Why people would choose between great stories and great graphics?
After arguing with a lot of other Monkey Island fans, this question's being haunting my mind.
As soon as I asked for better graphics, people said that they prefer a game which is funny, humorous, with a great gameplay and a great story.
What I'm asking for is this: WHY do you think great graphics exclude every other aspect we know and love in the MI series?
Why do you always choose between graphics and story, graphics and gameplay, graphics and humour etc.?
What I love most about MI is certainly something that prescinds from graphics, but I don't see the reason why a great MI game shouldn't have great graphics.
One of the answers I mainly received was: "MI would be crap with Crysis graphics, stop asking for realism".
No one among us complaining ever asked for realism, don't you know the beautiful cartoony stile that can be obtained with great graphics?
No one's ever be speaking of realism.
Sure, I'd like the MI sea to look more like a sea, does this mean I'm not a "real" fan?
Some of you weren't even born when I was playing MI1 for the first time, so I don't understand where this kind of who-cares-of-graphics-doesn't-love-adventure-games came out from.
We the hardcore fans want just the best of the best for a MI game, so the complaining about the graphics is perfectly normal.
I think that a game, to be considered "great", must be great under every aspect, including graphics.
A great game is even greater with great graphics.
The paradox is that some of you consider great graphics like a flaw.
I agree when you all say "first other things, then graphics".
Well, OK, other things are there, we're all glad to see MI back.
Now, it's graphics' turn.
Edit: here's a simple example of awesomeness.
As soon as I asked for better graphics, people said that they prefer a game which is funny, humorous, with a great gameplay and a great story.
What I'm asking for is this: WHY do you think great graphics exclude every other aspect we know and love in the MI series?
Why do you always choose between graphics and story, graphics and gameplay, graphics and humour etc.?
What I love most about MI is certainly something that prescinds from graphics, but I don't see the reason why a great MI game shouldn't have great graphics.
One of the answers I mainly received was: "MI would be crap with Crysis graphics, stop asking for realism".
No one among us complaining ever asked for realism, don't you know the beautiful cartoony stile that can be obtained with great graphics?
No one's ever be speaking of realism.
Sure, I'd like the MI sea to look more like a sea, does this mean I'm not a "real" fan?
Some of you weren't even born when I was playing MI1 for the first time, so I don't understand where this kind of who-cares-of-graphics-doesn't-love-adventure-games came out from.
We the hardcore fans want just the best of the best for a MI game, so the complaining about the graphics is perfectly normal.
I think that a game, to be considered "great", must be great under every aspect, including graphics.
A great game is even greater with great graphics.
The paradox is that some of you consider great graphics like a flaw.
I agree when you all say "first other things, then graphics".
Well, OK, other things are there, we're all glad to see MI back.
Now, it's graphics' turn.
Edit: here's a simple example of awesomeness.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
But I do agree with what you're saying, stating that Monkey Island (or any game for that matter) shouldn't have good graphics is ridiculous.
Nobody would be calling it pointless complaining if Guybrush Threepwood was a woman in the trailer, or if for example it was revealed that LeChuck's new form was a stack of buttery pancakes.
That, and it's not an exclusion or a pick between gameplay or graphics, it's an order (with varying importance). Obviously all MI fans want all aspects of the game to be top notch. However, personally I feel an adventure game fails miserably if the story or gameplay is not top notch. The graphics might be able to take a dent. This is a matter of personal preference & aspect priority. No-one is making fans pick between two important aspects, but merely showing their preference of applied top-notchness. Not really sure where this comes from, but I feel a lot of people are applying this same order of importance.
Those which were coded very well, smooth scrolling, 300 blobs by 60fps, generating galaxies out of a few bytes, pure assembly and so on. Often these games lacked in gaming depth or gameplay. On the other side there were the games which were less advanced on the technical side but which offered a great story, game concept or features enabling this. Only in rare cases or after more time passed both diciplines came together and learned how to love each other. I remember quite some discussion with friends about this subject many years ago and when playing for instance some Cinemaware titles like "It cam from the Desert" were we thought, could you imagine how cool such games could be if it would be done well?!
