If your aim is to make money, then i say don't bother. If you just want to have fun, then go ahead.
But, the most interesting part of the game will not be the graphics, it will be the logic. I don't think RC allows you the full customization logic-wise that you would want. And in the end, thats more important than the graphics.
If your aim is to make money, then i say don't bother. If you just want to have fun, then go ahead. But, the most interesting part of the game will not be the graphics, it will be the logic. I don't think RC allows you the full customization logic-wise that you would want. And in the end, thats more important than the graphics.
I believe RC Pro offers more in the way of programming customization, while Standard only allows you to create scripts...
You can also get the source code for RC to allow even further customization, so I think if one has the programming skill, then RC can be pretty flexible as far as game logic goes...but then again I can't be completely sure of that...just things I have read...
PLAYING: NOTHING!!! PLAYED:FFXI, LotRO, AoC, WAR, DDO, Megaten, Wurm, Rohan, Mabinogi, RoM
Follow your dreams. Do what the developers of Darkfall did, make a game YOU want to play. You will make money and become popular just like Darkfall is doing now. You don't need a 100 man strong development team (hell look at WAR's failure, tossing cash at something does not make it work). You will have to find other people with your skills and mindset to accomplish what you want to do.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
don't bother if you can't make graphics that don't take advantage of new technology then i'm not going to play it
it shows your lack of skill and ruins immersion
I've seen people loose their lives to Tetris. The world around them goes away- even the passage of time is ignored. There's immersion- There's a bunch of squares.
Hi-quality gfx helps- but a crappy game w great gfx will break immersion more than a great game w/crappy gfx.
Nope. BOTH will break immersion. The analogy to tetris is bonus. Tetris suck you in because of its slot machine type quality. No one will be immerse in a fictional world playing tetris.
This is incorrect, bad game design will ruin immersion through an effect called alienation. Games do not need good graphics to be imersive. You can still be immersed to this day by games like Zork which literally have no graphics, and its all due to the design and gameplay. People can get immersed in Tetris through the challenge. It is the same reason why arcades were popular not long after Space War was invented. It has to do with the challenge, which is created through a rule set. The graphics didnt matter, just the interaction and challenge.
I also think you do not really understand what the word Immersion really means in the context of a game. If you are immersed, your mind is fully into the game play, alienation, is when you realize you are the player looking at a screen thinking about what you see and do. Movies are good examples of this effect, you can be completely dawn into a narrative and its visual elements, but the moment the bad actor or cheesy lines come into play, you are drawn away from the screen and realize you are the viewer. You then view the image as a spectator, noticing elements that are critical... aka critical thinking, rather than being completely drawn into the narrative. Narrative in this regards is also the game play for games.
Thus, graphics are not the main factor of immersion, in fact they are not even needed. In some cases, the best graphics can cause alienation where as worse graphics will not. What this says is that graphics are not necessary for the immersion factor, done right they can help it. Higher end graphics require higher end detail. Lack of that detail will ruin immersion.
Contradictions.
You are saying a pixelated 2D batman that you can hardly tell between him & the joker, gives the SAME immersion as Batman doing a up-side down take-down in 3D with lighting effect like in the game Arkam Asylum .. LOL
And why argue for good games with bad graphics? There are plenty of good games with GOOD graphics. If i can get both, why should i settle for only one?
And you think COD Modern Warfare 2 will be such a good game if the scenes do not look real?
*whoosh*
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
don't bother if you can't make graphics that don't take advantage of new technology then i'm not going to play it
it shows your lack of skill and ruins immersion
I've seen people loose their lives to Tetris. The world around them goes away- even the passage of time is ignored. There's immersion- There's a bunch of squares.
Hi-quality gfx helps- but a crappy game w great gfx will break immersion more than a great game w/crappy gfx.
Nope. BOTH will break immersion. The analogy to tetris is bonus. Tetris suck you in because of its slot machine type quality. No one will be immerse in a fictional world playing tetris.
This is incorrect, bad game design will ruin immersion through an effect called alienation. Games do not need good graphics to be imersive. You can still be immersed to this day by games like Zork which literally have no graphics, and its all due to the design and gameplay. People can get immersed in Tetris through the challenge. It is the same reason why arcades were popular not long after Space War was invented. It has to do with the challenge, which is created through a rule set. The graphics didnt matter, just the interaction and challenge.
I also think you do not really understand what the word Immersion really means in the context of a game. If you are immersed, your mind is fully into the game play, alienation, is when you realize you are the player looking at a screen thinking about what you see and do. Movies are good examples of this effect, you can be completely dawn into a narrative and its visual elements, but the moment the bad actor or cheesy lines come into play, you are drawn away from the screen and realize you are the viewer. You then view the image as a spectator, noticing elements that are critical... aka critical thinking, rather than being completely drawn into the narrative. Narrative in this regards is also the game play for games.
Thus, graphics are not the main factor of immersion, in fact they are not even needed. In some cases, the best graphics can cause alienation where as worse graphics will not. What this says is that graphics are not necessary for the immersion factor, done right they can help it. Higher end graphics require higher end detail. Lack of that detail will ruin immersion.
Contradictions.
You are saying a pixelated 2D batman that you can hardly tell between him & the joker, gives the SAME immersion as Batman doing a up-side down take-down in 3D with lighting effect like in the game Arkam Asylum .. LOL
And why argue for good games with bad graphics? There are plenty of good games with GOOD graphics. If i can get both, why should i settle for only one?
And you think COD Modern Warfare 2 will be such a good game if the scenes do not look real?
*whoosh*
Now that i highlighted the entire sentence, the meaning changes doesnt it? Its easy to ignore the context of a sentence to take one piece and create a whole new meaning to fit an argument, however, t his behavior does not make it true or logical for that matter.
Has anyone ever played the game Centipede? The game play, regardless of graphics draws the player into the game world. It is the design that does this, graphics do not matter. For some reason i think many seem to confuse immersion with "believability", which wrong. Immersion might be the catalyst for someone who wishes to role play, but graphics still do not matter in this case. Do books need pictures to be immersive? No. The design and structure of the narrative can do that.
Anyways the point of this post is that SELECTIVE READING is bad, and proper READING COMPREHENSION WITHOUT MANIPULATION is good.
"Graphics in games is like money: It does not bring happines, but lack of it makes them poor." Sorry for a lousy translation.
He apparently never played a text adventure.
I did. Text adventures are over-rated. I would much rather play a game with graphics then playing the "guess-the-key-word" game of some "interactive" fiction.
Has anyone ever played the game Centipede? The game play, regardless of graphics draws the player into the game world. It is the design that does this, graphics do not matter. For some reason i think many seem to confuse immersion with "believability", which wrong. Immersion might be the catalyst for someone who wishes to role play, but graphics still do not matter in this case. Do books need pictures to be immersive? No. The design and structure of the narrative can do that.
LOl .. that is the silliest thing i have heard.
What game world? A blank screen, may be with a wall with ONE long line (yes, that is your centipede) in it? ha ha ha.
I got bored of centipede in 5 min. Believing what? I think you will have a mental problem if you believe that thing on screen has any resemblence to a real centipede.
And don't tell me space invader is immersive next. I started playing these games when they are first released. They were not immersive them (and it was a fun pass-time dont get me wrong), and they are not immersive now.
Has anyone ever played the game Centipede? The game play, regardless of graphics draws the player into the game world. It is the design that does this, graphics do not matter. For some reason i think many seem to confuse immersion with "believability", which wrong. Immersion might be the catalyst for someone who wishes to role play, but graphics still do not matter in this case. Do books need pictures to be immersive? No. The design and structure of the narrative can do that. LOl .. that is the silliest thing i have heard. What game world? A blank screen, may be with a wall with ONE long line (yes, that is your centipede) in it? ha ha ha. I got bored of centipede in 5 min. Believing what? I think you will have a mental problem if you believe that thing on screen has any resemblence to a real centipede. And don't tell me space invader is immersive next. I started playing these games when they are first released. They were not immersive them (and it was a fun pass-time dont get me wrong), and they are not immersive now.
I am surprised, for an old man you certainly act the role of "image saturated kiddie". I have said it twice now, and I am not sure you are reading it.
"For some reason i think many seem to confuse immersion with "believability""
Centipede is a good example because for the thousands that played the game in the arcades, they had a goal. To get the highest score possible while getting as much play time out of that nickle, dime, or quarter as possible. Second: the escalating challenge, designed intentionally meant there was little time for the player to take their eyes off the screen. What ends up happening is a player who is drawn into the screen, one who is focusing on not losing and surviving to the next round.
This is a form of immersion. I dont know why you are confusing it with believability. The game design creates the interaction, whether active or inactive, between the player (and their brain) and the game.
You might find yourself writing a long and lengthy reply to someone, and in doing so you might not realize how immersed you are in that process until you are done writing it.
You can mock me all you want, but it wont change the fact you cant seem to grasp the concept of immersion, which has NOTHING to do with image saturation (graphics). Graphics can enhance visual aspects of immersion, but with our without them, all you need is design.
You might not know it but some of the most simplistic and low graphics games today are still selling. Games like maple story bring in more revenue and players than most of the AAA 3d mmorpgs. Flash games are awarded at the IGF. Design is key.
You can have immersion without the graphics, but not with the design. This is a common fact in the game industry. Higher graphics help sell to image saturated consumers like yourself. It has nothing to do with immersion at that point.
The problem with many MMO's is they're relatively shallow. There are obvious exceptions, but moving on to my point.
There's not a lot of exploration. And I don't necessarily mean just geographical exploration, I mean exploration in concepts and mechanics. A lot of the quest ideas that have been thrown around here are really good. Get the player involved I think is the overarching topic. Rather than kill 10 rats, go collect 10 items, then have them go somewhere else with the items to find a formula, then have them get together the tools from somewhere, then have them put it all together and give the player a sensible useful reward from that.
While they're down in some dungeon searching for the tools or whatever, they come across an old camp that has a letter. They have to take the letter somewhere. While they're taking the letter somewhere they come across a camp that's under attack. So you help them out (or don't). If you do, something else opens up (maybe quests for them). If you don't, maybe the leader of the bandits who were attacking you randomly finds you later and you could either make a deal with them to maybe work for them, or fight them; In which case you get a bounty for the bandit that you could turn in somewhere else.
These simple things which from my very limited experience should be relatively easy to implement really aren't seen.
I agree with a lot of what's been said. The problem with many MMO's is they're relatively shallow. There are obvious exceptions, but moving on to my point. There's not a lot of exploration. And I don't necessarily mean just geographical exploration, I mean exploration in concepts and mechanics. A lot of the quest ideas that have been thrown around here are really good. Get the player involved I think is the overarching topic. Rather than kill 10 rats, go collect 10 items, then have them go somewhere else with the items to find a formula, then have them get together the tools from somewhere, then have them put it all together and give the player a sensible useful reward from that. While they're down in some dungeon searching for the tools or whatever, they come across an old camp that has a letter. They have to take the letter somewhere. While they're taking the letter somewhere they come across a camp that's under attack. So you help them out (or don't). If you do, something else opens up (maybe quests for them). If you don't, maybe the leader of the bandits who were attacking you randomly finds you later and you could either make a deal with them to maybe work for them, or fight them; In which case you get a bounty for the bandit that you could turn in somewhere else. These simple things which from my very limited experience should be relatively easy to implement really aren't seen.
They do have a valid excuse though, sadly. Everything you have mentioned is considered more expensive. More expensive elements hit performance and for mmo's they put more importance on acceptable framerates.
Now, even though they have this valid excuse, smart design can find ways to get around this limitation. Instances and channels are an example of this get around method. Sometimes we have to sacrifice graphics for advanced play elements in mmo's.
Like james cameron waited for technology to evolve to make Avatar, gamers and designers will have to wait till bandwidth and processing power increases as well.
You are saying a pixelated 2D batman that you can hardly tell between him & the joker, gives the SAME immersion as Batman doing a up-side down take-down in 3D with lighting effect like in the game Arkam Asylum .. LOL
And why argue for good games with bad graphics? There are plenty of good games with GOOD graphics. If i can get both, why should i settle for only one?
And you think COD Modern Warfare 2 will be such a good game if the scenes do not look real?
*whoosh*
Now that i highlighted the entire sentence, the meaning changes doesnt it? Its easy to ignore the context of a sentence to take one piece and create a whole new meaning to fit an argument, however, t his behavior does not make it true or logical for that matter.
Has anyone ever played the game Centipede? The game play, regardless of graphics draws the player into the game world. It is the design that does this, graphics do not matter. For some reason i think many seem to confuse immersion with "believability", which wrong. Immersion might be the catalyst for someone who wishes to role play, but graphics still do not matter in this case. Do books need pictures to be immersive? No. The design and structure of the narrative can do that.
Anyways the point of this post is that SELECTIVE READING is bad, and proper READING COMPREHENSION WITHOUT MANIPULATION is good.
Indeed. I completely understood your point and completely agree with it. Immersion and believability are not the same thing. To be completely immersed in something is to be completely consumed by it in that moment... as in, playing Pac Man and being so "immersed" in the game that you forget the passing of time, or tune out the loud noises of people and other games blaring all around you. For that to happen, you don't need some beautifully rendered and fleshed out world... you just a world presented well enough - be it in 2D, 3D or plain text - to let your imagination take over.
I've played games that would be considered "archaic" by today's standards and been fully immersed. I've played newer games with worlds that verge on photorealistic and felt, at every moment, very aware that I was playing a game.... all flash... no substance.
But that's really the thing isn't it? Many people don't want to use their imaginations these days. They don't want to think. They don't want to read. They don't want to have to use critical thinking. They just want to shut off their brain and be "entertained".
I say, make the game that you envision, keep your expectations realistic , and don't be discouraged - just be aware it's going to be a lot of work, both during development... and after launch.
I highly recommend this book:
Developing Online Games I own a copy myself and it's a great read that I go back to time and again for ideas, inspiration, cautionary tales and solid insight. It's a bit "old" in terms of the games it covers (though several are still around), but the advice is still relevant and there are some great post-mortems in there. The one for Meridian 59 is particularly insightful... and funny.
Another good read:
Masters of Doom - the story of how ID Software was born, how they grew from a small group of guys working for another company, to being a startup working out of a house and eventually on to the well-known success story they became. A real true "grass roots" sorta story that I find particularly inspirational. It's not a very long read and I freaking love it. I've read it several times. Particularly relevant to me since I remember so many of the events that are discussed in there and never realized what was really going on behind the scenes when they happened. Great read.
And there's a bevy of other books out there; I have a small library of them, being a fan of game design myself. There's alot of info out there. Also check out gamedev.net, which is a great site for game design related discussions and articles...
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Comments
.
If your aim is to make money, then i say don't bother. If you just want to have fun, then go ahead.
But, the most interesting part of the game will not be the graphics, it will be the logic. I don't think RC allows you the full customization logic-wise that you would want. And in the end, thats more important than the graphics.
Graphics are icing on the cake, it's not everything but it is helpful if it's far from wow graphics.
I believe RC Pro offers more in the way of programming customization, while Standard only allows you to create scripts...
You can also get the source code for RC to allow even further customization, so I think if one has the programming skill, then RC can be pretty flexible as far as game logic goes...but then again I can't be completely sure of that...just things I have read...
PLAYING: NOTHING!!!
PLAYED:FFXI, LotRO, AoC, WAR, DDO, Megaten, Wurm, Rohan, Mabinogi, RoM
WAITING FOR: Dust 514
.
After Grzegorz Mendala:
"Graphics in games is like money: It does not bring happines, but lack of it makes them poor."
Sorry for a lousy translation.
http://www.teraonline.info.pl Polski Poradnik Gry Tera Online
.
