 |
| |
|
|
Deathmerchant
|
|
Well.. (And I really must point this out) Moo3 COULD have been made with better graphics. I've seen alot of Newbs come in and comment on how the graphics look kinda crappy. I'm personally not complaining. But that's really what sells the game to newcomers of the genre and series.
If you've never seen the game or series before, (Which alot haven't) you go to the store, see it sitting on the shelf, look at the back of the box to see what it looks like, and then you say "Ewwww"
That isn't a good response. Moo3's graphics could be imporved alot without comprimising gameplay at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
playshogi
|
|
On the other hand, they might look at the back of the box for system requirements and be happy it they can play it on the old machine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xentax
|
 |
North Carolina
Apr 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
I really don't understand why people are SO critical of the graphics.
I mean, there are a lot of resolution bigots around, but that's just what it is -- 800x600 is more than enough to work with when it comes to making slick, clean graphics.
There are complaints about the lack of 3d acceleration for space combat. I suppose that's a valid complaint. But I've seen the combat in action, and I'm honestly not convinced a massive, cutting-edge graphics engine would add a whole lot to it (except a year in development time, likely). I *can* see the value in a richer backdrop, but that doesn't require 3-D to do, either, so that's a separate issue.
So, though it's been said many times before, I'll repeat it again: It's wrong to judge the graphics without seeing the real thing. Does anyone really feel the main UI screens look pixellated, or klunky, or something? They look good to me. And I doubt the screenshots on the back of the box will cause problems -- I've yet to see a box graphic that was large or sharp enough to really, fairly, evaluate the graphics engine providing it. Diablo 2 had one of the best "buy me" boxes I've seen, in fact.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deathmerchant
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I actually liked the combat graphics. But when someone just sees the box, they won't buy the game just because it can play on their old machine. They will want to see what the game is about. Even if the game does run on their old machine, there isn't anything saying they will buy it.
quote:
I'm honestly not convinced a massive, cutting-edge graphics engine would add a whole lot to it (except a year in development time, likely). |
I'm not sure about that one, look at all the people complaining about the graphics right now. If Moo3 would have been made with improved graphics, I think there would be quite a few people who would gain interest in the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master-Mike
|
|
It's like a christmas present, they look great all wrapped up on the outside but when you tear open the wrapping paper and see whats inside, thats what really counts. I gave up along time ago buying games becasue of graphics. It playablilty and replayabilty that cound most, all the graphics in the world dont make up for that. I want to be able to do more then just sit in front on my computer and say ahhhhhhhhhhh nice pictures, and then put it away in the cuborad for years. Even though i have a P4 2Ghz, Geforce 4 1800ti, and surround sound, 21 inch monitor, i still like great gameplay over anything else, and thats what games are about playing them, not looking at them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lemmy
|
 |
Bubblewrap
Dec 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
I mean, there are a lot of resolution bigots around, but that's just what it is -- 800x600 is more than enough to work with when it comes to making slick, clean graphics. |
Why are they bigots?
Higher resolution will always give more info then lower, you can't set a minimum and say this is more then enough, on a 1024 res you could put a lot more info on one screen then with 800, this could save a click to get the information you need.
Unlike some people seem to think, resolution is not the same as graphics, graphics can be beautiful at 640x480, but to havea good overview of a starmap for example, higher resolution are always better, and i think that a higher res goes towards gameplay, not graphics. To me gameplay isn't just the rules of the game, the complicity and simulation aspect, but also just that. how the game plays, how many clicks are needed to get to that info i need every turn etc. A higher res means more info per screen, that could mean one click less to get somewhere.
And yes, it will also look better imo, but what's wrong with that?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xentax
|
|
North Carolina
Apr 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
Yes, all other things being equal, higher resolution is better.
You get either sharper graphics with the same virtual "real estate" (like most first person shooters), or you get MORE real estate at the same relative resolution, or somewhere in between (EU2 for example).
But I'm talking about how some people are dooming the graphics, or even the whole game, simply because it's only 800x600, as if there's NO WAY the game can look nice enough, or show enough, with only that much screen space. That -- the belief that 800x600 is inherently insufficient -- is just plain silly.
Would the game look better if it had been done with 1024x768? Yes. Would it be nine kinds of nifty if it could scale cleanly up to 1280x1024 or even 1600x1200? Sure. But is the game doomed to failure just because it can't? Of course not. It may be dubbed "dated", and that might even be accurate, but the core of the target audience isn't going to sweat it, and rightfully so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bane99
|
|
The res isn't a biggie for me. It would have been nice to at least have 1024x768 but 800x600 will do.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2002 13:34
|