Obviously it also is a planning and budget problem or simply a psychological issue or personal preferences. In bad cases companies, throw almost all their money at the engines, middleware and graphics and somehow forget to implement a convincing game on top of all this.
Even for indie developers this also can be a problem. Getting something running can, according to the game and you skills, be a really though thing and getting on your nerves so that you might end up with much less than you wanted to implement (which btw. always is the case). Again on the other side you might have the great designer who isn't this skilled in programming but has a pretty good idea. Until he doesn't find the right persons to team up with, it obviously will lack on the other aspects again, same goes with the art. Hey, did i already mention budgets, deadlines and managing all this properly?!
Obviously the industry also recognised this and evolved more and more. The good ones are bringing together talented people for each aspect. Still there are companies which care more about certain aspects than others in a specific game, which mostly depends on the game genre and again don't forget the budgets and deadlines as well as not everyone can afford developing a Shenmue or GTA4.
You could write pages about this considering much more aspects.
In theory it's easy but in real it takes some experience mixing the right ingredients and bringing it all together. That's why there aren't a dozens of Blizzards, VALVes or TTGs.
but look at these screens:
http://www.gbase.ch/PC/shots/Ghost+Pirates+of+Vooju+Island+(9+Screenshots)/8821/5375.html
ghost pirates graphics are really lots better then the ones from monkey island!
but perhaps the game is less fun to play, so if i have to choose between graphics or gameplay i would choose gameplay, cause i will remeber the game years after having played it because it was funny and told me an amazing story, a good adventure book is like reading a good book ... i not a huge monkey island fan because mi1 or 2 had amazing graphics but because the gameplay was great!
That is because most times they are indirect flaws. If a developer concentrates on the graphics the rest of the game will most certainly be sh*t.
It happened before and it will happen again.
If a developer concentrates on graphics AFTER the rest of the stuff is implemented, it won't happen.
Good gameplay is just so fundamental. Just search for AVGN's or irategamer's reviews on youtube. Gameplay always comes first. It makes you not want to toss out the game out the window and is the most crucial part for a game being good. Any gamer knows this.
I'm not sure why some people want to choose between graphics and xxx, but it's probably just a "stroke-mine-and-I'll-stroke-yours" club between fans where graphics represent "shallow" and the other part represent "deep".
Also, you write that some consider great graphics to be a flaw, but this is just not true. Of course everyone wants great graphics. However, a game like MI 4, when it came out- was not great graphics. It was new but shitty graphics- just like Myst 5. So, that's the perspective of some people in situations where they don't feel the need to point out the obvious.
Ok, but if a game has great gameplay, it can only get better and better with great graphics. It's something like: put a good clip frame on a great picture to improve it.
Obviously, the picture first, and the clip frame after.
1) It raises hardware requirements, alienating part of the potential user base
2) Money is limited. For small/medium companies especially. Graphics cost money, as do gameplay and story. If one has to suffer I prefer it to be graphics. Most Big companies seem to disagree, which saddens me plenty.
Don't get me wrong, I love pretty graphics as much as anyone else. The issue is that a second paradox emerges:
Some of you seem to consider great graphics a necessity.
About the second paradox, I don't agree: we just think that a great game, to be such considered, must be great under every point of view.
Taking a lot of care for graphics, obviously after taking care of what's more important, can only let the game charming and enchanting to see.
I don't see why people are contenting themselves.
It is true that, if there's a need to sacrify an aspect, it must be graphics.
But, in a way, I just think a lot of people here are contenting themselves, with the poor excuse to consider graphics shallow.
Graphics alone don't make a great game, but can help improving even more a game that's already wonderful.
I love TTG, I love what they're doing, I'm following them since 2004 and I'll support them 'til death.
