Weighoff: Good graphics or Customisability?

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  Weighoff: Good graphics or Customisability?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Weighoff: Good graphics or Customisability?

tOFfGI posted 11-14-98 07:27 PM ET
I say bad graphics and fully customisable unit graphics (� la CivII) are better than good looking, set graphics (� la TA). What do you think? Is Customisability more important than looks?
Octopus posted 11-14-98 07:36 PM ET
I vote for good graphics over customizability. Personally, I almost never customize my games because I get bored looking at my own work. Hopefully, as professional game developers, Firaxis will do a much better job than I could ever do. And, since I intend to spend a LOT of time playing this game (don't we all?) I want the graphics to be as eye-pleasing as possible (although obviously not at the expense of game-play). Some games need customizability to maintain replayability (like new levels for Doom or Quake), but I don't foresee that being a problem with SMAC.
DHE_X2 posted 11-15-98 02:11 AM ET
I wouldn't mind a few Firaxis made graphic sets, but I'd have to go for the good graphics over customization.
dushan posted 11-15-98 03:03 AM ET
Why not both? I think TA has fully customisable units (you just have to be a 3d wizard :-) )
Also, I wouldn't say CivII had bad graphics.
I really don't think the two are exclusive.
On the other hand, are graphics that important? Wouldn't civ be still fun in text mode? :-) I can't quite imagine that and I don't have an answer to this question but I just had to ask it. :-)
Dushan
Spoe posted 11-17-98 11:39 PM ET
Eh, just look at FreeCiv. IIRC, it is plain ASCII. To me, graphics are largely secondary to the interface layout. The interface's job is(to me) get information to me when I need it, not to neccesarily look pretty. One of the better layouts I have seen is the old Harpoon(circa 89-90) game, in 16 color(not bit, mind you) EGA(640x350 IIRC); I still play this. The main thing to me is gameplay; one part of this is customization. So, given the choice, I would take customization, with graphics a close second.
PS: The Civ2 graphics were quite good, given the timeframe of the game(95 or thereabouts), and I didn't mind the graphics of the original. They presented the information needed without flashy extras.
Brother Greg posted 11-17-98 11:57 PM ET
Well, Graphics are always secondary to Gameplay. However, that wasn't the question, was it? Hmmm...
I think I prefer customiseability myself. I may not use it, but it is good to look at the stuff that other people do, and try it out.
Heck, I may even try out custom Factions myself.
Brother Greg.
MikeH II posted 11-18-98 06:58 AM ET
Gameplay is most important, that includes longevity so I have to go for customisability.
Wuff posted 11-18-98 07:04 AM ET
I think it's quite possible to have both.
Perhaps there could be a trade-off, say really nice graphics and partially customisable units.
Any else who thinks it's possible for both good graphics and customisablity to be present in SMAC?
MikeH II posted 11-18-98 08:41 AM ET
I think the graphics are pretty good already and there is a lot of customisation. So it is possible. To be honest if the gameplay is good I wouldn't care if it looked exactly like Civ II.
OmniDude posted 11-18-98 09:47 AM ET
ROTFM (Right On The F***ing Money, not Rolling On The Floor Moonwalking), Mike.
Civ II was just fine. How much of a games total budget goes to graphics design? Too much on average, I say. I'll take a crappy looking, kick-ass playing game over its antagonist anyday.
El Duderino
Currently chained to the SMAC-simulator (otherwise known as CivII)
MikeH II posted 11-18-98 10:29 AM ET
I think Civ II looked pretty good anyway. There are some game genres where up to date super fast 3d graphics ARE very important. Racing games, flight sims, 3d shooters etc. But in a turn based strategy game they are a nice extra. The interface has to be good, clear and useable and you have to be able to see what is going on on the screen. SMAC does this extremely well AND has a load of cool looking graphics. I would rather have my processor working hard on the AI. I am not a big customiser but I like the idea of making my own faction and scenarios so perhaps I will have a go. I did a few Duke 3D levels in the past but I never went into Civ II customisation.
BigER posted 11-18-98 10:30 AM ET
There was an interesting article in Computer Gaming World about this very subject. I don't remember which month but I will try to dig it up. Anyway the gist of it was that graphics make up a huge chuck of the budget for most games. And there is the rub, gameplay suffers because of lack of funds. AI suffers, troubleshooting bugs suffers, and almost every other aspect of a game is impacted because of this driving need to make a game look pretty! So, I say give me gameplay over graphics because in todays game design, given the limitations of budgets you really can't have the best of both worlds. I hope this changes someday.
BigER posted 11-18-98 10:35 AM ET
Oh I almost forgot. I think a good indicator of where we are at in the gameplay vs graphics debate would be Heroes of Might and Magic III. With the promised stunning graphics and the clain that the game will play BETTER then HoMMII we could see a breakthough. Although SMAC is going to be a kick ass game- I think (based on what I have seen so far) The graphics did take a back seat to gameplay. Not that there is anything wrong with this. I like it this way. Anyway, rambling over now.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Weighoff: Good graphics or Customisability?
tOFfGI	posted 11-14-98 07:27 PM ET I say bad graphics and fully customisable unit graphics (� la CivII) are better than good looking, set graphics (� la TA). What do you think? Is Customisability more important than looks?
Octopus	posted 11-14-98 07:36 PM ET I vote for good graphics over customizability. Personally, I almost never customize my games because I get bored looking at my own work. Hopefully, as professional game developers, Firaxis will do a much better job than I could ever do. And, since I intend to spend a LOT of time playing this game (don't we all?) I want the graphics to be as eye-pleasing as possible (although obviously not at the expense of game-play). Some games need customizability to maintain replayability (like new levels for Doom or Quake), but I don't foresee that being a problem with SMAC.
DHE_X2	posted 11-15-98 02:11 AM ET I wouldn't mind a few Firaxis made graphic sets, but I'd have to go for the good graphics over customization.
dushan	posted 11-15-98 03:03 AM ET Why not both? I think TA has fully customisable units (you just have to be a 3d wizard :-) ) Also, I wouldn't say CivII had bad graphics. I really don't think the two are exclusive. On the other hand, are graphics that important? Wouldn't civ be still fun in text mode? :-) I can't quite imagine that and I don't have an answer to this question but I just had to ask it. :-) Dushan
Spoe	posted 11-17-98 11:39 PM ET Eh, just look at FreeCiv. IIRC, it is plain ASCII. To me, graphics are largely secondary to the interface layout. The interface's job is(to me) get information to me when I need it, not to neccesarily look pretty. One of the better layouts I have seen is the old Harpoon(circa 89-90) game, in 16 color(not bit, mind you) EGA(640x350 IIRC); I still play this. The main thing to me is gameplay; one part of this is customization. So, given the choice, I would take customization, with graphics a close second. PS: The Civ2 graphics were quite good, given the timeframe of the game(95 or thereabouts), and I didn't mind the graphics of the original. They presented the information needed without flashy extras.
Brother Greg	posted 11-17-98 11:57 PM ET Well, Graphics are always secondary to Gameplay. However, that wasn't the question, was it? Hmmm... I think I prefer customiseability myself. I may not use it, but it is good to look at the stuff that other people do, and try it out. Heck, I may even try out custom Factions myself. Brother Greg.
MikeH II	posted 11-18-98 06:58 AM ET Gameplay is most important, that includes longevity so I have to go for customisability.
Wuff	posted 11-18-98 07:04 AM ET I think it's quite possible to have both. Perhaps there could be a trade-off, say really nice graphics and partially customisable units. Any else who thinks it's possible for both good graphics and customisablity to be present in SMAC?
MikeH II	posted 11-18-98 08:41 AM ET I think the graphics are pretty good already and there is a lot of customisation. So it is possible. To be honest if the gameplay is good I wouldn't care if it looked exactly like Civ II.
OmniDude	posted 11-18-98 09:47 AM ET ROTFM (Right On The F***ing Money, not Rolling On The Floor Moonwalking), Mike. Civ II was just fine. How much of a games total budget goes to graphics design? Too much on average, I say. I'll take a crappy looking, kick-ass playing game over its antagonist anyday. El Duderino Currently chained to the SMAC-simulator (otherwise known as CivII)
MikeH II	posted 11-18-98 10:29 AM ET I think Civ II looked pretty good anyway. There are some game genres where up to date super fast 3d graphics ARE very important. Racing games, flight sims, 3d shooters etc. But in a turn based strategy game they are a nice extra. The interface has to be good, clear and useable and you have to be able to see what is going on on the screen. SMAC does this extremely well AND has a load of cool looking graphics. I would rather have my processor working hard on the AI. I am not a big customiser but I like the idea of making my own faction and scenarios so perhaps I will have a go. I did a few Duke 3D levels in the past but I never went into Civ II customisation.
BigER	posted 11-18-98 10:30 AM ET There was an interesting article in Computer Gaming World about this very subject. I don't remember which month but I will try to dig it up. Anyway the gist of it was that graphics make up a huge chuck of the budget for most games. And there is the rub, gameplay suffers because of lack of funds. AI suffers, troubleshooting bugs suffers, and almost every other aspect of a game is impacted because of this driving need to make a game look pretty! So, I say give me gameplay over graphics because in todays game design, given the limitations of budgets you really can't have the best of both worlds. I hope this changes someday.
BigER	posted 11-18-98 10:35 AM ET Oh I almost forgot. I think a good indicator of where we are at in the gameplay vs graphics debate would be Heroes of Might and Magic III. With the promised stunning graphics and the clain that the game will play BETTER then HoMMII we could see a breakthough. Although SMAC is going to be a kick ass game- I think (based on what I have seen so far) The graphics did take a back seat to gameplay. Not that there is anything wrong with this. I like it this way. Anyway, rambling over now.