The Raven Comparision, Part 2

[Rancor]

Seeing as how the other thread has digressed entirely too far from the original topic...I thought I'd open up a new one and do it here since the topic I'm about to discuss really has nothing to do with JK2.

 

As per a quote from the original thread:

 

As for JK2 being compared to Unreal II? Well, it would be killed. Unreal II is FAR more capable than Q3 or Doom 3, IMHO.

 

Yeah, it probably will be killed in the visual dept., but I'm not too concerned about that...The point I'm more interested in is that we are in an unfortunate time in gaming because our expectation levels for game visuals are constantly being raised by videocard developers, game developers, and ultimately, our own demands.

 

I think this is ultimately a bad thing for us, even though we might not see that right now....

 

I've read tales of video card manufacturers ( Nvidia, ATI ) adding support for the latest features to popular upcoming games. Not sure if the game companies pay for this, but the card manufacturers probably are willing to do it for free because then they can say that game 'X' takes advantage of some our hot new feature 'Y', so you should shell out money to buy our latest card. Constant upgrades are not necessarily a good thing.

 

When those games come out, games not having those features will fall behind the technology curve, probably look at least somewhat worse, and therefore probably might not sell as well. This kind of system reinforces game developers to spend lots of time and money ensuring that they have the absolute latest engine technology. To stay ahead of other game companies, they also demand better video hardware features so they can maintain a competitive edge. When the next string of cards come out, we get to shell out more money in order to be able to run the latest games with the best visuals.

 

Another interesting point about game devlopers.....notice that Unreal 2 and Doom3 are taking a fair amount of time to develop? They can probably afford to do this ( whereas many smaller companies can't ) because they will, in turn, license their hi-tech engines to other game developers for a premium...and even if Doom3 and Unreal 2 are crappy games, they will still probably make a ton of money. So, these two games ( and probably a few others ) will set a whole new higher standard for game visuals, require higher system specs and therefore cost us more money in order to be able to play them properly.

 

Yeah, my thoughts were probably not very coherent. But I think that this whole race for visual supremacy costs us ( the consumer ) more money, not a good thing unless you enjoy throwing away money...It also forces developers to spend more time and energy to ensure the best graphics, thereby sacrificing gameplay. Not slamming developers, because they really only have limited budgets and something eventually will have to give. Again, the consumer ( us ) get screwed because we end with more expensive games with crappier gameplay...and games that take much longer to develop.

 

Seems like a total dead-end to me....let the flame war begin.

[StormHammer]

While I can see the point you're making, I think you're making a basic assumption about developers that may not necessarily be true.

 

I read an article in PC Gamer on the pros and cons of aiming for realism, funnily enough, and although some said it was about raising the standard of graphics to improve immersion, others focused on AI, physics, the ability for the player to do what they think they should be able to...generally more about the gameplay.

 

One guy actually said it was a bad things aiming for greater realism (i.e., photorealistic visuals) because then you would expect to be able to do much more, as the game world would seem more real, and we have certain expectations about what we can and cannot do in the real world. So blurring the edges of reality and virtual reality could conceivably have a detrimental effect.

 

In a way, I suppose this is true. Just look at Red Faction, for example. It introduced a feature to increase the realism of the game world in the form of GeoMod...yet many gamers were not happy with the game because the GeoMod did not react the way they thought it would. In other words, they placed the feature in a real-world context, rather than a game context, and since their expectations were not met, they slated it.

 

I'm not saying everyone felt that way...but some did.

 

So my take on the situation is (as it has always been, really) that the gameplay should come first. The game should be fun, as bug-free as possible, as immersive as possible without going to excess, and make you feel a part of that world. This does not always have to be achieved visually...but in allowing the player the freedom of choice, and ability to interact with more of the elements that make up the game, and it's world.

 

This is another reason why a lot of hardcore gamers get tired of the fact they fire a rocket at a flimsy door...and it just leaves a burn mark. Or they can't open a door they think they should be able to open. Or they can't pick up an object that looks useful. Or drive a vehicle...etc.

 

So, if the interaction with the game environment can be increased, the graphical element (although important) does not take precedence and over-ride the key decisions along the development route.

 

Of course, that is an idealistic approach, and does not cater for real-world influences, like graphics cards manufacturers trying to up the ante by whatever means possible to ensure they remain solvent.

 

It's a cut-throat world, I guess. There is a benefit in terms of what we can now achieve with our PCs, outside of gaming...but gaming itself has driven the PC further and further forward, and at a more rapid rate, than I think it would have evolved otherwise.

 

And I guess I've said enough.

[Rancor]

Sorry I wasn't very coherent when I wrote that, but I still stand by some of the content. I can also appreciate the points you made about realism potentially being detrimental. I read an article by Jeff Lander in some magazine and he said the coolest thing....it was basically something like photorealism being a dead end. Sooner or later, games will probably be able to achieve it. Then what? He suggested that it might be cooler to play a game that looked like Van Gogh's Starry Night painting.

 

Found here

 

I couldn't agree with his idea more...seeing a game that looked like that, and having the sky swirling around in realtime...and visiting the tall spire and seeing what's inside..now that would be an accomplishment.