yes, you right JPL i was joking :p 

Try an experiment - play a game of Quake in "r_drawflat 1" (or whatever that mode was called). Still fun? No? Surprise!

Yes, absolutely. It should be noted though that I love Quake DM and I play it almost purely for the fun factor rather than anything else.

I probably wouldn't want to play SP with those settings, because I don't find Quake SP anywhere near as fun gameplay wise as DM, so I'd want a little extra incentive ;)

You're still saying that gameplay is the only thing that matters - you're just doing it with many more words. The meaning is the same. And you're wrong.

Look, you understand what I'm saying, you just don't agree with me. I understand what you're saying, and I don't really agree with you. A difference of opinion on an internet forum? Surely not!

We can agree to disagree, but without any offence intended I would say it's fairly ignorant to try to suggest that your opinion is the only one that matters, and that everyone else is just plain wrong. 

The fact that a small niche community downgrades the graphics to mud doesn't mean that the "gameplay is the only thing that really matters" mantra is universally true.

No, but it certainly is indicative of the fact that for some people, the focus lies much more heavily on gameplay than the graphics.

Or, I could counter by saying that when I and my friends play multiplayer games we play in the highest settings our machines can manage. Point negated.

For you maybe. In multiplayer games I'll always prioritise framerate over visuals because it will allow me to experience more fluid gameplay. I might try the higher settings on the first run, but if the game is worth repeat plays then I'll quite likely turn the settings down for more FPS or (in some cases) better visibility (of other players in a DM situation, for instance). 

 

Where are the bees !!!??? 

r_drawflat 1 is not a downgrade. It's a useful feature. Similarly, I don't play chess with pieces painted like characters from the Lion King or The Simpsons. It's too distracting. 

When I "play" UT3 I don't even notice the detail. It's all a blur to me anyway. It's too cluttered, there's too much stuff, not very unified. I tend to get the "big picture" but that's about it.

Of course, I don't play UT3, cuz the game sucks, so all I do with it is go around and look at the detail. I basically got it as a benchmark to test my system.

Having said that, yes, ultimately a game boils down to one thing and one thing only: GAME PLAY. Yes, game play. Super detailed ultra advanced graphics are nice, but are not required for a good game. Period. 

Similarly, I don't play chess with pieces painted like characters from the Lion King or The Simpsons.

Personally I play chess with my brain, regardless of which set I use.

Of course, there may be an essential flaw in comparing a fast paced action game where you should people with rockets and rely on reactions to an ancient game of strategy and thought.


Also, I like the attempt to resurrect the UT3 is good/bad debate, but unfortunately When I "play" UT3 I don't even notice the detail. It's all a blur to me anyway. It's too cluttered, there's too much stuff, not very unified. I tend to get the "big picture" but that's about it seems like a complaint that could also be levelled at life. While I agree that the ability to simplify life to make it easier to deal with would be useful, it would somewhat remove the challenge. 

Dammit shoot, not should.

And it was such beautiful flame bait too :( 

"Having said that, yes, ultimately a game boils down to one thing and one thing only: GAME PLAY. Yes, game play. Super detailed ultra advanced graphics are nice, but are not required for a good game. Period."

That's naive at best. People won't play an ugly game no matter how many times the gameplay makes them cum. 

"r_drawflat 1 is not a downgrade. It's a useful feature."

For debugging maps, yes. For playing the game, no. 

And Quake. And sometimes I even play HL2DM in those rediculous low-G box maps - the graphics suck for those but the gameplay can be fun!!

Hehe - One of my mates has discovered the emulators you can get for old console games - I've had Wonderboy games on my computer this week. (Meh)

But he likes the gameplay of those old platform games!

Personally I think there has to be a balance. I keep having a go at replaying crysis, lured back in by the pretty graphics, but it never lasts long because of the boring gameplay!

UT3 OTOH is GREAT!!!! Excellent graphics AND gameplay. The engine is so FAST that the eyecandy works for me, because it's no trade-off for gameplay.....

