graphics or not
Moderators: jelco, bert_the_turtle, Chris, Icepick, Rkiver
-
- level0
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2002 9:27 pm
-
- level2
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2002 4:56 am
- Location: Mountain View, CA
Depends on the task and situation. For adventure games, for instance, text-only is often a pretty darn good medium; it completely dodges the "click everywhere to see what is important" paradigm, and more importantly it lets the imagination fill in the gaps.
For tactical combat games, however, a map is obviously nice. A rotatable map with support for transparent walls and obstacles is even better; that's one thing that irritated me in JA2 where you could easily find yourself unable to see into a room even where you're crouched in the doorway. _Syndicate Wars_, OTOH, did the rotations and transparencies far better (but the pacing, micromanagement, and sometimes sheer insanity left much to be desired... aigh!); it lacked only a pure overhead, blueprint-style view.
"Combat Mission" versus "Close Combat <x>" is another example of the utility of 3D. Both use terrain and, to some degree, elevations. In CM, however, it's a lot easier to *see* the elevation changes, because there are multiple camera views available, and one can even replace the textures to overlay a grid for greater clarity if desired. The zooms and camera freedom let you judge the situation from a single squad's perspective, or to eyeball the entire map from high altitude. CC, on the other hand, traditionally used a straight overhead view (only), and made it quite difficult to spot elevation changes, which is a severe drawback when being behind a ridge or being exposed can make the difference between, say, having a fully functional PzVG or having a smoldering wreck.
I don't really need eye candy. But where it helps functionality and game play, it's a Good Thing. Spatial systems need graphics much more than, say, Uplink.
For tactical combat games, however, a map is obviously nice. A rotatable map with support for transparent walls and obstacles is even better; that's one thing that irritated me in JA2 where you could easily find yourself unable to see into a room even where you're crouched in the doorway. _Syndicate Wars_, OTOH, did the rotations and transparencies far better (but the pacing, micromanagement, and sometimes sheer insanity left much to be desired... aigh!); it lacked only a pure overhead, blueprint-style view.
"Combat Mission" versus "Close Combat <x>" is another example of the utility of 3D. Both use terrain and, to some degree, elevations. In CM, however, it's a lot easier to *see* the elevation changes, because there are multiple camera views available, and one can even replace the textures to overlay a grid for greater clarity if desired. The zooms and camera freedom let you judge the situation from a single squad's perspective, or to eyeball the entire map from high altitude. CC, on the other hand, traditionally used a straight overhead view (only), and made it quite difficult to spot elevation changes, which is a severe drawback when being behind a ridge or being exposed can make the difference between, say, having a fully functional PzVG or having a smoldering wreck.
I don't really need eye candy. But where it helps functionality and game play, it's a Good Thing. Spatial systems need graphics much more than, say, Uplink.
"I tell you three times..."
-
- level0
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2002 10:20 pm
Graphics... hmm...
Graphics... well if you've ever bought a game because of the graphics you are stupid. I don't care what the graphics are like (eg. text/Raster/vector) as long as the gameplay is good. The most important thing, about graphics, is that they immerse you in the game, and make you forget you are playing a game. Quazzatron, Elite, Mario, Sonic, Doom, Half-life are just a few games that have used graphics this way. (In my opinion anyway)
Many games are 3D now and they don't need to be, but they wouldn't sell, because that is what the general public wants. Screenshots sell games.
Imagine Uplink in 3D, e.g. A 3D globe instead of a map. A 3D rendered picture of the gateways. I think that would ruin the illusion of hacking.
I got tonnes more to say on the matter if ya wanna e-mail me.
Graphics... well if you've ever bought a game because of the graphics you are stupid. I don't care what the graphics are like (eg. text/Raster/vector) as long as the gameplay is good. The most important thing, about graphics, is that they immerse you in the game, and make you forget you are playing a game. Quazzatron, Elite, Mario, Sonic, Doom, Half-life are just a few games that have used graphics this way. (In my opinion anyway)
Many games are 3D now and they don't need to be, but they wouldn't sell, because that is what the general public wants. Screenshots sell games.
Imagine Uplink in 3D, e.g. A 3D globe instead of a map. A 3D rendered picture of the gateways. I think that would ruin the illusion of hacking.
I got tonnes more to say on the matter if ya wanna e-mail me.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests