Really man, that windows example is really poor. You're saying if a development team doesn't have time/resources to implement destructible objects for every single window/door/etc in the game these games shouldn't contain them at all? What sort of magical fantasy world would this take place in? Its very hard to find any sort of genre/theme/setting that is windowless, and any that would actually fit into that would be boring as shit. I sure am amped to play windowless cave crawler 4, or windowless dungeon maze 12.
Good detail can help create atmosphere and immersion, non-interactivity can hurt that, but nowhere near as bad as it would to remove details like windows and doors from buildings, just because you cant smash through them.
I think the important thing here is identify things that are gameplay elements, and making this obvious to the player. If theres a door or window you need to smash through, make it apparent. If its just there as a visual blocker, make it blend into the environment etc. This doesn't have to be related completely to how much or little detail is there, it could simply be a matter of lighting.
Ninjas - Windows, drywall, brick walls, street lights, chairs etc... all don't necessarily add to gameplay, they add to context.
Imagine for a second a game where you are able to move a camera around in a maze with plain grey walls. There are grey boxes that move around that you have to click on and will disappear when you do. That's a shooter, without context. Sounds boring as fuck. Context makes a difference. Any game designer or developer worth two shits should know that.
If you are trying to make any type of point you need to imply a context for the actions. Depending on the point and the abstraction level of the idea being communicated, different levels of detail in that game will be more or less useful.
If, for instance, I wanted to create a game in which a person was hit with the realities of war I would make it extremely realistic. I would want that game to be as grounded in our own reality as possible. So yes, the windows are important. Breakable or no.
On the other hand, if I wanted to make a game trying to get across an abstract idea like the affects of setting unattainable goals, I might abstract it more so that the user can relate on a more personal level.
John - I think that part of what you and TWilson and some others are missing is differing viewpoints, and that there are many different facets of this art that people may be interested in.
For instance, in transformers a person could easily appreciate the technical artistry. By technical artistry I mean the actual engineering and mechanical aspects of the transformers. Maybe you'd rather have it be simpler and less detailed, but many out there really enjoy the mechanical artistry that went into that.
Try to remember, art can (and SHOULD) be more than mere aesthetics.
I don't know, maybe I'm missing whatever point you guys are trying to make, but a lot of the comments against this stuff feel like they are coming from a single perspective and have a very narrow viewpoint. Yea, transformers are busy, but they are also very technically impressive. I have friends who would find that infinitely more interesting than a well composed character. It's just a different perspective.
[Edit] Missed your post EQ. I totally agree. I think you pretty much said what I meant, more concisely. [/edit]
I don't recall Doom, Quake 2 or Quake 3 having windows or furniture. Everything was made out of futuristic metal, which I could believe was bulletproof. Those were cool settings.
I don't think it takes a lot of new art assets to add things like breaking glass. It requires code resources, but maybe people should be dialing down their art teams and adding coders. It is kind of a hard argument to make around here since we all benefit from bigger art teams.
Tulkamir:
Breakable walls, etc would add a ton to gameplay AND context. A game doesn't have to have a realistic setting to have great context. TF2 is a good example.
As far as making a game that shows the player the horrors of war, maybe we should just avoid that. COD 4 is a fun game, but you don't regenerate from bullet wounds in 45 seconds in real life. A game that really let the player experience the horrors of war would kill your friend and then shoot your arm off.
Putting something in for "context" that is completely unbelievable doesn't improve the experience for me. Maybe other people it does. Some games could support a gritty atmosphere, like a 3rd person detective game or something where the main character wouldn't break windows even if he could. The problem with a lot of games these days is that the main character is obviously the kind of guy that just goes around blowing shit up.
The funny thing about the contextless game that you described is that that is what we are playing, and it IS lame. It is a game with no context and some crap slapped on top to fool people in screenshots, and I think games can do better.
Breakable walls, etc would add a ton to gameplay AND context. A game doesn't have to have a realistic setting to have great context. TF2 is a good example.
As far as making a game that shows the player the horrors of war, maybe we should just avoid that. COD 4 is a fun game, but you don't regenerate from bullet wounds in 45 seconds in real life. A game that really let the player experience the horrors of war would kill your friend and then shoot your arm off.
