• Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Do you play games for the look or game play? I think most play if for the look.

This topic is 5555 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

If a game like Rastan or Sonic never were given that look but the background was pink hills and you take on cupcakes that walk and you control a girl that slaps the enemy aside would you say its a good game even though all the sprites were changed? LOL Designing a game also relies on the look and feel than just the game play because no one wants to play games if every game had Barbie as the star of every game lol. What if you edit the game Rastan and replace him with a ninja and have the art environment look like Japan? Would both games sell to the same people that bought Rastan? Nintendo did that with super Mario 2 since it was originally another game and all they did were edit the sprites and all it Mario. Funny how the game sells when a major company clones a game from an unknown and everyone buys it and the other game is unknown. I don’t know the name of the other game also I read it on a article about Nintendo site how they edited the game from another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
I still play Mario for the NES, I hated halo, but love playing Wolf3d. I''d say I go for the gameplay.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"OH GOD! I JUST HIT ON A MODERATOR!"
- Me, after hitting on a moderator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The creators of Jak and Daxter spent something like 6 months designing the Jak and Daxter characters. They spent all that time trying out ideas and tweaking things about how they looked and acted. All of that work so that they could create a look and feel that would appeal to a mass audience. So I think it''s very important in the industry, regardless of what I personally think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they don´t call it "look and feel" for no reason... "feel" alone is not enough, the visuals are important for every game. gameplay comes from a variety of factors, look is definitely included.
great graphics can´t make a game, but bad visuals can ruin an otherwise good game.

So I think your question can´t be answered. A game cannot be played solely for the look, and gameplay is too reliant on visuals to be completely detached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends a lot on the game - a mindless FPS, I choose between games based primarily on the "style" elements of the game - high quality graphics are an essential part of the genre. On the other hand, the gameplay in a basic FPS is pretty much standard across the range, so choosing between them, gameplay is not really a factor.

On the other hand, for RTS games, I''m a lot more interested in how the game plays than whether I can pick out details of a guard''s uniform on the far side of the level.

A fair number of games, though, I play primarily for the plot (adventure games/RPGs)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Warsong
Nintendo did that with super Mario 2 since it was originally another game and all they did were edit the sprites and all it Mario.


You may want to note that many games get pirated (as opposed to legaly cloned) and have the sprites replaced and sold as a new game. There is a chance that the game you have is not mario 2 but a pirate of another game tradeing off the Mario name. I suspect this is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Andrew Russell
You may want to note that many games get pirated (as opposed to legaly cloned) and have the sprites replaced and sold as a new game. There is a chance that the game you have is not mario 2 but a pirate of another game tradeing off the Mario name. I suspect this is the case.



The Japanese Super Mario 2 is included in Super Mario All-Stars (SNES game) as The Lost Levels. The US and European Super Mario 2 was a remake of a little known Japanese game (I think it was called "Doki Doki Panic" or something).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Easyrider knows about it. Also everyone has a point.
But you have to agree that some games that have a silly feel to them like pokemon gets played a lot because of the game play than the 5 year old appealing characters. I think some desperately want to play some good game play and resort to that.

Also some play a bad designed game only for the main characters, for instance games that were originally movies or TV shows.

The brand names bring the people in but the game makes them play longer. Their needs to be a balance but doesn’t have to be state of the art looks but decent to be playable because I don’t want to play a game that has Atari graphics but a 16 bit look is decent.

And no I don’t play or watch pokemon. I don’t want to catch them all but take them all out. Maybe a game that goes against other brand name characters lol. Maybe take Megaman to suck up every ones power to be a super Megaman. LOL sorry for the rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gameplay is KEY when playing a game, graphics are just a bonus. I really disliked the gameplay in Mario 2 but loved it in Mario 1. In my opinion, the graphics in Mario 2 were WAY better than Mario 1.

- Rob Loach
OverTech Technologies
__________________________
"I don''t know half of you half as well as I should like; And I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
- Bilbo Baggins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just another thought....

What about games like FF7? The graphics in that are terrible (in my opinion), and the gameplay in it was pretty bad too (in my opinion), but the game itself was great.

Is this due to the story, the content, characters, etc? or what?

- Rob Loach
OverTech Technologies
__________________________
"I don''t know half of you half as well as I should like; And I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
- Bilbo Baggins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Warsong, you''re idea of "look" isn''t the same as mine. When you mention Barbie being the heroine and frilly cupcakes flying around, I think of that as the content, having more to do with the universe the the game represents than with the graphics used to represent it.

I love Avara. It''s a 3D walker-type game with about 500 polygons in the whole thing. It''s a little bit more advanced than Spectre. Screenshots of this game look terrible, animation is ridiculuously simple, there isn''t a texture map in the entire thing, etc., etc., etc. It''s ugly. But it has decent network code, levels are often very clever and complex, and controls are just squirrely enough for me to blame them for my lack of judgement. I''ve lost track of the wasted hours that the game has caused me. So in that instance, I played for gameplay.

Donkey Kong Country, on the other hand, was a graphical showcase without a single innovative feature. I played that stinker for the graphics.

Tactics Ogre had neither impressive graphics nor a particularly thrillinng gameplay style, but I loved that game, too. I liked the character development feature, the individual growth and inventories, and the scope of play that allowed me to deviate wildly from the objective of the game and just adventure for my own amusement and enrichment. I played that game for content.

Different games are played for different reasons. I''ve been misled before, though. I bought Mission Impossible for the N64 because I was attracted to the content, but the gameplay and graphics sucked so hard that the story and characters (which were also a disappointment) couldn''t save it. The Turok games were pretty, but repetitive, and I started cheating my way through them almost as soon as I started playing, so I could see all the eye-candy without putting up with the other crap.

Games can be good or bad for a lot of different reasons. people with experience with video games (not an attribute to cite when picking up girls in bars) can usually discern what''s solid game and what''s fluff, and sometimes they like fluff. It''s all a matter of taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with the Iron Chef... the choice of having barbie, or a ninja for your lead character, is a gameplay choice - not look and feel. Look and feel is whether barbie is a pixelated bundle of mess, and ASCII ''B'' or a beautifully rendered 3D image.

Marketing also plays a huge role... the main thing with marketing, is that you need to market your strengths - so regardless of whether that is gameplay, content, look and feel, or just a well known license... you have plenty of options when making your games appealing to your target audiences.

Marketing and look and feel can get the players to play your game... good gameplay will keep them there and bring in more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah yeah I get what you mean but you kind of misunderstood in a way what I meant in some aspects it seems. I gave examples to explain. If you categorize it as something else then fine its not the exact phrase I said it to be but the concept I am referring to. Well like Iron Chef said “you''re idea of "look" isn''t the same as mine. When you mention Barbie being the heroine and frilly cupcakes flying around, I think of that as the content”. So lets then call it content.

If all 3d games has just a white polygon and no texture then would all be the same in a way? How about Taken 1,2, or 3 if all the characters were white would u still think Taken 2 and 3 are great.

Well back to “content” since what if Taken got Barbie texture maybe that would appeal to women and fighting games would target women mostly. Lets say the textures were of playboy playmates then the game would not be for kids but flying off the shelf for adults maybe. Or we change the textures to final fantasy characters and then you will see people that don’t like fighting games but final fantasy buy that fighting game since the characters that they love are in it. I never played a western fighting game so lets put cowboys and Indians as textures. It’s original but still the same game control and mechanics. I am not saying it will do well but it targets another audience.

I am talking about that aspect and not marketing, FX, or the rest. That is another topic. Let’s take one thing at a time and view it.

---------`
Rob Loach I see you didn’t get me as much. But ill answer your questions anyway. FF7 was new or the first RPG to have a 3D feel to it since it made you feel you were in the adventure. The box cover was a total rip off since they didn’t show one bit of the game play but the FMV and relied on people to but first without knowing about how the game will look. They do that so people will buy it and get their answer when playing the game. They want the person to get use to the game and like what they did for you to keep it. But most or all stores don’t take back the game so you are stuck with it and have been deceived. FFT was a better game and they showed you how the game would be on the box art since they know that game can sell on its own look. That’s all marketing.
Anyone hear of the saying if you are weak show that you are strong and if you are strong show that you are weak. Companies use something like that.

Well I said too much and if I write more now one will read. Trust me people I know what I’m talking about but I don’t know how to explain it the best. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I know what you''re getting at.

People who play video games are playing video games to escape the real world. As a result people are drawn to games, not by the intellectual stimulation or the nuances of the control system, but by the fantasy that it puts forth. Make a game in which weak little sissies can be big, badass superheroes, and they will buy it so that they can enjoy the fantasy. Make a game in which the hero gets lots of chicks, or which features sexual imagery, and the game will be popular among the people that harbor that fantasy.

However, you take that same code, all the same controls and level designs and hardware, and replace it with either

A) The white box, devoid of character and emotion, simply serving to provide a focus for the game, or

B) A less fantasy-fulfilling image, like being Barbie on a quest to get the prettiest hairstyle in the entire world,

and fantasy fails. As a result, the escapism is reduced, and can no longer compete with other forms of fantasy-fulfillment, like daydreaming, vigorous masturbation, or both at the same time.

It''s a perfectly valid point. Seriously, who here would have played Duke Nukem if the hero was totally silent and used reasonable levels of force? Nobody, that''s who. It''s a dumb, dumb game, and the only reason to play it is to hear the Duke say "It''s time to kick ass and chew bubblegum, and I''m all out of gum" while busting out a weapon so tremendously excessive that there''s no real application for it in the game, except to totally vaporize an enemy that would actually be easier to kill with a pistol.

Even with a pen & paper RPG, which has no "looks" at all, the game is based on transforming an otherwise unremarkable person into a superhuman paragon, in which all the right traits are maxxed out and there''s never a risk of acne, clumsiness or not getting picked for the basketball team. This is further supported by the fact that the more kids get picked on for playing D&D, the more fervently they play it, until a subculture forms.

So, in conclusion, Warsong may not have expressed his idea very effectively, but he has a good point in there someplace. We''ll play ugly games because they make us feel tough, or smart, or noble, and we''ll play stupid games because the 32x32 pixel hero is better looking than we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yep Iron Chef.

I think I found a simpler explanation that its like a skin in the way you select your win amp skin you have your game type skin. So if anyone caught on I was thinking of games having skins as selection. That will boost sales if you can select different skins for the game since the game would be fresh every time in some ways. If I don’t like the Teken characters I would like to select Japanese anime characters, or comic book characters, or select them to be movie figures like Jackie Chan vs. van dam, or download new skins form the net. Or have other games types be changed.

I am full of ideas but no physically resources to make them happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looks can be essential to the gameplay. In other words the two are tied together sothat if the looks aren''t at least immersive, then the gameplay suffers for it.

Many adventure games rely on stunning visuals to pull the player in and feel like he is a part of that world, or to make the world itself feel more real. Are looks the be all and end all? No, but gameplay should not ignore visuals either.

More important than just graphic eye-candy are the other elements of sensory stimuli. For example, part of the thing that was excellent about half-life was its incredible audio features. Freespace wouldn''t have been as cool without it''s cool soundtrack and audio effects. And a new aspect to visuals has come into play that is not purely eye-candy. It''s not awesome pre-pixel lighting like Doom3 or massive polygon counts like UT2k3. Instead it''s the absolutely stunning animation of Tron 2.0. I don''t know if you''ve seen the trailer for this game yet, but if the trailer is any indication of how the characters will move, it has added a level of realism that I believe surpasses either Doom 3 or UT2k3. It''s funny how something as innocuous as how people move may convey realism, but if you watch Tron 2.0 look at how fluidly and realistically the characters move. It''s as good as if not better than most CGI movies.

So I think that how the game world simulates our senses is not to be underlooked toally for gameplay. The two work hand in hand and compliment each other. It really depends on your resources...if you don''t have the time or manpower to devote to good sensory experiences, then work on the game background and the story and how the game works. If you do have the luxury, then don''t go overboard on storyline or character development or the tiny nuances of gameplay. Many of these things are more fun if there is an element of mystery for the player.

Balance Daniel-san, balance.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement