Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Are Graphics Really Killing Gameplay?
Stay (Steve Taylor) brought up an interesting point on his comment on the "How Do I get Past the Stupid Door" post. The feature set of the ancient, graphics-less game of NetHack (still very popular, but generally just amongst hardcore geeks) matches the wish-list of many frustrated RPG fans today.
And of course, I mentioned the older Ultimas, and Richard Garriott's design philosophy of making sure there was at least one solution to an obstacle, but usually (at least in Ultima V through Ultima VII) not enforcing it as the only solution. In fact, the Ultimas of the late 80's and early 90's seemed to have a bit of a richer level of interactivity than most of today's RPGs (including Oblivion, which is otherwise pretty freaking cool for a modern RPG for its open-ended interactivity).
So why is that a game with purely abstract "graphics" (such as they are) has much more depth than that a $20 million supergame? Why is it I can run around in Final Fantasy XII and be unable to do much more than kill things, talk with other things, and pick up "licenses" to be able to use items I've already acquired, but in a game like NetHack and others of the same family they allow everything but the kitchen sink as possible actions?
Granted, some of the limitations may simply be due the expediency of the marketplace. Even those who don't mind the ASCII graphics (or who will be happy with one of the many graphical front-ends) may get turned off by the sheer complexity of the game and its interface. NetHack violates the "First Few Minutes" rule in about every way possible - a player will have to invest several hours into the game to become remotely competent, and even then the game is brutally nasty. (No, in case you are interested, I have *never* recovered the Amulet of Yendor). After all, simplicity IS usually more of a virtue than complexity.
But is there more to it? Is there freedom in abstract representation not found in more graphically "lush" games? Do sophisticated graphics actually discourage innovation and interaction in game design? Do graphics really come at the expense of gameplay?
You can bet your portable hole they do!
Over at The Forge, Matt wrote about how they were reconsidering a knock-down action... which would be trivial in a text-based game... because of the budget requirements. He wrote, "Something like a knock-down ability that wouldn’t make you think twice in text becomes the subject of serious thought. If you have a knock-down ability, any creature that it can be used on needs an appropriate animation. That gets very expensive, and acts as a multiplier for all new content in terms of cost."
That's hardly the only story out there. I remember reading a designer interview for the original Neverwinter Nights where the designer lamented dropping the rogue's "Climb Walls" ability, but it just wasn't feasible in the game engine. Like the flimsy wooden barriers and low walls in first-person shooters that, in spite of your ability to fall dozens of feat and suffer only minor injury and your incredibly destructive and explosive arsenal, remain impossible to breach or scale.
Is it possible to mix a rich graphical representation with more abstract elements to get the best of both worlds? I don't know. It's been tried. The problem is that abstract representation looks even worse in contrast with the rich, immersive, believable environment. When the player's avatar goes into some generic "tinkering" animation, their hands and head passing blithely through a solid object, it tends to draw player complaints. As would a lame knock-down "animation" that simply flips the model onto its back. As does text pop-ups. But in my opinion, it's better than just cutting player interactions down to the bare bones of what can be richly represented given the graphics and animation budget of the game.
I know that the upcoming indie RPG Age of Decadence is attempting to do just that - mixing the ease-of-development of text with 3D graphics. In an interview at RPGVault, Lead Designer Vince Weller states, "You are playing a thief. You would like to be able to climb a wall, because that's what thieves often do. Only you can't because it requires extra animations and other stuff. So, you are forced to role-play a thief who has fear of heights and/or has broken legs, among many other handicaps. Solution? Text adventure! Attach a skill check and a message box 'You've managed to climb the wall successfully!' / 'You tried to lift your fat ass off the ground, but failed miserably' to a wall click and then teleport your character to the other side of the wall if you passed the skill check. Voila!"
Will that work as a generic solution? I don't know. I'm anxious to find out.
Don't get me wrong. I love shiny graphics. I love deep storylines. But maybe we should take a few more lessons from NetHack and remember that while those are very important, they must take a back seat to letting games do what games do best.
Which is to let the player PLAY.
(Vaguely) related drivel:
* Simplicity and Subject Matter?
* The Rules of Combat According to FPS Games
* RPG Design: Why Can't I Get Past The Stupid Door?
* Lessons Learned Playing Computer RPGs
* The Best of All Worlds
.
