Re: Fate: How can they get away with it?

Gerry Quinn <gerryq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>In article <31j6g1t974nk4o3d5pntpoips3rns64ej4@xxxxxxx>,
>Xocyll@xxxxxxxxxxxx says...
>> Gerry Quinn <gerryq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> looked up from reading the
>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
>> say:
>
>> >And I would hardly call the creation of detailed animated graphics,
>> >compared to throwing a few letters and dots on the screen, to be a
>> >superficial difference anyway.
>>
>> But really it is.
>>
>> You, represented by your letter, icon, sprite or 3d multi-thousand
>> polygon figure, attack the monster that is likewise represented.
>>
>> The underlying mechanics are basically the same.
>
>It's like saying that a stick figure with a weird smile is basically
>the same as the Mona Lisa.

Nice try, but since the Mona Lisa is art and NOTHING else, while a game
is a lot more than just the artwork this nothing but a strawman.

Now if you wanted to compare it to something similar you could try a
pre-printed mass market version of Monopoly, vs a homemade copy created
by 8year olds with crayons that is the equivalent of the "stick figure
with a wierd smile" you'd have a somewhat legitimate comparison.
The gameplay would be identical, even though the graphical content would
be Massively different.

Hell you could create a full 3d version of Monopoly in which you drove,
wheelbarrowed, dogwalked/whatevered around the block; got hauled off to
a full 3d prison, had weather effects and the whole shebang.

But in the final analysis, it's still the same game as the tabletop
boardgame - even the kid made version.
Park Place is Park Place, whether pre-printed, crayon drawn or a 10,000
polygon 3d skyscraper.


>> Does it really matter if the magic missile you shoot is represented as a
>> "/" as it shoots northeast of you or is a fantastically animated, light
>> casting, extravaganza; when in the final analysis, it's you causing 1d4
>> points of damage to the critter with a spell?
>
>Real-time and restricted views make a huge difference even in your
>terms. But yes, it matters - otherwise why not play a game in which
>you start with 100 points and win if you're still alive after
>subtracting 40d4? After all, there are no critters, really. Why not
>call the monster "Spread*** Row 30" with normal attack behaviour and
>2d3 damage?

Oh you mean like those old favorites like Civilization or Master of
Magic, where a unit is nothing but a tile with stats?

>> The only real thing that increasing graphics have done is _seriously_
>> limit the scope of the games.
>>
>> Diablo may look nicer, but it's a tiny fraction of a Rogue-alike.
>
>This is the sort of bias I am objecting to - a grotesque overvaluation
>of the advantages of a niche genre, combined with completely ignoring
>the advantages of others.

Have you ever actually played one?

This is in no way an overvaluation, a lot of the old text/ANSI games are
HUGE and contain very complex gameplay.
Why? Because at the time most of them were created you couldn't even do
Diablo style graphics, so without REAL GAMEPLAY you'd have had nothing
left at all.
Diablo coasts in comparison because it has eye candy.

>> Take Diablo2.
>> With it's graphic engine and layout, it would have to be something like
>> 20 times bigger to encompass everything that's in Omega.
>> [Not to mention have a lot of code changes to take into account
>> modifying items, getting blessed/cursed by gods, genocide scrolls,
>> etc,etc,etc.]
>>
>> Diablo2 is a nice-looking simple gamer, Omega is a VASTLY bigger and
>> more complicated game but with only simple ANSI graphics.
>
>It's also unfinished, unbalanced, and ugly.

Have you ever even looked at Omega?

I'm guessing not, since I finished the game, not once but multiple
times, yet you claim it's unfinished.

What you don't seem to get (or refuse to get) is that when you don't
have pretty graphics, you MUST have good gameplay and complexities
because you have nothing else.
One paragraph can describe a room that might take a good graphic artist
several months to create.

The focus on eye-candy has caused a diminishment in game complexity, if
for no other reason than they don't have the time and budget to do both,
and they know a good chunk of the gamer market only care about pretty
graphics.

How many times have you seen someone whine about a game in this group
and say something like "this game sucks, the graphics look two years
old" or "it looks like it was made in 1998"?
As that had anything at all to do with the gameplay.


Graphics are only part of a game, but you're treating it like it's the
only part that's important.
You can have a good game with cruddy graphics, but go the other way with
no gameplay and great graphics and you have an "Aquanox".

Aquanox had much better graphics than Archimidean Dynasty, but would
ANYONE say it was a better game?

On another note - I still install and play System Shock 2 from time to
time. While it's graphics are pretty weak compared to newer games, it
has gameplay that they just don't have.

I really don't want "dumb blonde" games that are all look and no
substance.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
.