Aren't visuals not important?

It has seemed to me that the main difference between the quake series and doom series has not been the fact that quakes usually have better game engines, but instead they tried to make it much more graphically pleasing.

I'm all for blowing chunks off of people, but I'm also for the mayhem you get in doom that just never appears in quake. It's also popular that quake just really gave the single player aspect the shove. It's just what's been advertised. Better graphics, more realistic handling, etc etc. Well I'm sorry but I think most people will agree a fight with fifty monsters made out of three polygons is funner than a fight with one monster with a billion. Well maybe with a few hundred.

Now I expect the counter argument "well don't play doom 3 then". Which brings up the question- will doom 3 ever be how doom 2 is now? Running great all over and being used beyond what was dreamed at creation? Well if doom 3 is more in the line of quake, no chance.


I guess what I am trying to say is I hope that doom 3
a) stays a FPS and not a simulator
b) stays the hell away from the way quake is going
c) actually works towards the fun aspect instead of just graphical glory.
d) has the last wolfenstein level of episode one (doom2 level 32) buried in it somewhere with tons of monsters and one big baddie.

Serious Sam is a boring game IMO (>>>READ<<< IN MY OPINION, DON´T ARGUE). DooM fragfest were enough for me, now I´m looking for the next generation of AIs. If people haves so much fun with humans in multiplay, why wouldn´t companies aim to that kind of behaviors?

Once in a while we´ll be seeing new games with this kind of gameplay. They´re not gonna die, but developers are pretty much facing the other way. Kinda the same happened with adventures, interactive video and in minor proportions with flight sims, tactical strategy games and side shooters. They just don´t fit in the scheme.

If id could´ve sacrificed the tons of monster with good AI back then, I´m sure they would have made it. They tried to make a serious game, and I think they succeded, while the same kind of gameplay is incredible goofy for a new game ("Serious Sam"...wtf?).

The tech footage convinced me, they´re going for a serious, deep experience. More like a movie, not the nightmare of a bug exterminator or something like that.

I have to agree with you partially, but a killer AI isn't type of thing that requires a graphics card more powerful than every computer made before 1999 put together. I'm all for a totally excellent AI, but something else is important.

I don't want to raid, say a military base, and only find a hundred enemies. A score squared (plus more) of enemies, to me, would be a much more effective use of processor power.

I know many people want better multiplayer experience, but that wont ever work with a cinema experience. Sure the levels might look very realistic but out of the corner someone named GuyThong will come out with the skin of a cow with human breasts bopping around firing a weapon that belongs on the kind of ships that destroy planets.

I think the graphics are important, but not more so than gameplay, obviously. I'm sure Doom 3 will have good healthy mix of action, suspense, and visual flair.

PS) I think that at some point(at least a year and a half after the game's release), levels will start popping up that have buttloads of critters, although the days of those big SHAWN2 textured rooms with 50 Cyberdemons are (thankfully) over^__^

Epistax said:

I have to agree with you partially, but a killer AI isn't type of thing that requires a graphics card more powerful than every computer made before 1999 put together. I'm all for a totally excellent AI, but something else is important.

I don't want to raid, say a military base, and only find a hundred enemies. A score squared (plus more) of enemies, to me, would be a much more effective use of processor power.

I know many people want better multiplayer experience, but that wont ever work with a cinema experience. Sure the levels might look very realistic but out of the corner someone named GuyThong will come out with the skin of a cow with human breasts bopping around firing a weapon that belongs on the kind of ships that destroy planets.

Well, I was talking about this with Feronth a couple of topics before. The trick is NOT to do overcrowded rooms, wich are slow, unexplainable and silly, but a continuos flow of enemies.

Take a look at The Darkening series for DooM2, the levels have an average of 250 enemies. But they´re not focused in mega-arenas o´ death, but they´re spreaded uniformly across the level.

Of course, Doom3 will require a somewhat intelligent placement, but since they´re rampant demons, that shouldn´t be a problem

Audio
Video
Control
Gameplay
Content & Customizability

These are the 5 main factors to making a game enjoyable to play. All 5 have to complement each other properly for the game to be a success, and furthermore, if any 1 component is allowed to severely suffer in the name of something else the game will be utterly horrible.

Mortal Kombat: 100% focus on violence, HORRIBLE gameplay

System Shock 2: Weak graphics engine, the game is still better than Half-Life

Quake 3 Arena: The focus was on the graphics. As a result, sound effects were recycled, no advances in the sound engine were made, the gameplay remained exactly the same as it was in Quake 2, and several arguments can be raised over the quality of the majority of the levels. This game should've been a free patch for Quake 2, since that's all it really is anyway.

Unreal Tournament: Gameplay, control, content and customizability were all worked on greatly in this game. The graphics weren't touched in any major fashion. Therefore, the graphics were not impressive by any means yet the game was incredibly fun.



id is planning on rewriting ALL of their current 3D game source code (which they haven't done before). This means that EVERYTHING will be touched, but not necessarily touched for the better.

We all know well what the graphics will do, and I'm glad. I'm not glad I have to drop a shitload of money just to get a semi-playable framerate but that's how they work.

Will the sound engine get a revolutionary overhaul? Will it support all the major 3D accellerated audio APIs? Will it support a generous amount of formats for developers?

Will the control get the much needed attention it deserves? Will the use button return (as it should)? Will it have double tap lunging (rolling when crouched; of course this should be optional)? Will the view be DEAD still or will it move a little, more in bad situations to simulate fear? Will there be a quick strike move? Just use it to throw out a kick or a weapon butt... very handy for finishing off weakened monsters, busting things, and smashing windows?

Gameplay is also very important. Will the game have the same 'feel' of Quake? Shoot enemies until they drop in the same redundant animation, find the key (be it a 'data disc' or whathaveyou) and flip the switch (or lever), and... ahem... 'progress' further? Will there be any exploration? Any moments of suspense? Any moments of stark terror as somethings chasing you when your supplies are low?

Content and customizability make up the last major thing that will really decide whether or not the game gets good review or not. If the levels suck and it takes sixteen college degrees to make a level then no one is going to play it.

Epistax said:

Aren't visuals not important?

Ach! Too many negatives! Oh well.
About gameplay, I think it has definately gone downhill recently in most games. It seems as though developers want to go for better graphics rather than games that are more fun. I haven't seen an origional concept in a long time (except maybe the Sims, but that game is pretty lame).
One instance were those Sierra side-scroler adventure-rpgs (I have no idea what the actual name for the genre is). These games were great. Some of the funniest, most fun, and chalanging games were of this genre. Like Space Quest, Liesure Suit Larry, Kings Quest, and more. As soon as games began going towards 3-d polygons and such, Sierra dropped the whole line of games. Just because you can't make these games 3-d doesn't mean you have to abandon them. Who said a game has to be up to date to be fun. What about Pac-man, Final Fantasy 3, Civilization, Frogger, Wolfenstein and Doom? These are all outdated but still some of the funnest games ever made (at least I think so).

Zaldron said:

Well, I was talking about this with Feronth a couple of topics before. The trick is NOT to do overcrowded rooms, wich are slow, unexplainable and silly, but a continuos flow of enemies.

Take a look at The Darkening series for DooM2, the levels have an average of 250 enemies. But they´re not focused in mega-arenas o´ death, but they´re spreaded uniformly across the level.

Of course, Doom3 will require a somewhat intelligent placement, but since they´re rampant demons, that shouldn´t be a problem

I only play the multiplayer aspect and, even to people who create "nice" wads, all I can say is: When your in a deathmatch you just dont look around at the decorating, the only improvement that could be made is in the design of the opposing players, that's ALL you have time to look at during the fragfest, so, if that part changed I would be happy, perhaps an arm being blown off, facial expressions, cute death scenes, blood appearing on tunic to show hits, anything like that

Epistax said:

Aren't visuals not important?

I'd have to say I'd elect to not rescind the opposite action of declining the reverse inclination to not include fancy graphics in Doom3.

*Puts Lüt in a headlock and forces a liter of Mac's coffee down his throat*

=)

The only really important thing is how fun it is. There's no formula for fun, so you can't say that a certain combination of stuff will make a fun game. It just needs to, well, happen.

Zaldron said:

Well, I was talking about this with Feronth a couple of topics before. The trick is NOT to do overcrowded rooms, wich are slow, unexplainable and silly, but a continuos flow of enemies.

Take a look at The Darkening series for DooM2, the levels have an average of 250 enemies. But they´re not focused in mega-arenas o´ death, but they´re spreaded uniformly across the level.

Of course, Doom3 will require a somewhat intelligent placement, but since they´re rampant demons, that shouldn´t be a problem

No response to guythong?

Lüt said:

I'd have to say I'd elect to not rescind the opposite action of declining the reverse inclination to not include fancy graphics in Doom3.

This is in response to other people also who don't like my english.

Usually when someone is said in this manner, the "are not" is not contracted. "Are these not strangers in our land" and "Are these strangers in our land" are both the exact same sentence. A response of "no" to either would mean "no they are not strangers in our land".

Finally the second "not" doesn't have to affect the verb, instead it can have the same affect as unimportant. In retrospect it would have been easier to read "Are not visuals unimportant" or for the general population "Visuals don't matter, right?".

Ok peace hehe

deadnail said:

Look at doom2 from your list.

Audio- funny. The sounds from doom 2 have been stolen by every movie made since the game came out. Rarely do I see scifi tv show without a doom sound in it. Is it the best audio quality? Nope but it sure is fun. (did you know some of the monster sounds are the mating calls of llamas? Not kidding heard the same noises on the discovery channel)

Video- 1600x1200 and funky lighting. Plus you can open up paint, draw whatever you want, and put it straight into the game as a monster or wall or anything. Most newer games don't allow that at all, putting doom ontop.
Gameplay. Well hell yah that's all I gotta say

Content and customizability. No game ever made has more customizability (is that how you spell it? oh well) than doom, except possibly half-life. But with these new games, it takes a much higher level of competence to have any fun editing. Even making levels in duke nukem takes fifty times the tedium of doom.