Labels: Game Design, Mainstream Games, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 8:36 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
My sister tried nethack once, to humor me, and couldn't get out of the first room because she didn't know there were secret doors (or how to search for them). *sigh*.
Also, it's a stupid old joke, but nethack actually *does* have a kitchen sink. :)
Also, it's a stupid old joke, but nethack actually *does* have a kitchen sink. :)
Well, this certainly does beg a response from me. It's basically the same situation that I have been dealing with in the wonderfully painful trek from text-based interactive fiction to 3D graphically-enhanced interactive fiction.
When done well, text is awesome. It's extraordinarily flexible, capable of just about anything. What's true about NetHack is also true of text IF: you want a certain functionality, you just write it in. And the incredible thing about text is that you can accomplish so much so easily.
Complex actions or interactions can be summarized in a few words or sentences. New actions (verbs) can just be added easily with a few lines of code. Applying those verbs to any object is just a matter of coding the response. Of course, you could make it as complex as you want, but it's a much simpler matter than doing it graphically.
And with text IF, there are plenty of other things you can do (or, as the case may be, not do). For instance, you can quite easily make time pass in a game with the flick of the wrist and a few words. You can describe huge expanses of terrain, complicated abstract images, or large collections of objects with just a few words.
You also don't have to describe every single detail of a location, yet the player will often just fill in those details on their own. In the text version of Vespers, many locations are described with only the important details and not much more. The kitchen, for instance, talks a little about the empty tables and cupboards, but that's about it. No mention of hanging pots and pans, no mention of a fire pit with a kettle or pot in it, no mention of empty wine barrels. You could, but then it might become tedious for the player, and it wouldn't serve much purpose. But players know it's the kitchen, so the rest gets filled in within their minds.
Of course, when you try to replicate these things in a graphics world, those tasks become daunting. You can describe the mountainside outside the monastery as being covered with snow-laden trees -- but what an incredible pain to create that graphically. And you can't have a kitchen with only a couple of empty tables and a cupboard -- it would look terribly empty. So you have to create those extra things to make it really look like a kitchen, otherwise it doesn't work. Imagine the horror of trying to graphically reproduce a truly crowded city street in 3D. Or, as you mentioned, adding a new action (verb) to a 3D game, and applying that possibility to all target objects.
Not only that, but another feature that is incredibly hard to replicate in a graphic game is all of the non-verbal information that can really add depth to an experience. In Vespers, the description of the kitchen is as follows:
"The dead don't eat, or so you've been told. Still, the kitchen is practically empty. Bare tables stand with no crumbs on them. All the perishables were finished up this morning. No more will be coming if Rovato is as barren as you think. Hopefully, some remain in the cellar through the hatch in the floor."
Think about that for a moment, all of the information that this description provides without really going into a visual description of the kitchen. It's artistic, it tells you about the status of the food situation, and it gives you a little push to examine that mysterious hatch to the cellar. None of that can be done graphically. None of it is visual. But it adds tremendously to the gaming experience by adding depth to the location.
Text has the flexibility to make these things incredibly easily. It's hard to do it well, but it's a whole lot easier (well, in terms of time at least) than doing it visually.
The problem, though, is that we are a visual world. Books remain hugely popular, of course, but the bulk of the population (the paying population, at least) want cool visual experiences. We want to see that Rogue climbing the walls, not to be told that it happens. We want to see that crowded city street, or that barren kitchen, or that mountainside.
It's the main reason I'm trying this experiment, though. Can we have the best of both worlds? Would people enjoy walking into a kitchen and reading a description that enhances the experience? I don't know. But it does require first creating that kitchen visually, which means filling it with objects that aren't described in the text game. And that's just an incredibly time- and resource-consuming activity.
When done well, text is awesome. It's extraordinarily flexible, capable of just about anything. What's true about NetHack is also true of text IF: you want a certain functionality, you just write it in. And the incredible thing about text is that you can accomplish so much so easily.
Complex actions or interactions can be summarized in a few words or sentences. New actions (verbs) can just be added easily with a few lines of code. Applying those verbs to any object is just a matter of coding the response. Of course, you could make it as complex as you want, but it's a much simpler matter than doing it graphically.
And with text IF, there are plenty of other things you can do (or, as the case may be, not do). For instance, you can quite easily make time pass in a game with the flick of the wrist and a few words. You can describe huge expanses of terrain, complicated abstract images, or large collections of objects with just a few words.
You also don't have to describe every single detail of a location, yet the player will often just fill in those details on their own. In the text version of Vespers, many locations are described with only the important details and not much more. The kitchen, for instance, talks a little about the empty tables and cupboards, but that's about it. No mention of hanging pots and pans, no mention of a fire pit with a kettle or pot in it, no mention of empty wine barrels. You could, but then it might become tedious for the player, and it wouldn't serve much purpose. But players know it's the kitchen, so the rest gets filled in within their minds.
Of course, when you try to replicate these things in a graphics world, those tasks become daunting. You can describe the mountainside outside the monastery as being covered with snow-laden trees -- but what an incredible pain to create that graphically. And you can't have a kitchen with only a couple of empty tables and a cupboard -- it would look terribly empty. So you have to create those extra things to make it really look like a kitchen, otherwise it doesn't work. Imagine the horror of trying to graphically reproduce a truly crowded city street in 3D. Or, as you mentioned, adding a new action (verb) to a 3D game, and applying that possibility to all target objects.
Not only that, but another feature that is incredibly hard to replicate in a graphic game is all of the non-verbal information that can really add depth to an experience. In Vespers, the description of the kitchen is as follows:
"The dead don't eat, or so you've been told. Still, the kitchen is practically empty. Bare tables stand with no crumbs on them. All the perishables were finished up this morning. No more will be coming if Rovato is as barren as you think. Hopefully, some remain in the cellar through the hatch in the floor."
Think about that for a moment, all of the information that this description provides without really going into a visual description of the kitchen. It's artistic, it tells you about the status of the food situation, and it gives you a little push to examine that mysterious hatch to the cellar. None of that can be done graphically. None of it is visual. But it adds tremendously to the gaming experience by adding depth to the location.
Text has the flexibility to make these things incredibly easily. It's hard to do it well, but it's a whole lot easier (well, in terms of time at least) than doing it visually.
The problem, though, is that we are a visual world. Books remain hugely popular, of course, but the bulk of the population (the paying population, at least) want cool visual experiences. We want to see that Rogue climbing the walls, not to be told that it happens. We want to see that crowded city street, or that barren kitchen, or that mountainside.
It's the main reason I'm trying this experiment, though. Can we have the best of both worlds? Would people enjoy walking into a kitchen and reading a description that enhances the experience? I don't know. But it does require first creating that kitchen visually, which means filling it with objects that aren't described in the text game. And that's just an incredibly time- and resource-consuming activity.
Part of it, I bet, is that Nethack has been under development for so long. If you were working on a 3D game for that long, it would probably have roughly the same feature set.
Of course, you'd be accounting for having to graphically represent the results of those features, which certainly makes it less expensive to add a new, radical feature to Nethack than it does to a modern 3D game. I believe this is the core of your point, and is obviously what draws experienced Roguelike developers to the genre.
Of course, you'd be accounting for having to graphically represent the results of those features, which certainly makes it less expensive to add a new, radical feature to Nethack than it does to a modern 3D game. I believe this is the core of your point, and is obviously what draws experienced Roguelike developers to the genre.
I shoulda known they stick the kitchen sink in there!
Rubes - THANK YOU for weighing in on the subject. I meant to mention a quote from your interview in this post, actually, but your insight here was even more depth. When I think about how text "leaves more the imagination," I forgot just how incredibly literal that can be.
You know, they do have theatrical performances with minimalist sets. I wonder how repeatable that would be in games...? Actually, something along the lines of Facade might provide an answer. You can do it, but you dare not try it if you are going for a photorealistic look - which most mainstream games are hell-bent on trying to achieve these days.
Rubes - THANK YOU for weighing in on the subject. I meant to mention a quote from your interview in this post, actually, but your insight here was even more depth. When I think about how text "leaves more the imagination," I forgot just how incredibly literal that can be.
You know, they do have theatrical performances with minimalist sets. I wonder how repeatable that would be in games...? Actually, something along the lines of Facade might provide an answer. You can do it, but you dare not try it if you are going for a photorealistic look - which most mainstream games are hell-bent on trying to achieve these days.
Part of it, I bet, is that Nethack has been under development for so long. If you were working on a 3D game for that long, it would probably have roughly the same feature set.
I'd agree that's part of it, but I doubt a 3D game would have nearly as rich a feature set. It would take much more time to add each feature (probably), and fewer people would be able to jump in and help, as the technical expertise needed to work on a 3D game is a lot higher (though that could be offset a bit more by having some non-programmer artist types jump in and help).
I'd agree that's part of it, but I doubt a 3D game would have nearly as rich a feature set. It would take much more time to add each feature (probably), and fewer people would be able to jump in and help, as the technical expertise needed to work on a 3D game is a lot higher (though that could be offset a bit more by having some non-programmer artist types jump in and help).
Games reliant on gameplay bore me. Adventure/Myth like games result in the eventual situation where Casual Observation is needed.
Great example: Myth 3, I'm plowing through it and get stuck. For several hours. I'm thinking, where's the next area - where's the gate to the next section of play. Well, I didn't CLOSE a DOOR, because behind the DOOR, is a tunnel. No where else in the game did I have to CLOSE a DOOR to take action, so I wasn't trained. If I had the full 210 degrees of vision, with casual observation, like you and I have in real life, my mind would register something: "hey, it's extra dark behind this door." But a simple picture doesn't get the job done.
Personally, I think Oblivion is way overrated - the market was desperate for anything that wasn't WoW.
As for letting players play - that's exactly the right solution. However, with the development of the newer engines, this won't be the obstacle it used to be.
I'm not looking forward to the "stealth infection" of wall climbers in games.
And NetHack - it just rocks. Been playing since Moria (and Omega) and still haven't gotten that damn amulet out. Best game: 3rd floor, died of starvation.
-Bob
Great example: Myth 3, I'm plowing through it and get stuck. For several hours. I'm thinking, where's the next area - where's the gate to the next section of play. Well, I didn't CLOSE a DOOR, because behind the DOOR, is a tunnel. No where else in the game did I have to CLOSE a DOOR to take action, so I wasn't trained. If I had the full 210 degrees of vision, with casual observation, like you and I have in real life, my mind would register something: "hey, it's extra dark behind this door." But a simple picture doesn't get the job done.
Personally, I think Oblivion is way overrated - the market was desperate for anything that wasn't WoW.
As for letting players play - that's exactly the right solution. However, with the development of the newer engines, this won't be the obstacle it used to be.
I'm not looking forward to the "stealth infection" of wall climbers in games.
And NetHack - it just rocks. Been playing since Moria (and Omega) and still haven't gotten that damn amulet out. Best game: 3rd floor, died of starvation.
-Bob
Imagine rendering, say, whatever the latest final fantasy was in text. Probably would end up boring and longwinded, only partly due to fighting the same things several times in a row the same way, and you'd have to cut some details since it won't all fit, but you can picture that. Now imagine putting Nethack in graphics--not just one sprite of each monster/object replacing the keyboard symbols while the text still does the legwork, but really done via graphics ala the Final Fantasy.
So much more cold be done with Nethack than graphical games, and I think the reason that it succeeded is the combined extreme scope and attention to detail that not having to spend hours on every little thing bred. For example, there is a status effect, hallucinating. This status effect makes it hard to cast spells and use magic items, makes you see enemies that aren't there, and probably screws you over in combat. I'm not sure, because I'm yet to get it--aside from eating a fungus, there's maybe a dozen monsters and two or three items that convey this effect, and then maybe it's a possible random effect of a few more dungeon features. Yet I am astounded, looking through spoilers of the game, to find that it is more of an event to find something that doesn't have alternate text while hallucinating than that does. It starts out with any and every instance of the word "strange" being replaced with "normal", but goes on to some truly bizarre stuff. A scroll of magic mapping goes from "Your mind is filled with crazy lines!" to "Wow! Modern art", curing stoning becomes "What a pity - you just ruined a future piece of art!" (unless you have high charisma, then it's fine art), and being blinded becomes "Oh, bummer! Everything is dark! Help!" This is a completely minor effect, one which as I said I'm yet to come across in one of my games (not that I've gotten very far), yet they were able to give it that much attention--entirely because giving it attention only requires typing a sentence or two and a line of code. Confusion, a more common side effect, takes it even further--many scrolls have completely new effects when cast while confused, most harmful but some even helpful--a scroll of food detection finds potions and gold detection finds traps, genocide kills your own race, remove curse randomly blesses and curses your items, and tame monster increases its range tenfold.
Or perhaps a better example of what sets them apart is simply that they can afford to make the vorpal blade, a single item which has a chance of instantly killing any monster by cutting them in half. An entire new rule for one item, and a rare one at that. A rule that would require a new sprite (and a tricky one to keep family-friendly) for every enemy. For one rare item. There will never be an equivalent to a vorpal blade in any nontext game, ever. And I don't even think it's the only example in its game.
And I won't even get into how mallable doors are.
I swear, the only reason Nethack is not the most popular game on earth (assuming it's not--it very well may be) is because it lacks a decent optional tutorial accessible by those stairs you start the game on and the guys making it felt the need to assign equipping different types of items to different buttons (driving up the learning curve). Without that, it'd be the best game on earth; even with it probably is.
So much more cold be done with Nethack than graphical games, and I think the reason that it succeeded is the combined extreme scope and attention to detail that not having to spend hours on every little thing bred. For example, there is a status effect, hallucinating. This status effect makes it hard to cast spells and use magic items, makes you see enemies that aren't there, and probably screws you over in combat. I'm not sure, because I'm yet to get it--aside from eating a fungus, there's maybe a dozen monsters and two or three items that convey this effect, and then maybe it's a possible random effect of a few more dungeon features. Yet I am astounded, looking through spoilers of the game, to find that it is more of an event to find something that doesn't have alternate text while hallucinating than that does. It starts out with any and every instance of the word "strange" being replaced with "normal", but goes on to some truly bizarre stuff. A scroll of magic mapping goes from "Your mind is filled with crazy lines!" to "Wow! Modern art", curing stoning becomes "What a pity - you just ruined a future piece of art!" (unless you have high charisma, then it's fine art), and being blinded becomes "Oh, bummer! Everything is dark! Help!" This is a completely minor effect, one which as I said I'm yet to come across in one of my games (not that I've gotten very far), yet they were able to give it that much attention--entirely because giving it attention only requires typing a sentence or two and a line of code. Confusion, a more common side effect, takes it even further--many scrolls have completely new effects when cast while confused, most harmful but some even helpful--a scroll of food detection finds potions and gold detection finds traps, genocide kills your own race, remove curse randomly blesses and curses your items, and tame monster increases its range tenfold.
Or perhaps a better example of what sets them apart is simply that they can afford to make the vorpal blade, a single item which has a chance of instantly killing any monster by cutting them in half. An entire new rule for one item, and a rare one at that. A rule that would require a new sprite (and a tricky one to keep family-friendly) for every enemy. For one rare item. There will never be an equivalent to a vorpal blade in any nontext game, ever. And I don't even think it's the only example in its game.
And I won't even get into how mallable doors are.
I swear, the only reason Nethack is not the most popular game on earth (assuming it's not--it very well may be) is because it lacks a decent optional tutorial accessible by those stairs you start the game on and the guys making it felt the need to assign equipping different types of items to different buttons (driving up the learning curve). Without that, it'd be the best game on earth; even with it probably is.
# posted by 
: March 19, 2007 10:34 PM
: March 19, 2007 10:34 PM
You know, I can't even begin to imagine Nethack with Final Fantasy XII graphics. It boggles the imagination.
Not because it wouldn't be cool. But because the amount of detail that would have to be represented graphically. Everything you are saying about hallucination --- a whole new set of graphics for the game. For the ENTIRE GAME? Unlikely.
Not that I have anything against beautiful graphics. But even in movies, they have budgets, and skilled directors know how to abstract elements or have things happen "off screen." But it seems that more and more, games are obligated to show everything --- not a bad thing in and of itself, but it does result in a dumbing down of everything to make it cheaper to show.
Post a Comment
Not because it wouldn't be cool. But because the amount of detail that would have to be represented graphically. Everything you are saying about hallucination --- a whole new set of graphics for the game. For the ENTIRE GAME? Unlikely.
Not that I have anything against beautiful graphics. But even in movies, they have budgets, and skilled directors know how to abstract elements or have things happen "off screen." But it seems that more and more, games are obligated to show everything --- not a bad thing in and of itself, but it does result in a dumbing down of everything to make it cheaper to show.
Links to this post:
<< Home
