How important are graphics to your purchase?

[Snowman999]

Originally Posted by GSpector

To answer your question, it was an old Star Trek Sim game that actually can date back prior to the Monitor.

I actually played a version of it on a Telitype Machine (Paper print out only, no Monitor) back in the 80's and I have a slightly better version on my Palm 130 PDA.:rotfl:

I played it (or its big brother) in 1978 on a dumb terminal via accoustic coupler (stick the phone handset in a rubber cradle.) Was running on a Prime minicomputer across campus. It was the very first computer game I ever played.

[daft]

Most gaming is about suspension of disbelief, and simming probably more so since it does have a real world connection in that it tries to make a game out of something that is or was actually done IRL. Graphics have always added to the gameplay aspect by either its eastetical value or simply by rendering a virtual world so real it's almost life-like. Trying to disconnect graphics and gameplay and claim they have nothing to do with each other is a bit naive. Having said that, good graphics doesn't make a crappy game good and good gameplay can get lost in a muddle of poor graphics or bad art-direction. Both have their part to play in a really good game.

To answer the question, yes I would have bought it. Would I have liked it? Don't know.

[vindex]

With better graphics, playing games is growing closer and closer to the experience of watching a movie, except that it's interactive. I'm eagerly looking forward to what the future will bring. So yes, graphics are important for me.

[XanderF]

I think one only has to look at the sales of 'Harpoon 3' (abominable), the '688i'/'Sub Command'/'Dangerous Waters' series (good enough for 3 games, but not to keep the company in the genre), and the 'Silent Hunter' series (actually pretty good, sustaining a still-running series) to see the only real answer to that question.

From that set, we have (respectively) naval warfare with strict 2d interface (PERIOD, no "3d graphics" at all), primitive 3d graphics, and cutting-edge 3d graphics.

Granted, differences in era, but I think from discussions with coworkers (et al) the point stands. SubSims can be fun, but virtually nobody is going to play a game that looks outright bad by contemporary standards. The hardcore crowd will, of course, but...well...put it this way.

If you identify a given demographic (for example, one most companies target - male, 20 through 30) that you want to sell to. You figure how many of them could be inclined to buy your product of this genre, and decide you need about 20% of that group to buy it for you to break even.

Now, the die-hard, hardcore, subsessed simulation nut will be EVERYTHING that comes out. Doesn't matter what, if it's sub-related, he'll own it. He's also (generously) 1% of your market.

Which makes the economics of the situation clear.

[daft]

Originally Posted by XanderF

I think one only has to look at the sales of 'Harpoon 3' (abominable), the '688i'/'Sub Command'/'Dangerous Waters' series (good enough for 3 games, but not to keep the company in the genre), and the 'Silent Hunter' series (actually pretty good, sustaining a still-running series) to see the only real answer to that question.

From that set, we have (respectively) naval warfare with strict 2d interface (PERIOD, no "3d graphics" at all), primitive 3d graphics, and cutting-edge 3d graphics.

Granted, differences in era, but I think from discussions with coworkers (et al) the point stands. SubSims can be fun, but virtually nobody is going to play a game that looks outright bad by contemporary standards. The hardcore crowd will, of course, but...well...put it this way.

If you identify a given demographic (for example, one most companies target - male, 20 through 30) that you want to sell to. You figure how many of them could be inclined to buy your product of this genre, and decide you need about 20% of that group to buy it for you to break even.

Now, the die-hard, hardcore, subsessed simulation nut will be EVERYTHING that comes out. Doesn't matter what, if it's sub-related, he'll own it. He's also (generously) 1% of your market.

Which makes the economics of the situation clear.

Good post that really hammers home something we "sub-nuts" must accept; in order to even have subsims like the SH-series we need to accept compromises in certain areas so the game can appeal to people outside the nische market we represent. If we don't, we'll never see another subsim brought to market again.

[FIREWALL]

Need a good balance

[GSpector]

I have found the imbalance in movies as well.

Biggest grip I had was the Star Wars series.

The 1st 3 (Episodes 4-6), did not have access to the same technology we have today so it had to rely of a great story and model building.

