Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Interested in a FREE copy of HTML5 game maker Construct 2?

We'll be giving away three Personal Edition licences in next Tuesday's GDNet Direct email newsletter!

Sign up from the right-hand sidebar on our homepage and read Tuesday's newsletter for details!


We're also offering banner ads on our site from just $5! 1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


Realistic games? Waste of time.


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
31 replies to this topic

#21 CGameProgrammer   Members   -  Reputation: 640

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 03 March 2000 - 05:48 PM

The technology to create a 3D cartoon game basically exists now. Just write a polygon renderer that draws the models fully lit, and draws a black outline around the model, and around the edges of polygons that have sharp angles (like the chin, arms, etc.).

Also, about graphics vs gameplay, it basically depends on the genre. Action games get greatly enhanced by good graphics. RPGs do to some extent. Adventure games do not. I base this on my experience with several adventure games, including most of the original Sierra adventures using the SCI (Sierra Creative Interpreter, the game creation system) that King''s Quest, Space Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, and Police Quest were programmed with. Those are the most fun adventures I''ve ever played. The most recent adventure I played was Twinsen''s Oddysey, a 3D adventure with beautiful graphics. It was well done, but not nearly as fun.

~CGameProgrammer( );



Sponsor:

#22 dog135   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 07 March 2000 - 08:55 AM

I''ve seen those (generated cartoons) and they suck. They''re still limited to the 3D object (can''t do Bart or Lisa''s hair) and the edges are jaged. Not to mention they need a very fast computer to use.

My favorate games are ones where the world they exist in just couldn''t exist in real life. With high-powered spring boards, floating "islands", portals, etc. It''s fun doing something that you just can''t do normaly.

I agree with the computer requirements bit. My computer at home is a 200Mhz 603 with 48Megs ram and no graphics card (besides the one built into the motherboard) so I''m programming to that. But I plan on adding options to change the level of detail that''s drawn just in case you have a 500Mhz G4 or an 800Mhz P4.

E:cb woof!

#23 Mezz   Members   -  Reputation: 570

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 07 March 2000 - 09:29 AM

Geez,
It is true that graphics do play a fairly substantial part in games today, the main reason being that almost always the first thing a person will see of a game is a screenshot.
Now, if that screenshot looks bad, they will most likely think "Oh that doesn''t look very good" and pay little or no more attention to that given game. Also, if a friend asks about that such game, the person will probably say "Yeah, I saw a screenshot, it looks crap".
Bang goes some sales.
That said, graphics have to fit the enviroment and type of game - I mean there would be no point nowadays doing a 2d flight simulator, it just wouldn''t work.

I hope I''ve made a few valid points, and not offended anyone.

Take it easy,

-Mezz

#24 Spellbound   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 07 March 2000 - 10:34 AM

"2D flight simulator", now there''s a thought

#25 Agent1   Members   -  Reputation: 130

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 07 March 2000 - 11:24 AM

Well, if the games aren''t full of semi-realistic graphics right now, people just say "That sucks!" and dismiss it. The games of today don''t need as much of a story if they are full of great graphics. Now, I think we should take advantage of the technology we have, but we shouldn''t lose focus on the story.


----WARNING I AM GOING TO TALK LIKE I AM OLDER THAN I REALLY AM-----

I remember a few years ago a game series called "Space Quest" (Produced/made/whatever by Sierra). This series was one of the greatest things that ever happened to me. I didn''t care that the game was a little old (for it''s time too). It was funny. I bought the rest of the series last year and loved playing the rest. It''s too bad that the series was so rudely interrupted where it was.

So... this brings us back to the present. Without getting into the details, I would like to say that a few of us Space Quest fans got together and have started making a game (a little over a year ago :D).

I wish that we could have a few more games that had the story as the main purchasing point, instead of "OH MAN! THAT''S GOT SWEET GRAPHICS! I WANT IT!!"


Well, I hope my first ranting went alright



#26 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 07 March 2000 - 04:58 PM

Even though you brought up an interesting question, I think you may have missed out on what it means to be capable of creating realistic graphics:

YOU CAN MAKE THE UNREALISTIC REALISTIC.

What I mean is, that if you are able to create games that look realistic, then that means you can make REALISTIC "imaginary" worlds. By making things more realistic you make it more believable, but that doesn''t mean you make it "Earthly", if you know what i mean. Suppose now that you''re playing a single player First Person Shooter set in an Alien world. How cool would be it be to make the world so.. believable ? By putting little details, using higher resolutions and curved surfaces, etc, you''re making that alien world REALISTIC.

