Tremulous Forum

Media => Mapping Center => Topic started by: Shadowgandor on June 03, 2007, 03:14:13 pm

Title: looks or play?
Post by: Shadowgandor on June 03, 2007, 03:14:13 pm
What is more important, the looks (textures and stuff) or gameplay (funstuff, balanced etc) for a map? I know you should find a balance between the two but i'm just curious :)
Title: looks or play?
Post by: AKAnotu on June 03, 2007, 05:14:33 pm
gameplay by far, but looks always help
Title: looks or play?
Post by: TRaK on June 03, 2007, 05:27:02 pm
It isn't really a either/or situation. But I suppose that having a map that plays well and looks just ok is better than a good-looking map with bad gameplay.

However, there should be a minimum of effort put into looks, so players don't want to gouge their eyes out.
Title: looks or play?
Post by: Lava Croft on June 03, 2007, 05:31:32 pm
Like TRaK said, pretty graphics can cover up lacking gameplay, just as good gameplay can cover up lacking graphics. The exact balance between the two obviously differs per map and more importantly, per person.
Title: looks or play?
Post by: n00b pl0x on June 04, 2007, 05:47:37 am
Looks and other 'frills' are better for shortterm play, but gameplay is better for longterm.
Title: looks or play?
Post by: Kaleo on June 04, 2007, 08:21:46 am
A map can have the best gamplay in the world, but it will die if it lacks graphics.
Title: looks or play?
Post by: Survivor on June 04, 2007, 05:35:37 pm
Quote from: "Kaleo"
A map can have the best gamplay in the world, but it will die if it lacks graphics.


I presume you are the one who voted looks and as such you fail. Of the two gameplay far exceeds looks in importance this does not mean looks can = 0 but they can be of a far lesser level than gameplay while still keeping a map played.
Title: looks or play?
Post by: David on June 04, 2007, 05:51:04 pm
If the gameplay sucks, the map wont be played.
If the gameplay rules, people will play.  Also, you can add nice shiny stuff later, changing the gameplay isn't so easy.
Title: looks or play?
Post by: doomagent13 on June 04, 2007, 07:15:20 pm
Quote from: "David"
If the gameplay sucks, the map wont be played.
If the gameplay rules, people will play.  Also, you can add nice shiny stuff later, changing the gameplay isn't so easy.
+1

That is what betas are for, right?

The way I understand it, alphas are gameplay tests, betas are graphical tests, and gammas "never" happen. (hmm... memory size optimization??)  That right there shows that gameplay beats graphics. (or is easier to do first??)
Title: looks or play?
Post by: DASPRiD on June 08, 2007, 12:30:55 pm
Version definition:

Alpha: Not all features implemented
Beta: All features implemented but still includes known bugs / things to tweak
RC (Release Candiate): Possibly the final version, but when bugs are found, they will be fixed
Final: Everything done and ready for the public
Title: looks or play?
Post by: gareth on June 08, 2007, 02:19:41 pm
the meaning is rather flexible...alpha is supposedly private testing, beta is public testing.
Title: looks or play?
Post by: DASPRiD on June 08, 2007, 02:33:51 pm
I don't think, that games like Doom 3 were ever released in beta stage ;)

Uh btw, Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Release_candidate
Title: looks or play?
Post by: Morx on June 08, 2007, 02:43:46 pm
Actually,i think Doom 3 was impressive.It sure looked like Mature,kinda scary.Then the game play was Wonderful.
Title: looks or play?
Post by: Dracone on June 08, 2007, 05:11:46 pm
The thing is, when you're choosing a game, the only way you can know how much fun it will be is if you rent it (I'm not going to go around renting EVERY game before I buy it) first, or if you believe other people's opinions, who might say "This game ROCKS!" while you end up hating it.

Another thing is that the quality of the graphics can usually be rated by a couple groups as fantastic, and almost everyone else will agree, because graphics aren't like gameplay in any way. They're a set thing, and there will pretty much always be a huge majority of people all saying the same things about the graphics in a game. The same cannot be said for gameplay, in which everyone has different tastes.

I like to make decisions based on graphics, gameplay, and even sound sometimes (I cannot stand horribly annoying sounds/voiceover in a game). The graphics can affect the gameplay in some cases, and the gameplay might change your outlook on the graphics (hard to explain, this is long enough already).

So I'm just not going to vote. I see both of these options as being tied into how much fun you have when playing a game, and when you vote you have to think about which of those is tied into how much fun you really have while playing the game the most.
Title: looks or play?
Post by: Shadowgandor on June 09, 2007, 10:28:21 am
Hmm, ok, so what i understand from this is that gameplay is the most important thing but you must atleast have average looks to keep the map playable? Good, because i was kinda worried that i would need to get the map look as good as maps like nexus :O.
Thx, for the votes and replies all :)