Author Topic: Game play or eye candy (Read 6216 times)

Hydra · « **on:** February 20, 2007, 08:31:29 pm »

i kno an ideale map would be a mixture. but me and my friend were talking about new games thes days and they seen to be all about looking good, but they dont play so well. like golden eye and mario, there play factor was very high and they dont look stunning (by todays standards).

so what matters most in a tremulous map?
looking amazing?
or
game play

Survivor · « **Reply #1 on:** February 20, 2007, 08:36:32 pm »

Games aren't primarily for looking at, they're for playing.

_Equilibrium_ · « **Reply #2 on:** February 20, 2007, 08:45:17 pm »

if your going to make a map, you should spend time on both. gameplay is more important, but i dont want to be staring at blank walls and empty rooms all the time.

kozak6 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 20, 2007, 09:01:20 pm »

Goldeneye looks pretty good considering that it's pre- Quake II.

Gameplay is a lot more important.

Performance is also very important. It doesn't matter how fancy the eye candy is if it makes your framerate goes down the toilet.

techhead · « **Reply #4 on:** February 21, 2007, 02:23:19 am »

There was this Trem map with great game-play, but the entire thing was textured in a matte gray, light-maps and all.
It kinda died.
However, there are also plenty of beautiful maps that died because of bad game-play.
So the answer to this is all about balance and moderation (Not gameplay balance).

temple · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2007, 03:55:08 am »

Why does it have to be either/or?

kozak6 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2007, 05:08:39 am »

Because gameplay suffers when you bobble along at 2 frames per second.

Paradox · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2007, 05:40:16 am »

Do what halo does, make it functional, but make lots of scenery. I play the halo 2 campaign so much, because each time through, i notice something new.

Odin · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2007, 07:46:44 am »

I wish Tremulous had HDR lighting like in True Combat: Elite. Without any kind of bump-mapping, HDR lighting actually looks better(in my opinion). Plus, it runs ok on older machines.
Here's a screenshot to prove it(click for full-size):

With skilled texturing, and HDR lighting, it looks real, without much slowdown that bump/specular/normal mapping can cause. In my opinion it doesn't make the game look hyper-realistic(when it looks more real than real life), which is the goal of TC: E.

Baxter · « **Reply #9 on:** February 21, 2007, 09:52:24 am »

DASPRiD · « **Reply #10 on:** February 21, 2007, 10:07:07 am »

Design after Gameplay.

gareth · « **Reply #11 on:** February 21, 2007, 11:02:32 am »

Both.

Thorn · « **Reply #12 on:** February 21, 2007, 11:55:32 am »

Neither.

Lava Croft · « **Reply #13 on:** February 21, 2007, 12:01:50 pm »

Presentation

And DASPRiD is a liar, because Ancient Remains clearly shows he takes Presentation over gameplay.

DASPRiD · « **Reply #14 on:** February 21, 2007, 01:27:37 pm »

Ancient Remains is artwork ;p, and was just the first map for Tremulous :roll:

Lava Croft · « **Reply #15 on:** February 21, 2007, 01:45:11 pm »

Quote from: "DASPRiD"

Ancient Remains is artwork ;p, and was just the first map for Tremulous :roll:

Uncreation! <3

DASPRiD · « **Reply #16 on:** February 21, 2007, 02:13:02 pm »

Addition: first map OF MINE for tremulous :roll:

Lava Croft · « **Reply #17 on:** February 21, 2007, 02:42:29 pm »

No, I meant like: Just like Uncreation, in that it's more of an artwork. The fact that it's your first Tremulous map doesn't count. It's the first Tremulous map for just about everyone here ;-)

Glunnator · « **Reply #18 on:** February 21, 2007, 07:26:59 pm »

Quote from: "Survivor"

Games aren't primarily for looking at, they're for playing.

You know, that's a very valid point, and most gamemakers are forgetting this completely.

Tremulous is the first game for a long while that is fully 3D and works fine on my computer. There are many many games now that are extremely simple (as in a 2D four-in-a-row game for example) that need more than 1GHz processor. this is RIDICULOUS!

I have a 450 MHz dual proccesor, which three years ago was bought new as the top-range creme de la creme. Now, three years later, even 3Ghz is a laughable amount.

:cry:

Rawr · « **Reply #19 on:** February 21, 2007, 09:40:18 pm »

Well, kinda of a hard question. For instance: Pulse is Eye candy to me, But it has some of the worst gameplay ever.

Taiyo.uk · « **Reply #20 on:** February 21, 2007, 10:41:48 pm »

Design for gameplay, add eye-candy later.

player1 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 22, 2007, 02:08:41 am »

Or course, your map should also look good while I'm dodging and jumping and crouching and strafing.

I've seen plenty of castles, fortresses, dungeons, warehouses, factories and processing plants.

As long as they don't crush my framerate, make 'em as pretty as you like.

It would also be nice if the areas/effects created somehow added to gameplay.

I'd rather play something my computer can run than keep having my hardware become that much more useless 4 times a year (every season that new games come out). I think that explains part of the open-source engine freeware standalone allure. I don't care if it looks like Q1/2/3, if it's fun to play, and offers me something those games or their mods didn't. Or that I can't get just anywhere for free. Witness Tremulous. You can't kill the metal...

News:

Poll

well?

Author Topic: Game play or eye candy (Read 6216 times)

Thorn

Lava Croft

Lava Croft

Lava Croft