I know many people have opinions near mine, so the worst case for doom 3 is it will be a sequel to quake and not doom. If this happens, it will be abondoned by common doomers. It would actually be nice with doom evolving as a totally free source game.



(the funnest game in the world bar none is excite bike, which lacks audio, video, control, content, and probably gameplay.)

danarchist said:

I agree totally, I miss those kinds of games. It is my hope that this 3d thing is a fad. I am one of those who believe that the final fantasy series took a nose dive after FF6(am3).

SPACE QUEST! haha if you didn't do the right thing in the first five minutes of the game, then hours later at the end you couldn't win hahahahah.

Alpha Centauri I find is a pretty honest sequel to the civ series. Of course the game is questionable for the simple fact that the recommended system requirements are less than the minimum system requirements.... but oh well! :) wait nm that's Moo2, another great game.

oh well it'll all work out in the end.

Gameplay over graphics.

That's why we still play pre 1995 games all day, OK I do :D

Heh, I still want less demons and have them more detailed then just an overcrowded room again. That isnt scary anymore. Its better to have a few zombies in a map. For example, you are walking in several gates, but u know there are a few demons in there. U dont hear anything, but after a while you hear something passing by. You are running away from it, due the ammo you've lost. This makes it a creepy 1 on 1 cat-mouse event.

If there are like 999 demons, you're already prepared that around each corner a demon attacks u. But if there are only a few, you'll run around a corner and suddenly run into a damn good detailed demon, what makes it so realistic and scary.

This is my point of view;)

Epistax said:

This is in response to other people also who don't like my english.

Usually when someone is said in this manner, the "are not" is not contracted. "Are these not strangers in our land" and "Are these strangers in our land" are both the exact same sentence. A response of "no" to either would mean "no they are not strangers in our land".

Finally the second "not" doesn't have to affect the verb, instead it can have the same affect as unimportant. In retrospect it would have been easier to read "Are not visuals unimportant" or for the general population "Visuals don't matter, right?".

Ok peace hehe

I didn't even know English was a second language to you until you just said that.

I know what you meant and it makes sense but it just had to be butchered to the fullest extent possible ;)

Epistax said:

This is in response to other people also who don't like my english.

Usually when someone is said in this manner, the "are not" is not contracted. "Are these not strangers in our land" and "Are these strangers in our land" are both the exact same sentence. A response of "no" to either would mean "no they are not strangers in our land".

Finally the second "not" doesn't have to affect the verb, instead it can have the same affect as unimportant. In retrospect it would have been easier to read "Are not visuals unimportant" or for the general population "Visuals don't matter, right?".

Ok peace hehe

It's the double negative "Aren't visuals not important" the 2nd "not" gives the sentence a positive aspect = visuals are not important

Actually, I'd say that visuals, on the one hand DO matter, but it's merely a matter of artistic interpretation. Do you go for realism, or a more surreal look?

Personally, I'd say stay away from realism.

Why? Well, looking at older games (Hey, improving upon the past is a good thing - it's great to look back a step for every step taken forward, IMO), say Mortal Kombat and StreetFighter II.

Both came out at around the same time, and in their day, MK had the better graphics. Nowadays, SF still looks as it did then - the graphics are an almost comic-book interpretation of racial stereotypes, and although not entirely realistic, do the job brilliantly. Mortal Kombat, on the other hand, strived for realism, and although in it's time, it was cutting edge - it looks dated. Very dated.

Take Doom, and, say, Rise of the Triad. RotT had the better graphics, IMO, and they both came out at similar times. Except nowadays, although both strived for realism and look dated by todays standards, this affects the mostly hand-drawn Doom less than RotT.

To summarise, graphics DO matter, but looking forward, I'd say that it were important to have good graphics that aren't realistic.

fodders said:

It's the double negative "Aren't visuals not important" the 2nd "not" gives the sentence a positive aspect = visuals are not important

What I was trying to explain was that the second "not" is an adjective, not a adverb.
"Billy isn't not gonna do it"
both nots are adverbs.
as I said before
"Are not visuals not important"
as not is an adjective, you can rewrite it
"Are not visuals not-important", or "Are not visuals non-important", or finally "Are not visuals unimportant"
It still sounds strange because "are not" is used very infrequently nowadays. "Aren't visuals unimportant" sounds better to most ears.

damn grammar

So it was a rhetorical question? wtf?

no,l visuals are not not important

If you want a kill-fest with reasonable graphics, try Serious Sam. I played that game last weekend, and it fuckind ruled. I thought there was quite a heavy doom influence, which was cool. They just keep trowing monsters at you! its cool! Oh yeah, and wait 'til you pick up the cannon.....