:) 

I played QW like this for the longest time. http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/7034/rawrns1.jpg Recently I switched to normal textures just as a matter of taste. I like how eg Warsow looks.

But then the sheer tasteless ugliness of many free open-source games made me not try them once.
There is a different between gfx-wanking and ugly. Quake is not ugly, it has dated looks. Just like old adventures, they look amazing if you are into that kind of graphics. They are not ugly. 

i never played QW like this ;) always 24 bits textures! 

There is quite something between gfx-wanking and ugly. 

Look at the Wii. Does it sell like hotcakes? Are people buying this system and playing its games? Do those games look like Xbox360 or PS3 quality? But people still play them? Yes? Ok then. 

Do they look like crap? No? OK then. 

Mii Avatars are hardly realistic. LEGO StarWars looks prettier than your average Mii!

I have a Wii - all it gets used for is bowling. I do enjoy a spot of bowling from time to time. My girlfreind likes the tennis and some of those other kids games......... (?!) 

http://quotes.fov120.com/?show=single&quote=1739

Willem you're missing the point. The point is that a LOT of people get Wiis and play them over the Wii's graphically superior counterpart. This indicates that graphics are not the main concern of games.

Having said that, yes, my comment about games boiling down to GAME PLAY is a bit of an oversimplification. But regardless, it's true. That's why they're video GAMES. If people just wanted pretty they would watch Transformers all day. But, since people need interaction and control, game play is what drives (should drive) design in games; graphics should follow design. (I'll admit that style has a lot to do with graphics, but I feel style is more important than having a super-high-poly post-apocalyptic super soldier-mutant guy. Different topic for a different debate.) 

hates blind people. Jerk! 

You barfed this nugget: "there may be an essential flaw in comparing a fast paced action game where you should people with rockets and rely on reactions to an ancient game of strategy and thought."

Where does speed chess come in on your trite dichotomy? And QW? There is no flaw in comparing them. 

Bees
#168 posted by RickyT23 [217.44.37.217] on 2008/07/16 18:02:10

Bees ?
#169 posted by JPL [82.234.167.238] on 2008/07/16 21:29:49
Where are the bees !!!???

is just saying he misses me because I have been on the run this week (the kid is not mine!) and I have had little time for the board. He knows bees and talk of bees is a garanteed way to make my knee jerk. Damn bees. 

the same as there are special-effectsy movies with no depth of character.

The fact that there are always more of one than the other is just proof that most people are more than content to "turn their brains off" as I'm always told I'm supposed to do before such movies and let their eyes do the drooling.

That's your problem, Frib. Stop expecting to actually be engaged, because only naive people have standards, and join the staring masses! 

...more whining too.

My point, BTW, isn't that DOom3 was amazing, nor that the gameplay was that great, just that the overall initial experience of playing was probably a lot better at the time than people, looking in retrospect, give it credit for.

And although I am bit of a graphics / look / atmosphere whore, I do think gameplay, particularly feel, is important. 

here's a little gem you might have missed (summary courtesy of Shacknews):

Though powered by the same id Tech 5 technology as id's open-world shooter Rage, Doom 4 will be so detailed that it appears to run on "a totally new game engine," according to id co-founder and software engineer John Carmack.

The jump in graphical fidelity comes about as Doom 4 is targeted to run at 30 frames per second, whereas Rage will run at 60 frames per second. Carmack claims this allows id to throw "three times as much horsepower" at Doom 4.

"[Doom 4 is] going to be a 30Hz game," he told Maximum PC. "It's going to look like a totally new game engine on there, even though it's going to be built on the four years of effort that we spent developing this generation of technology."

the article in question is here:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/e3_2008_the_john_carmack_interview_rage_id_tech_6_doom_4_details_and_more?page=0%2C0

Personally i'm more excited about Rage. id shooter + open-world = insta-spunk. If the art design and the atmosphere in the trailers alone isn't enough to make you empty your sack quicker than Father Christmas, then you should check your pulse.