I never at any point said a game had to have a realistic setting. Re-read my post and think critically for a moment. Do you really want every game to be like TF2?
We shouldn't make games about the horrors of war because we haven't reached the point of doing it to perfection? That's saying we shouldn't try because it's hard. That's bull. It was also just one example. There are many themes that are better told through realism than abstraction. Another point is that not EVERY bit of the game has to be dedicated to the theme. CoD4 wasn't fully realistic, but it was enough that when
you play a character who is in his death throes while a nuclear bomb goes off
it has a real impact.
What I really don't understand is the mentality that you and some others are displaying that it is one or the other. There's room for both, and both are being made.
I never at any point said a game had to have a realistic setting. Re-read my post and think critically for a moment.
Well, I certainly don't have a problem with "Windows, drywall, brick walls, street lights, chairs etc" if they are very cartoony and behave in some unatural way, so I guess we agree. I figured rubberized bouncing cartoon street lamps weren't the kind of "context" you were thinking of. I guess I was wrong.
Well, I certainly don't have a problem with "Windows, drywall, brick walls, street lights, chairs etc" if they are very cartoony and behave in some unatural way, so I guess we agree. I figured rubberized bouncing cartoon street lamps weren't the kind of "context" you were thinking of. I guess I was wrong.
What in the hell are you trying to say?
First off, rubberized bouncing cartoon street lamps is not any kind of context. You listed some adjectives applied to a street lamp. That has nothing to do with context. Context is applied to an action. A setting can affect context, so the street lamp being bouncy and rubberized could affect the context of the players action, but is not context itself.
Also, I really, really can't believe that you want all games to be cartoony. That is the most obscene thing I've heard for a while. I don't understand how anyone who considers themself an artist could be so incredibly narrow minded. Do you seriously want everything to be the same style? Do you truely believe that there is only one level of abstraction that is best for every situation?
a whole lot of blah blah blah that translates in my mind to "I cant make things detailed, so no one else should either!"
Ninajs, your arguments are so groundless that it boggles my mind. I cant break that so it shouldn't exist! What the hell? Doom didn't have windows so they shouldn't exist! Wha? Do you seriously think Doom "didn't have windows" (which it did) because they thought they weren't needed? Or that Quake 1 didn't have windows or chairs (it did) because they couldn't break? Maybe you should dust off the old cd's and floppy discs and replay those games because those elements were all there, they simply weren't represented as well as they can be today.
If every single door and every single window and every single wall in every game was completely destructable or openable or bypassable then there would be zero control over gameplay. Not every game works under the context of a perfectly open world (and no game so far has even managed to CREATE a perfectly open world) nor should every game attempt to.
Besides that, even if a game looked "cartoony" that in no way would remove walls windows doors or chairs. Have you ever watched a cartoon? Most dont take place in objectless vaccumes of space.
so tell me- detail oriented people. what do you actually experience? what's that like? i'm not trying to say "no detail FTW!" i'm interested in what the experience is like for the people who DO value detail. i've already taken it for truth that that value.... has value.
So let me just break up the games I play into two generic categories: gameplay games, and story games. Gameplay games, like RTS or Multiplayer FPS, I like whatever helps gameplay the most, and I strongly feel this involves some sort of stylization (whether that means TF2 style or Rome:Total War style, with bold and unique faction colors that never existed). I can enjoy good gameplay games (in my preferred genres) with even placeholder graphics, tbh. It is nice to have some sort of stylization and abstraction because it makes what I can and have to do clearer, IMO. This doesn't only mean lack of noise, but lack of detail in some cases and to some extent (for example, an icon for a gold resource I would prefer to a carefully constructed mine graphic with gold veins to indicate gold).