I hope that I can contribute this idea to the discussion, I think it''s important to make that distinction: that realistic doesn''t mean "ordinary"

Best regards,
Riz

#27 Anonymous Poster_Anonymous Poster_*   Guests   -  Reputation:

Likes

Posted 07 March 2000 - 05:00 PM

Even though you brought up an interesting question, I think you may have missed out on what it means to be capable of creating realistic graphics:

YOU CAN MAKE THE UNREALISTIC REALISTIC.

What I mean is, that if you are able to create games that look realistic, then that means you can make REALISTIC "imaginary" worlds. By making things more realistic you make it more believable, but that doesn''t mean you make it "Earthly", if you know what i mean. Suppose now that you''re playing a single player First Person Shooter set in an Alien world. How cool would be it be to make the world so.. believable ? By putting little details, using higher resolutions and curved surfaces, etc, you''re making that alien world REALISTIC.

I hope that I can contribute this idea to the discussion, I think it''s important to make that distinction: that realistic doesn''t mean "ordinary"

Best regards,
Riz

#28 Painless   Members   -  Reputation: 126

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 11 March 2000 - 08:10 AM

IMO, graphics can''t be very "believable" or "realistic" when we''re restricted to viewing them on a monitor. The monitor is flat; it can''t give a good sense of 3D for still pictures. 3D glasses might solve the issue, but unfortunately all attempts of making 3D glasses for games have been horrible instruments of torture that cause headaches.. and don''t work. It is strange that 3D sound has gotten far ahead of graphics in realism.

#29 dog135   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 13 March 2000 - 06:41 AM

and yet... people still watch TV.

E:cb woof!

#30 Project2501   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 13 March 2000 - 07:40 AM

I think the key here is 'Suspension of Disbelief' and finding the best common denominator between the games design and the players use of that game.

I'm desinging a game right now and it's a struggle to find the appropriate balance. Right off the bat, the more streamlined in-game features that I can provide to the player the better. This way, the game is as intuitive as it can be right out of the box. There is less for the player to learn if I use an environment that is already common. So, trying to mimick realistic graphics is an automatic plus. Ofcourse, the game genre and goals of design are primary factors in choosing the graphical environment...

I hope this perspective helps your thought process.

-nathan

Edited by - Project2501 on 3/13/00 1:43:37 PM

#31 SonicSilcion   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 13 March 2000 - 08:01 AM

I saw this over at OpenGL.org a few days ago:
[ http://www.ramartworks.com/ibr/index.html ]
Sounds pretty interesting and *cough cough* fairly easy to implement. So, would you bother with highly realistic graphics if you didn''t have to pull your hair out?
. Okay a little off subject -> Just got Final Fantasy VIII (8) PC for my birthday. I tried it out almost immediately. Was a bit scoffed that my G400, though compatible, couldn''t put 5 fps out during battles. Still, I have to admire how fluidly the game changes between pre-rendered and on-the-fly graphics.
. I''m not trying to praise Square, but I''d like to point out that the flow of the game [storyline, music, graphics, EVERYTHING] is far more essential to the continued suspension of disbelief than pretty polys. I''ve played games with cruddy graphics and good flow and others with pretty graphics and bad flow. Give me fluidity any day!

#32 vallis   Members   -  Reputation: 122

Like
Likes
Like

Posted 13 March 2000 - 08:25 AM

OK - I see the point of the original post however I find the most important single point about a game is that it immerses you in its gameplay. This can be done in three main ways:

* Realistic graphics.
* Brilliant gameplay.
* Brilliant atmosphere.

If the graphics are extrelely realistic then there is a much greater chance of the player becoming immersed in the game. For example in Half-Life, the graphics engine itself whilst not breathtaking, is very fluid and contains a lot of locations that are very bleivable in the given context.

If the gameplay is very good, a player can sit and play for hours without even realising what he/she is doing. Take Tetris or the older games such as Pac Man and Galaxian.

Brilliant atmosphere can make a game become more important than the players real life if there is enough of it. I remember when I first played UFO:Enemy Unknown. My body stopped responding to external stimulai Its the same think with Half-Life and Civilization. The game makes you care so much or has such a brilliant storyline that it dosn''t need good graphics anymore.


So far in the history of computer games, most games have relied on just one of the above points to make the game successful. It either had good graphics and no gameplay or rubbish graphics and great atmosphere or whatever.

In recent years, games have just started to cross the boundary and now two of the above elements are being met. Games such as Half Life have got great graphics and stmosphere. However, in my opinion, no game has ever managed to fulfill all three elements. Half Life for example, had basic gameplay once you take away all of the other layers. It was just a Quake clone with great atmosphere and graphics.

I that the way we should be heading is to fulfill all three of the above elements in one game

/me hands everyone two cents




Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS