210 réponses à ce sujet

[Tsuga C]

Snoteye wrote...

Tsuga C wrote...

The only gameplay improvement that more sophisticated graphics would provide to the NWN1 system would be an upgrade from 2D/3D to true 3D.

How would that be an improvement?

When your nimble rogue can't hop over a 1m split rail fence or a team of archers cannot use a bridge for a sniping platform under which the protagonists must pass to get to their objective, it limits the potential tactical situations the players must overcome.  More topographic flexibility is generally a good thing.

[Snoteye]

Oh, you mean z-axis movement? I agree with that. I thought you meant stereoscopy or Minority Report-like interfaces.

[In Exile]

Tsuga C wrote...
When your nimble rogue can't hop over a 1m split rail fence or a team of archers cannot use a bridge for a sniping platform under which the protagonists must pass to get to their objective, it limits the potential tactical situations the players must overcome.  More topographic flexibility is generally a good thing.

RPGs will not properly involve the environment in tactical combat until they completely abandon the D&D framework that they've inherited. The only way to make the environment important to combat is to abandon stat-based combat encounters almost entirely.

[danielkx]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

You can certainly divide them intellectually. Say that this belongs in this area etc. But that's not how you actually view a medium. Think about how you relate to people. You can say after the fact that you liked how they looked or their personality, but each element has a profound effect on the other. Your initial impressions of how they look will be a part of the way you interact and therefor the impression you are given of their personality. Symbolism, body language, facial expressions, these are really important elements of the way in which visual mediums tell us stories, and while you can detach them after the fact, that's not how it works when you're actively engaged in them. Can you do these things with "bad" graphics? Sure, but it doesn't mean you should.

Again, having nice graphics is a preference but not at the expense of the other aspects of the game that I have mentioned.

Indeed, but all I'm saying is that I'm not sure that initial figure is arbitrary. I understand your point and the reasoning behind it, I'm just not sure it accurately represents what actually happens. Businesses are more complex than that.

Developing a game based on a budget is not that complex of a concept. You have X amount of money to spend developing the game. You must then prioritize each aspect of development so you can distribute the money accordingly. If you do not prioritize then the development will be extremely sloppy and the game will almost never get done, or the game will be released and it will not be anywhere near as good as it could have been.

This is a very simple concept, do not overcomplicate it. If you want to make the game look great then you will have to spend the extra money to do so. If the developer/publisher is unwilling to increase the budget anymore than it is at, then you are spending a higher dollar amount on graphics which eats away at the overall budget. Thus, your budget is now lower due to an increase in spending on graphics which means you will have less money for everything else.

Conversely if you spend less money on graphics, you have more to spend on everything else. Again, this is a very simple concept and is not nearly as complex as you are trying to imagine it to be. This does not mean game development is extremely simple, it just means budgeting is not as complex as you think (although that doesn't mean it is easy to do).

Modifié par danielkx, 05 décembre 2010 - 11:23 .

[In Exile]

danielkx wrote...
Developing a game based on a budget is not that complex of a concept. You have X amount of money to spend developing the game. You must then prioritize each aspect of development so you can distribute the money accordingly. If you do not prioritize then the development will be extremely sloppy and the game will almost never get done, or the game will be released and it will not be anywhere near as good as it could have been.

Features don't work on a 1:1 investment scale. There are diminishing returns. Putting in 50% of your budget into story and 10% into graphics might not net you a much better story (for most consumers) than putting in 40% of your budget into story, but that 20% into graphics might bring in a whole new crowd.

[danielkx]

In Exile wrote...

danielkx wrote...
Developing a game based on a budget is not that complex of a concept. You have X amount of money to spend developing the game. You must then prioritize each aspect of development so you can distribute the money accordingly. If you do not prioritize then the development will be extremely sloppy and the game will almost never get done, or the game will be released and it will not be anywhere near as good as it could have been.

Features don't work on a 1:1 investment scale. There are diminishing returns. Putting in 50% of your budget into story and 10% into graphics might not net you a much better story (for most consumers) than putting in 40% of your budget into story, but that 20% into graphics might bring in a whole new crowd.

But the discussion wasn't about what will net you the biggest profit, the discussion was about the effect graphics has on the rest of the game and in terms of quality of the game, whether or not graphics should be a focal point of an rpg like DA:O/DA2.

My stance has been that graphics plays a much lessor role in quality of the game. It is an undeniable fact that it is easier to sell a game with gorgeous visuals but weaker gameplay and writing versus a game with average visuals and great writing and gameplay. That does not necessarily mean that the latter couldn't sell as much as the former, but it is not as easy to do so since it is difficult to market high quality writing and gameplay to the mass audience since the majority of gamers do not visit these forums nor do they go on websites and watch lengthy video presentations of a game.

[Ziggeh]

danielkx wrote...

This is a very simple concept, do not overcomplicate it.

It's really not. If the elements were quantifiable in terms of money, and that money was decided on without consideration of what those elements involved it would be very straightforward, but unless they're managed by some very, very strange people, neither of those facts is true.

Not that this really makes a difference to either of our points. I just dislike that line of debate.

danielkx wrote...

But the discussion wasn't about what will net you the biggest profit, the discussion was about the effect graphics has on the rest of the game and in terms of quality of the game, whether or not graphics should be a focal point of an rpg like DA:O/DA2.

No one's said that graphics should be a focal point. Merely that they shouldn't be overlooked.

danielkx wrote...
My stance has been that graphics plays a much lessor role in quality of the game. It is an undeniable fact that it is easier to sell a game with gorgeous visuals

It would probably also be remiss to overlook the fact that the initial budget is presumably based upon projected sales, and that graphics will effect that projection.

What is it with this forum and pasted text?

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 06 décembre 2010 - 12:57 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

People complained that Mass Effect would be a horrible game

And they were right.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 06 décembre 2010 - 01:01 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

RPGs will not properly involve the environment in tactical combat until they completely abandon the D&D framework that they've inherited. The only way to make the environment important to combat is to abandon stat-based combat encounters almost entirely.

That's nonsense.  Tabletop D&D (expecially the older editions) allowed extensive use of the environment in combat.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

People complained that Mass Effect would be a horrible game

And they were right.

Depends why they were complaining and if they on an individual level ended up feeling the same way you did.  Don't speak for the accuracy of their predictions as it applies to their ultimate evaluation of their experience with the game.

[shamgar00]

I am more concerned with the difficulty of installing DLC on the PC. Dragon Are Origins had the worst clusterf*ck of a DLC system I could possibly imagine. If you disagree, I challenge you to reformat your PC and reinstall Dragon Age on windows 7. I literally cannot get the DLC installed properly. Its stupid, and I am considering not buying the next game until I can get everything bundled in a disk. This was the exact reason everyone was upset when EA bought bioware.