For story games (whether SP FPS, RPGs, or 3rd person action/platforming), though, I much prefer detail and some degree of realism. As good as the TF2 videos are, they are very entertaining but not moving (except in the artistic sense)- even if they made something dramatic and moving, it wouldn't strike the same tone for me as a more realistic or detailed. The darker the story, the more realistic my mind wants to associate- we have beautiful graphics in our game, but somewhat stylized, and during my playtesting today I was just comparing how I felt to Mass Effect. That's just me, and this is an MMO, so I still think we have the right graphics, just saying how I felt for a small time at that moment in time (that and the NPC heads were in a bad state). Thinking back to PS2 RPG's, the 'portrait change' during key conversations was always important... yes these graphics are more simplified due to hardware, but detail made the world more alive. And that is why I play story games, to escape, to immerse myself in that world, to feel how the characters feel, to experience more than to play. Having detail- dripping water faucets, mice droppings on the floor, a missing nail, whatever- makes the world more alive to me. Having it more realistic makes it feel more alive for me. Is it 'distracting'? In some way- in the way of gameplay, maybe? But I feel the details are important in crafting an experience for a world with a story.
well this is interesting. it sounds to me like you're both speaking from a different place
Ninjas -- i am enclined to agree with you on a personal level. personally, i tend to enjoy more abstract art. that being said, Mitch here is trying to point out a very important topic -- the level of abstraction that you have in your game changes based on what the game is about. there's a sliding level of abstraction.. some stuff is more realistic, some stuff is more abstract. everyone likes something different.
there seems to be a few different perspectives in this thread --
1. the attitude that detail is great, or sucks.
2. some people saying "quality is relitive" and "to each his own"
I completely believe number 2, but i would like to add that I DON"T PERSONALLY ENJOY DETAIL. that doesn't mean that i have a shallow perspective.
on the contrary -- i'm interested in what people actually do enjoy about what ever it is that they value. i mean honestly, arguing that one thing is better than another is sorta stupid i guess. personally, i tend to like dreamy, more internal games, which means a higher level of abstraction (less detail)... but i appreciate that other people probably love the more detailed games. personally however, i do no have any fucking idea how to enjoy those games... which is one of the reasons why i started this thread.
why is it that when someone expresses an opinion it's assumed that they don't have a relativistic viewpoint? i never said "detail fags are gay"
edit -- awesome, thanks professor420. that's cool. i think i tend to be more of an introvert.. i can connect with a world more deeply if there's less detail actually. it feels more real if i can experience it in my imagination.. there's something.. toooooooo complete.. or something.. about super realistic games. cool. sounds like we've got 2 different ways to get the same feeling....
I don't think I am really saying anything controversial. If you have a realistic character in a realistic setting and all he can do is shoot things, you should be able to shoot things realistically. Is that so hard to understand?
I am not saying every game should be a cartoon or a perfect simulation of reality. Just that the assets should match up with the gameplay.
Well, I certainly don't have a problem with "Windows, drywall, brick walls, street lights, chairs etc" if they are very cartoony and behave in some unatural way
to mean pretty much that you thought all games should be cartoony. May have been a miscommunication.
I do agree to a degree that the art style should often match gameplay, but I think where we are having differing opinions is that I think that story and themes should also come into play in choosing this, and that the style of the art, story, and gameplay do not always need to match. In fact, sometimes juxtaposing these in different ways could yield better results than matching them all. Nor do they need to be perfectly matched.
right. games are one thing. any different opinion is invalid.
seriously, that's retarded.
At first I was going to claim I never made such a statement, however after further consideration you are very much right. There is something in between games and real life;
Replies
Good detail can help create atmosphere and immersion, non-interactivity can hurt that, but nowhere near as bad as it would to remove details like windows and doors from buildings, just because you cant smash through them.
I think the important thing here is identify things that are gameplay elements, and making this obvious to the player. If theres a door or window you need to smash through, make it apparent. If its just there as a visual blocker, make it blend into the environment etc. This doesn't have to be related completely to how much or little detail is there, it could simply be a matter of lighting.
Imagine for a second a game where you are able to move a camera around in a maze with plain grey walls. There are grey boxes that move around that you have to click on and will disappear when you do. That's a shooter, without context. Sounds boring as fuck. Context makes a difference. Any game designer or developer worth two shits should know that.
If you are trying to make any type of point you need to imply a context for the actions. Depending on the point and the abstraction level of the idea being communicated, different levels of detail in that game will be more or less useful.
If, for instance, I wanted to create a game in which a person was hit with the realities of war I would make it extremely realistic. I would want that game to be as grounded in our own reality as possible. So yes, the windows are important. Breakable or no.
On the other hand, if I wanted to make a game trying to get across an abstract idea like the affects of setting unattainable goals, I might abstract it more so that the user can relate on a more personal level.
John - I think that part of what you and TWilson and some others are missing is differing viewpoints, and that there are many different facets of this art that people may be interested in.
For instance, in transformers a person could easily appreciate the technical artistry. By technical artistry I mean the actual engineering and mechanical aspects of the transformers. Maybe you'd rather have it be simpler and less detailed, but many out there really enjoy the mechanical artistry that went into that.
Try to remember, art can (and SHOULD) be more than mere aesthetics.
I don't know, maybe I'm missing whatever point you guys are trying to make, but a lot of the comments against this stuff feel like they are coming from a single perspective and have a very narrow viewpoint. Yea, transformers are busy, but they are also very technically impressive. I have friends who would find that infinitely more interesting than a well composed character. It's just a different perspective.
[Edit] Missed your post EQ. I totally agree. I think you pretty much said what I meant, more concisely.
I don't recall Doom, Quake 2 or Quake 3 having windows or furniture. Everything was made out of futuristic metal, which I could believe was bulletproof. Those were cool settings.
I don't think it takes a lot of new art assets to add things like breaking glass. It requires code resources, but maybe people should be dialing down their art teams and adding coders. It is kind of a hard argument to make around here since we all benefit from bigger art teams.
Tulkamir:
Breakable walls, etc would add a ton to gameplay AND context. A game doesn't have to have a realistic setting to have great context. TF2 is a good example.
As far as making a game that shows the player the horrors of war, maybe we should just avoid that. COD 4 is a fun game, but you don't regenerate from bullet wounds in 45 seconds in real life. A game that really let the player experience the horrors of war would kill your friend and then shoot your arm off.
Putting something in for "context" that is completely unbelievable doesn't improve the experience for me. Maybe other people it does. Some games could support a gritty atmosphere, like a 3rd person detective game or something where the main character wouldn't break windows even if he could. The problem with a lot of games these days is that the main character is obviously the kind of guy that just goes around blowing shit up.
The funny thing about the contextless game that you described is that that is what we are playing, and it IS lame. It is a game with no context and some crap slapped on top to fool people in screenshots, and I think games can do better.
I never at any point said a game had to have a realistic setting. Re-read my post and think critically for a moment. Do you really want every game to be like TF2?
We shouldn't make games about the horrors of war because we haven't reached the point of doing it to perfection? That's saying we shouldn't try because it's hard. That's bull. It was also just one example. There are many themes that are better told through realism than abstraction. Another point is that not EVERY bit of the game has to be dedicated to the theme. CoD4 wasn't fully realistic, but it was enough that when
What I really don't understand is the mentality that you and some others are displaying that it is one or the other. There's room for both, and both are being made.
Well, I certainly don't have a problem with "Windows, drywall, brick walls, street lights, chairs etc" if they are very cartoony and behave in some unatural way, so I guess we agree. I figured rubberized bouncing cartoon street lamps weren't the kind of "context" you were thinking of. I guess I was wrong.
What in the hell are you trying to say?
First off, rubberized bouncing cartoon street lamps is not any kind of context. You listed some adjectives applied to a street lamp. That has nothing to do with context. Context is applied to an action. A setting can affect context, so the street lamp being bouncy and rubberized could affect the context of the players action, but is not context itself.
Also, I really, really can't believe that you want all games to be cartoony. That is the most obscene thing I've heard for a while. I don't understand how anyone who considers themself an artist could be so incredibly narrow minded. Do you seriously want everything to be the same style? Do you truely believe that there is only one level of abstraction that is best for every situation?
Ninajs, your arguments are so groundless that it boggles my mind. I cant break that so it shouldn't exist! What the hell? Doom didn't have windows so they shouldn't exist! Wha? Do you seriously think Doom "didn't have windows" (which it did) because they thought they weren't needed? Or that Quake 1 didn't have windows or chairs (it did) because they couldn't break? Maybe you should dust off the old cd's and floppy discs and replay those games because those elements were all there, they simply weren't represented as well as they can be today.
If every single door and every single window and every single wall in every game was completely destructable or openable or bypassable then there would be zero control over gameplay. Not every game works under the context of a perfectly open world (and no game so far has even managed to CREATE a perfectly open world) nor should every game attempt to.
Besides that, even if a game looked "cartoony" that in no way would remove walls windows doors or chairs. Have you ever watched a cartoon? Most dont take place in objectless vaccumes of space.
So let me just break up the games I play into two generic categories: gameplay games, and story games. Gameplay games, like RTS or Multiplayer FPS, I like whatever helps gameplay the most, and I strongly feel this involves some sort of stylization (whether that means TF2 style or Rome:Total War style, with bold and unique faction colors that never existed). I can enjoy good gameplay games (in my preferred genres) with even placeholder graphics, tbh. It is nice to have some sort of stylization and abstraction because it makes what I can and have to do clearer, IMO. This doesn't only mean lack of noise, but lack of detail in some cases and to some extent (for example, an icon for a gold resource I would prefer to a carefully constructed mine graphic with gold veins to indicate gold).
For story games (whether SP FPS, RPGs, or 3rd person action/platforming), though, I much prefer detail and some degree of realism. As good as the TF2 videos are, they are very entertaining but not moving (except in the artistic sense)- even if they made something dramatic and moving, it wouldn't strike the same tone for me as a more realistic or detailed. The darker the story, the more realistic my mind wants to associate- we have beautiful graphics in our game, but somewhat stylized, and during my playtesting today I was just comparing how I felt to Mass Effect. That's just me, and this is an MMO, so I still think we have the right graphics, just saying how I felt for a small time at that moment in time (that and the NPC heads were in a bad state). Thinking back to PS2 RPG's, the 'portrait change' during key conversations was always important... yes these graphics are more simplified due to hardware, but detail made the world more alive. And that is why I play story games, to escape, to immerse myself in that world, to feel how the characters feel, to experience more than to play. Having detail- dripping water faucets, mice droppings on the floor, a missing nail, whatever- makes the world more alive to me. Having it more realistic makes it feel more alive for me. Is it 'distracting'? In some way- in the way of gameplay, maybe? But I feel the details are important in crafting an experience for a world with a story.
Ninjas -- i am enclined to agree with you on a personal level. personally, i tend to enjoy more abstract art. that being said, Mitch here is trying to point out a very important topic -- the level of abstraction that you have in your game changes based on what the game is about. there's a sliding level of abstraction.. some stuff is more realistic, some stuff is more abstract. everyone likes something different.
there seems to be a few different perspectives in this thread --
1. the attitude that detail is great, or sucks.
2. some people saying "quality is relitive" and "to each his own"
I completely believe number 2, but i would like to add that I DON"T PERSONALLY ENJOY DETAIL. that doesn't mean that i have a shallow perspective.
on the contrary -- i'm interested in what people actually do enjoy about what ever it is that they value. i mean honestly, arguing that one thing is better than another is sorta stupid i guess. personally, i tend to like dreamy, more internal games, which means a higher level of abstraction (less detail)... but i appreciate that other people probably love the more detailed games. personally however, i do no have any fucking idea how to enjoy those games... which is one of the reasons why i started this thread.
why is it that when someone expresses an opinion it's assumed that they don't have a relativistic viewpoint? i never said "detail fags are gay"
edit -- awesome, thanks professor420. that's cool. i think i tend to be more of an introvert.. i can connect with a world more deeply if there's less detail actually. it feels more real if i can experience it in my imagination.. there's something.. toooooooo complete.. or something.. about super realistic games. cool. sounds like we've got 2 different ways to get the same feeling....
If we had to use our imagination to fill up everything that isn't interactable we may as well read a book! Or better;
seriously, that's retarded.
I am not saying every game should be a cartoon or a perfect simulation of reality. Just that the assets should match up with the gameplay.
haha
Oh, and I never mentioned Quake 1
Sorry, I took to mean pretty much that you thought all games should be cartoony. May have been a miscommunication.
I do agree to a degree that the art style should often match gameplay, but I think where we are having differing opinions is that I think that story and themes should also come into play in choosing this, and that the style of the art, story, and gameplay do not always need to match. In fact, sometimes juxtaposing these in different ways could yield better results than matching them all. Nor do they need to be perfectly matched.
[ame]
When is enough enough? I don't want to sit around and watch games get worse for the next 10 years too.
At first I was going to claim I never made such a statement, however after further consideration you are very much right. There is something in between games and real life;
[ame]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj0xN3ZFQWs&feature=related[/ame]