Follow your dreams. Do what the developers of Darkfall did, make a game YOU want to play. You will make money and become popular just like Darkfall is doing now. You don't need a 100 man strong development team (hell look at WAR's failure, tossing cash at something does not make it work). You will have to find other people with your skills and mindset to accomplish what you want to do.
The definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
Just do it.
Check out Realmcrafter.
www.realmcrafter.com
Seems like it would be best to get friends in on this and do it as a team.
I've seen people loose their lives to Tetris. The world around them goes away- even the passage of time is ignored. There's immersion- There's a bunch of squares.
Hi-quality gfx helps- but a crappy game w great gfx will break immersion more than a great game w/crappy gfx.
Nope. BOTH will break immersion. The analogy to tetris is bonus. Tetris suck you in because of its slot machine type quality. No one will be immerse in a fictional world playing tetris.
This is incorrect, bad game design will ruin immersion through an effect called alienation. Games do not need good graphics to be imersive. You can still be immersed to this day by games like Zork which literally have no graphics, and its all due to the design and gameplay. People can get immersed in Tetris through the challenge. It is the same reason why arcades were popular not long after Space War was invented. It has to do with the challenge, which is created through a rule set. The graphics didnt matter, just the interaction and challenge.
I also think you do not really understand what the word Immersion really means in the context of a game. If you are immersed, your mind is fully into the game play, alienation, is when you realize you are the player looking at a screen thinking about what you see and do. Movies are good examples of this effect, you can be completely dawn into a narrative and its visual elements, but the moment the bad actor or cheesy lines come into play, you are drawn away from the screen and realize you are the viewer. You then view the image as a spectator, noticing elements that are critical... aka critical thinking, rather than being completely drawn into the narrative. Narrative in this regards is also the game play for games.
Thus, graphics are not the main factor of immersion, in fact they are not even needed. In some cases, the best graphics can cause alienation where as worse graphics will not. What this says is that graphics are not necessary for the immersion factor, done right they can help it. Higher end graphics require higher end detail. Lack of that detail will ruin immersion.
Contradictions.
You are saying a pixelated 2D batman that you can hardly tell between him & the joker, gives the SAME immersion as Batman doing a up-side down take-down in 3D with lighting effect like in the game Arkam Asylum .. LOL
And why argue for good games with bad graphics? There are plenty of good games with GOOD graphics. If i can get both, why should i settle for only one?
And you think COD Modern Warfare 2 will be such a good game if the scenes do not look real?
*whoosh*
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I've seen people loose their lives to Tetris. The world around them goes away- even the passage of time is ignored. There's immersion- There's a bunch of squares.
Hi-quality gfx helps- but a crappy game w great gfx will break immersion more than a great game w/crappy gfx.
Nope. BOTH will break immersion. The analogy to tetris is bonus. Tetris suck you in because of its slot machine type quality. No one will be immerse in a fictional world playing tetris.
This is incorrect, bad game design will ruin immersion through an effect called alienation. Games do not need good graphics to be imersive. You can still be immersed to this day by games like Zork which literally have no graphics, and its all due to the design and gameplay. People can get immersed in Tetris through the challenge. It is the same reason why arcades were popular not long after Space War was invented. It has to do with the challenge, which is created through a rule set. The graphics didnt matter, just the interaction and challenge.
I also think you do not really understand what the word Immersion really means in the context of a game. If you are immersed, your mind is fully into the game play, alienation, is when you realize you are the player looking at a screen thinking about what you see and do. Movies are good examples of this effect, you can be completely dawn into a narrative and its visual elements, but the moment the bad actor or cheesy lines come into play, you are drawn away from the screen and realize you are the viewer. You then view the image as a spectator, noticing elements that are critical... aka critical thinking, rather than being completely drawn into the narrative. Narrative in this regards is also the game play for games.
Thus, graphics are not the main factor of immersion, in fact they are not even needed. In some cases, the best graphics can cause alienation where as worse graphics will not. What this says is that graphics are not necessary for the immersion factor, done right they can help it. Higher end graphics require higher end detail. Lack of that detail will ruin immersion.
Contradictions.
You are saying a pixelated 2D batman that you can hardly tell between him & the joker, gives the SAME immersion as Batman doing a up-side down take-down in 3D with lighting effect like in the game Arkam Asylum .. LOL
And why argue for good games with bad graphics? There are plenty of good games with GOOD graphics. If i can get both, why should i settle for only one?
And you think COD Modern Warfare 2 will be such a good game if the scenes do not look real?
*whoosh*
Now that i highlighted the entire sentence, the meaning changes doesnt it? Its easy to ignore the context of a sentence to take one piece and create a whole new meaning to fit an argument, however, t his behavior does not make it true or logical for that matter.
Has anyone ever played the game Centipede? The game play, regardless of graphics draws the player into the game world. It is the design that does this, graphics do not matter. For some reason i think many seem to confuse immersion with "believability", which wrong. Immersion might be the catalyst for someone who wishes to role play, but graphics still do not matter in this case. Do books need pictures to be immersive? No. The design and structure of the narrative can do that.
Anyways the point of this post is that SELECTIVE READING is bad, and proper READING COMPREHENSION WITHOUT MANIPULATION is good.
.
He apparently never played a text adventure.
I did. Text adventures are over-rated. I would much rather play a game with graphics then playing the "guess-the-key-word" game of some "interactive" fiction.
Has anyone ever played the game Centipede? The game play, regardless of graphics draws the player into the game world. It is the design that does this, graphics do not matter. For some reason i think many seem to confuse immersion with "believability", which wrong. Immersion might be the catalyst for someone who wishes to role play, but graphics still do not matter in this case. Do books need pictures to be immersive? No. The design and structure of the narrative can do that.
LOl .. that is the silliest thing i have heard.
What game world? A blank screen, may be with a wall with ONE long line (yes, that is your centipede) in it? ha ha ha.
I got bored of centipede in 5 min. Believing what? I think you will have a mental problem if you believe that thing on screen has any resemblence to a real centipede.
And don't tell me space invader is immersive next. I started playing these games when they are first released. They were not immersive them (and it was a fun pass-time dont get me wrong), and they are not immersive now.
I am surprised, for an old man you certainly act the role of "image saturated kiddie". I have said it twice now, and I am not sure you are reading it.
"For some reason i think many seem to confuse immersion with "believability""
Centipede is a good example because for the thousands that played the game in the arcades, they had a goal. To get the highest score possible while getting as much play time out of that nickle, dime, or quarter as possible. Second: the escalating challenge, designed intentionally meant there was little time for the player to take their eyes off the screen. What ends up happening is a player who is drawn into the screen, one who is focusing on not losing and surviving to the next round.
This is a form of immersion. I dont know why you are confusing it with believability. The game design creates the interaction, whether active or inactive, between the player (and their brain) and the game.
You might find yourself writing a long and lengthy reply to someone, and in doing so you might not realize how immersed you are in that process until you are done writing it.
You can mock me all you want, but it wont change the fact you cant seem to grasp the concept of immersion, which has NOTHING to do with image saturation (graphics). Graphics can enhance visual aspects of immersion, but with our without them, all you need is design.
You might not know it but some of the most simplistic and low graphics games today are still selling. Games like maple story bring in more revenue and players than most of the AAA 3d mmorpgs. Flash games are awarded at the IGF. Design is key.
You can have immersion without the graphics, but not with the design. This is a common fact in the game industry. Higher graphics help sell to image saturated consumers like yourself. It has nothing to do with immersion at that point.
.
.
.
I agree with a lot of what's been said.
The problem with many MMO's is they're relatively shallow. There are obvious exceptions, but moving on to my point.
There's not a lot of exploration. And I don't necessarily mean just geographical exploration, I mean exploration in concepts and mechanics. A lot of the quest ideas that have been thrown around here are really good. Get the player involved I think is the overarching topic. Rather than kill 10 rats, go collect 10 items, then have them go somewhere else with the items to find a formula, then have them get together the tools from somewhere, then have them put it all together and give the player a sensible useful reward from that.
While they're down in some dungeon searching for the tools or whatever, they come across an old camp that has a letter. They have to take the letter somewhere. While they're taking the letter somewhere they come across a camp that's under attack. So you help them out (or don't). If you do, something else opens up (maybe quests for them). If you don't, maybe the leader of the bandits who were attacking you randomly finds you later and you could either make a deal with them to maybe work for them, or fight them; In which case you get a bounty for the bandit that you could turn in somewhere else.
These simple things which from my very limited experience should be relatively easy to implement really aren't seen.
They do have a valid excuse though, sadly. Everything you have mentioned is considered more expensive. More expensive elements hit performance and for mmo's they put more importance on acceptable framerates.
Now, even though they have this valid excuse, smart design can find ways to get around this limitation. Instances and channels are an example of this get around method. Sometimes we have to sacrifice graphics for advanced play elements in mmo's.
Like james cameron waited for technology to evolve to make Avatar, gamers and designers will have to wait till bandwidth and processing power increases as well.
.
Contradictions.
You are saying a pixelated 2D batman that you can hardly tell between him & the joker, gives the SAME immersion as Batman doing a up-side down take-down in 3D with lighting effect like in the game Arkam Asylum .. LOL
And why argue for good games with bad graphics? There are plenty of good games with GOOD graphics. If i can get both, why should i settle for only one?
And you think COD Modern Warfare 2 will be such a good game if the scenes do not look real?
*whoosh*
Now that i highlighted the entire sentence, the meaning changes doesnt it? Its easy to ignore the context of a sentence to take one piece and create a whole new meaning to fit an argument, however, t his behavior does not make it true or logical for that matter.
Has anyone ever played the game Centipede? The game play, regardless of graphics draws the player into the game world. It is the design that does this, graphics do not matter. For some reason i think many seem to confuse immersion with "believability", which wrong. Immersion might be the catalyst for someone who wishes to role play, but graphics still do not matter in this case. Do books need pictures to be immersive? No. The design and structure of the narrative can do that.
Anyways the point of this post is that SELECTIVE READING is bad, and proper READING COMPREHENSION WITHOUT MANIPULATION is good.
Indeed. I completely understood your point and completely agree with it. Immersion and believability are not the same thing. To be completely immersed in something is to be completely consumed by it in that moment... as in, playing Pac Man and being so "immersed" in the game that you forget the passing of time, or tune out the loud noises of people and other games blaring all around you. For that to happen, you don't need some beautifully rendered and fleshed out world... you just a world presented well enough - be it in 2D, 3D or plain text - to let your imagination take over.
I've played games that would be considered "archaic" by today's standards and been fully immersed. I've played newer games with worlds that verge on photorealistic and felt, at every moment, very aware that I was playing a game.... all flash... no substance.
But that's really the thing isn't it? Many people don't want to use their imaginations these days. They don't want to think. They don't want to read. They don't want to have to use critical thinking. They just want to shut off their brain and be "entertained".
I say, make the game that you envision, keep your expectations realistic , and don't be discouraged - just be aware it's going to be a lot of work, both during development... and after launch.
I highly recommend this book:
Developing Online Games I own a copy myself and it's a great read that I go back to time and again for ideas, inspiration, cautionary tales and solid insight. It's a bit "old" in terms of the games it covers (though several are still around), but the advice is still relevant and there are some great post-mortems in there. The one for Meridian 59 is particularly insightful... and funny.
Another good read:
Masters of Doom - the story of how ID Software was born, how they grew from a small group of guys working for another company, to being a startup working out of a house and eventually on to the well-known success story they became. A real true "grass roots" sorta story that I find particularly inspirational. It's not a very long read and I freaking love it. I've read it several times. Particularly relevant to me since I remember so many of the events that are discussed in there and never realized what was really going on behind the scenes when they happened. Great read.
And there's a bevy of other books out there; I have a small library of them, being a fan of game design myself. There's alot of info out there. Also check out gamedev.net, which is a great site for game design related discussions and articles...
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops