Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid
Why is staring at 3d station any better ? In fact, in SH3 I spend most of the time on the map, which is 2D too. Sure, the boats are pretty. Weather and explosions, cool. But that simply can't keep you playing it. In fact I too consider SH series much more boring then DW.
On the other hand .. SH is sexy .. that's why people TRY it. DW is not. I know dozens of people who played SH series, but never heard of DW.
|
Yeah thats something that many old time players forget. In the early days Simulations for the pc were the showcase for cutting edge graphics. Every kind of simulation tried to push the envelop. Remember Microprose ? They didn't devolp just flight simulators, they spanned from air, to surface to subsurface and each of their titles pushed the edge not only of gameplay but also on graphics for their time.
SH I for instance is a 2d game, and still feels more "polished" than DW. Don't even get me started on Sierra Fast Attack, another pureley 2d sub simulator that carries more carisma than DW.
That has to get people thinking.
The more "rough" a game is, the bigger the entry barrier to try it.
A simulation for pc has to capture as i said in other threads the whole experience. Saying just who cares about graphics its the gameplay that matters shows that that person has no knowledge of the history of pc games, and just what make a simulation tick.
100% gameplay 0 graphics : a game that few nerds will play -> failure if you spend big bucks on it.
80% gameplay, 20 % graphics : a game that says hey I'm here try me out.
-> captures the hard core market and a percentage of the casual market. It could be defined as a relative success.
Dw was 60% gameplay, and 10 graphics (recycled from an 10 year old engine), the rest 30% is the unifished state of the game -> utter failure in the causal market, a relative success in the hard core market but not enough to keep the game going.