certainly something I think about.

 

[s1234567890m]

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics

Before a flame war over graphics etc....

They are pretentitious and annoying especially when they think that games should make us a better person, but they occasionally make a good point

 

[unmerged(76922)]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?562708-Why-do-people-need-good-graphics
that and battlefield 3

So as proof of the statement that "people prefer better graphics" you link a thread where every single comment (at least that I caught in my quick skim) on the issue states that they personally prefer game play over graphics? I gotta argue with you more often, this is too easy.

 

[stryhf]

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/graphics-vs.-aesthetics

Before a flame war over graphics etc....

They are pretentitious and annoying especially when they think that games should make us a better person, but they occasionally make a good point

This hits the nail on the head. SoTS2 is superficially gorgeous, like a trophy wife.

 

[Sunfighter]

How do you guys know that the graphics caused the rest of the game to suck though? Maybe the graphic/model guy just did his job well and since he wasnt a coder...well everybody else just dropped the ball? You seem to be blaming the graphics for the reason the game sucks...and well...it sucks cause its not complete...

 

[unmerged(76922)]

How do you guys know that the graphics caused the rest of the game to suck though? Maybe the graphic/model guy just did his job well and since he wasnt a coder...well everybody else just dropped the ball? You seem to be blaming the graphics for the reason the game sucks...and well...it sucks cause its not complete...

Not exact the point. I'm not saying the game is in poor shape because too much was spent on graphics, I'm wonders that if there wasn't the budget/time to get the functionality of the game there, could that issue have been addressed in part or in whole by shifting resources away from the graphics. The difference between those may be a bit subtle, but its there.

 

[stryhf]

How do you guys know that the graphics caused the rest of the game to suck though? Maybe the graphic/model guy just did his job well and since he wasnt a coder...well everybody else just dropped the ball? You seem to be blaming the graphics for the reason the game sucks...and well...it sucks cause its not complete...

They changed the game engine, and everything seems to be built on top of this game engine. The parts that interface with the ship rendering element, namely the ship designer and tactical combat environment are the least finished. There is a correlation here.

 

[kdonovan]

I'm not assuming anything (which would require me to believe this to be the case), just wondering and making a comment on the industry in general. And while I agree that while the two aren't mutually exclusive, in a case like this where we got one but not the other (and this isn't the only time I've seen such) I always wonder if shifting the focus a bit more off pretty would have resulted in a better overall game by freeing up that budget/those programmers. Don't know that that is the case here, or anywhere, but its certainly something I think about.

I wonder if the new engine (MARS2) and graphics were what they used to lure in the investors. Would they have pumped the money into development without new graphics?

Perhaps the problem was trying to do everything at once. New graphics, engine, combat damage system, systems with multiple planets, new diplomacy, government, economy, prototyping, feasibility studies, psionics, new strategic mission system, station w/modules, admirals, battle riders, etc., etc., etc. There were just so many things that all had to work, and then be integrated together into a coherent whole for release.

Instead of going for a relaunch of the whole franchise in SotS II they could have chosen a few bits and put out an expansion, then add a few more the next time etc. For example if they had just upgraded the tactical game and tactical graphics with Mars2 and maybe a couple of new techs they would have had a great reception, then they could have added a few more features the next time. Trying to reinvent everything at once seemed to be beyond their project management capability.

 

[CrazyElf]

People ... you can't just change a game engine out of the blue with an expansion. It doesn't work that way. It is possible to make improvements in the graphics, but not on the scale that some posters above have implied.

I think that the OP is convinced somehow that good graphics and good gameplay are mutually exclusive. Graphics are done by the art department mainly while the actual engine is done by the programmers, and UI done by the UI designers, etc. Now obviously when everything is integrated together, there is a lot of interaction, but I maintain that it is possible to have both good graphics and good game play ... in fact it is one of the hallmarks of a good game.

That said, in this game, the UI has been poorly implemented, needing too many clicks. I also wonder if there are added layers of unneeded complexity, such as the invoice system.

 

[Archonsod]

Perhaps the problem was trying to do everything at once. New graphics, engine, combat damage system, systems with multiple planets, new diplomacy, government, economy, prototyping, feasibility studies, psionics, new strategic mission system, station w/modules, admirals, battle riders, etc., etc., etc. There were just so many things that all had to work, and then be integrated together into a coherent whole for release.

Nope. The Mars engine had to be rebuilt to support the new combat model. Graphics doesn't actually alter that at all; 99% of the additional work to support it is placed on the art team rather than the coders (in fact since they're now using DX10 it's probably even less work for the coders, given the horrendous bloat of DX9), and if the art team had problems finishing in time it would be somewhat noticeable.
Most of what it's lacking is simply polish, which is generally left until last anyway for obvious reasons. In that sense, it only matters insofar as you could possibly argue they spent far too much time actually writing the game and didn't leave enough left to pretty it up, but then if they'd just released SotS prime with better graphics they'd have gotten just as many complaints.