The 2nd 3 (Episodes 1-3), used so much special effects and technology that the story suffered.

SH3 was (and still is) a great sim that had to rely on more then graphics.

SH4 seemed to push more towards the graphics and in doing so, game play suffered.

I hope, like in the SW Episode 3, they can finally balance Graphics, Game play and Story to make SH5 a lot better.

[U-Bones]

Originally Posted by GSpector

I have found the imbalance in movies as well.

Biggest grip I had was the Star Wars series.

The 1st 3 (Episodes 4-6), did not have access to the same technology we have today so it had to rely of a great story and model building.

The 2nd 3 (Episodes 1-3), used so much special effects and technology that the story suffered.

SH3 was (and still is) a great sim that had to rely on more then graphics.

SH4 seemed to push more towards the graphics and in doing so, game play suffered.

I hope, like in the SW Episode 3, they can finally balance Graphics, Game play and Story to make SH5 a lot better.

Lot of truth there. Functionality and attention to detail get trampled in the purely visual world. Ducks no longer have to quack.

If I had to chose between working 2D and broken 3D ? For some elements its no contest - the 2D radar station of SH2 is vastly superior to the 3D joke of a station in SH4. The message box integrated into the hud in previous sub sims were vastly superior to the stupid, detached, floaty, layered thing, that gets in the way of everything (in default resolution), message box mistake in SH4.

Of course, the purely visual elements are no contest in the other direction, and explain why we excuse non-quacking ducks... remember the goofy DD bow shots with either 0% 15% 30% AOB ?

[MaxT.dk]

I was always much more into GFX instead of the gameplay... I'm a webdesigner after all But I've gamed 2D games on Commodore too. You know... Times change, so does the tech. progress. Why keep with the stone age graphics? Progress, my friends, is the key!

[Bane]

I'm a graphics whore, no doubt. Can I say that? :hmm:

Still though, there has to be gameplay to back up the graphics. If a game looked as good as Jessica Alba in 'something more comfortable' but was as exciting as mowing the lawn, well, sorry Jessica.

Actually, games are sort of like women. They can't be all flash and no substance nor vice versa. If she's great arm candy but can't hold a conversation she'll be fun for a short while, but not in the long term. If she isn't that attractive but has a great personality you'd never know because you wouldn't bother trying to get to know her.

See what I'm saying?

[jerryt]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I would be more supportive of a black and green text based subsim as long as the gameplay is good.


:p

Good God! Is it bad that I remember this?

[gg.]

Graphics are important but are not all...
SH 4 has good graphics but is terribly full of bugs, so that SH3 (with GWX) is not so beutiful but has still a better gameplay.
At the end of the day, I think SH4 has also a graphic engine not fully optimized (it has too high hardware requirements)... It is an unfinished game we paid as a finished product...

[9th_cow]

I am still not convinced gameplay in SHIV suffered because of the graphics ( a seperate group will work on graphics in developing a game)

I think it suffered because as always it either wasnt tested , or was done so by yes men. breifly at that to meet the ever lowering standards ( ok i take that back, look at most games, crap and buggy and short. this is a hugely complex game and for it to work aswell as it does given the modern so called standards games are released in SHIV was still a remarkable achievement)

there was also some stupidity involved.
1 and 1.1 air radar detects boats.
1.2 they "fixed it" now it doesnt detect boats or planes....

you can not blame the people that made the game look so nice, for it being coded by someone who didnt feel like testing his/their work.

and i just got struck by this thought, ever think its the casual gamers that are making consesions to the hardcore crowd ? rather than the other way around ?
might explain why the hardest parts of the game such as manually gauging speed, are the faultiest. as theyre not needed for casual gamers, only for that 1% of sad old folk like me who like to look at bow waves, and play with spreads.

[Sulikate]

IMHO, graphics are a important part on the immersion factor (as someone already said), and therefore, needed. I don't see the fact that the Silent Hunter series is a simulation as an excuse for outdated graphics.

[Safe-Keeper]

I bought Dominions 3, which has graphics out of the eighties, so yes, I would.