Topic: Sublevel Zero

[Kaiaatzl]

Depends on the gamer I guess.  It would certainly push some away.

[Scyphi]

It most certainly does, graphics plays a massive factor in it these days, and it's at times unfortunate. The gaming world seems to think that every game's top priority ought to be always topping the graphical level of the game before it to the point that I often can't help but think they've lost sight what truly makes a good game. I mean look at Descent. Even when running in, say, D2X-XL, it's still graphically inferior to many other games yet we don't really play it for its graphics; we play it because it's a good game. It's not the graphics, though they certainly help.

Yet every now and then I see a promising game get shunned by the gaming community because they deem it unable to "compete" with the graphics of other games. And while I certainly agree in the sense that a game ought to meet a certain graphical standard in this day and age or its just sloppy graphics, I don't really play a game for its graphics, and indeed, graphics probably should hardly factor into it at the end of the day so long as it still permits for a fun and endearing game to play.

A recent example is the recent Sonic Boom everybody seems to be so down on. True, the game is no five-star game by any stretch of the word (I myself would give it no more than three stars) and it had problems other than just graphics, but setting that all aside for a moment, one of the leading complaints on the games is that its graphics are substandard to its peers, and thus this seems to qualify it for "worst game of the year," but graphics actually don't affect the gameplay hardly at all, as it's still perfectly playable and is in fact an actually fairly enjoyable game (I know, I've played it) and was not put off by the graphics in the least. In fact, there was still a time here and there where the graphics of the game still managed to "wow" me regardless.

Then on the other end of the spectrum you have Sonic 06, a game which for its day actually had stellar graphics, and indeed bears graphics that still bear some weight even today, but that did little in the game's favor as it's fairly universally hated because it's gameplay is muddled and unfun. Indeed, it is a far worse game than Sonic Boom, easily (it's a great irony to me, then, that 06 got the better ratings of the two).

And then you have the retro games that are graphically subpar to competitors by choice. As already mentioned, Minecraft's graphics are especially "backwards," yet it's currently one of the market's most popular, or at least most famous, games. Why? Because the gameplay was more important to players.

It seems so obvious, yet I look around and this fact seems so overlooked.

Anyway, you brought up a subject I happen to be a bit passionate about as of late, sorry for the triad. 

[-<WillyP>-]

I'm an old gamer, as old as the Atari 2600 games. It may be a fun game.

Question, old games have old graphics. gamers don't typically care.
But new games with poor graphics, do they?

Check out a game called 'Pixel Panzers'.

I think it's not so much that gamers don't care, but you get to love a game when it's new, and you accept that to play that you have old graphics. But lots of effort goes into fan made upgrades to old games, so some people do care, other care to keep the old graphics and would say it's just not the same with new graphics.

[Kaiaatzl]

Then on the other end of the spectrum you have Sonic 06, a game which for its day actually had stellar graphics, and indeed bears graphics that still bear some weight even today, but that did little in the game's favor as it's fairly universally hated because it's gameplay is muddled and unfun. Indeed, it is a far worse game than Sonic Boom, easily (it's a great irony to me, then, that 06 got the better ratings of the two).

It did?
Now I'm officially shunning humanity.

[VANGUARD]

I think it's not so much that gamers don't care, but you get to love a game when it's new, and you accept that to play that you have old graphics. But lots of effort goes into fan made upgrades to old games, so some people do care, other care to keep the old graphics and would say it's just not the same with new graphics.

I tend to vary. For example. I played Descent with improved graphics and liked it. Doom, not as much. Maybe a horrible example to two games minus any improvements. I can play Zelda's "Ocarina of Time" just fine, but had a hard time with Zelda's "Phantom Hourglass"

I think the "classics" typically look best as is. Not in every case though.

[Scyphi]

It did?
Now I'm officially shunning humanity.

Oh yes it did. And it sold better to boot, too. 

Personally, I think the deal with Sonic Boom had less to do with the actual flaws and more to do with the fact that the fanbase shunned it because they hate change. I've seen it happen before both in that and other fanbases (*cough**cough*Trekkies*cough**cough*).

[TechPro]

... (*cough**cough*Trekkies*cough**cough*).

* TechPro over-exaggerates mock horror

[Scyphi]

... (*cough**cough*Trekkies*cough**cough*).

* TechPro over-exaggerates mock horror

Well, all I would have to is merely mention the name "JJ Abrams," and they'll do the rest. 

But we're not here to talk Trek. As I recall, the last time we did that, we got seriously off topic.

But then again, this is PD...so what else is new, right?

[Scyphi]

Relevant thread revival:

Sublevel Zero Preview.

You get a good feel for how it's supposed to work from this. It feels VERY Descent-like, and I have to admit, I'm a bit more interested, now.

Little put off by the crafting mechanic...but that's just because that's never really been my sort of thing. I prefer grabbing the goodies pre-assembled, thank you very much.