But there's nothing wrong (and nothing shallow) on requesting better graphics.
By the way, do you really like the way the sea has been rendered in TMI? Honestly, c'mon.
By the way, ever heard of Introversion? A rather successful Indie company that doesn't even have graphic artists and yet some of their games have been considered to have some of the best atmospheres in recent years (Defcon in Particular)
Well, anyway I think it's just a matter of personal taste: I don't like the rendering of the sea, you do. It's OK.
What I really want people to understand is that even a hardcore long time fan of MI (like me) can care about graphics and that doesn't mean he's a newbie to computer games and is easily impressed by every crappy game if it's got great graphics.
We who are complaining about graphics are doing this just because we love MI that much that we'd love it to be perfect.
It's not possible, but please stop with this policy of "you care of graphics, you're not a fan".
MI rules, MI's the best, we ask for the most possible perfection, even graphical.
If it ain't possible, no problem, I'll enjoy TMI anyway and every other MI game that will come out.
I'd just love better inspiring graphics, that's all.
_I_
jk
Now look at THIS:
Do you still think great graphics would be pointless? This looks painly awesome... (thanks viz)
np: Jackie Leven & The Stornoway Girls - Pale Blue Eyes (The Haunted Year: Spring - Greetings From Milford)
My god, a MI game with that graphics would be... well... can't make sexual references, don't wanna risk to be banned :P
Quite frankly I don't even think that art style fits MI at all.
But anyway, it was an example, it musn't necessarily be realistic.
I used it to show the graphics quality I'd like, you can easily apply distortions to make him look more cartoony.
I think I finally see where you're coming from, Guybrush_Threepwood, and I absolutely 100% agree with you.
I wonder......did everyone who thinks Monkey Island can't work in that sort of realistic style and prefers the cartoon style start their Monkey Island experience with CMI or EMI first? That would explain things.
Listen to this man for he speaks the truth. That is actually an interesting point about CMI and EMI. I started with SMI and would not mind realistic graphics at all.
Personally I'm not so much arguing against a next-gen looking MI as I'm arguing against the need of, or advisability, of such.
Ignoring the high detail though and just discussing the general style, I think you could make a pretty awesome realistic looking MI game. But it would have a different mood and feel that doesn't necessarily fit the one the designers wanted.
I know this doesn't mean much coming from an employee, but personally I'm really happy with the way we've gone. Every time I load up the game it looks better and better. Whether or not you will ultimately like the style is personal preference of course. Hell, there are even things I would like to tweak and change and I *love* the style. But that's just how artistic things are, everyone has a different preference. Overall though I think most people will like it when they actually get their hands on it.
Eternal Sonata, for example, has stunning HD graphics, but anime-style characters and environments
So yeah, I want Monkey Island to have graphics improved
Will it happen in all likelihood? No. But would it be awesome? YES. Should it be done? Why the heck not? If it can be done well it should be done. Anything that can be done well should be done.
ID's single most commercially successful game, with very positive reviews, voted by the public as game of the year for 2004 for one of the industry's highest awards killed the franchise? I think not.
Doom 4 wouldn't exist if it did anyway.
First things first: I love Doom 3. The most important thing about it was, that I could buy it in Germany. The first 2 are still on the german index.
But a lot of people were disappointed by the game. Just look at the user-score of this game at metacritic. Some love it others hate it.
Even I stopped playing it after I got the chainsaw. That thing made the game much too easy.
PS: How well did Ressurection Of Evil sell? It was on the german index so I naturally don't have it.
It does look great for a statue or something similar. But I doubt a game with characters like that would be any fun for me and I doubt there are enopugh PCs in the world that could animate 10 models like this in real time.
Here's the thing, nowadays there is more than enough technology to actually make a next-gen MI game. Which means that, yes, they can.
That does not mean it should be made, as no matter how good such game might potentially turn out to be, it may not be needed, relevant, or even worth it.
This is just me arguing semantics really. But it kind of annoys me when people use such strong terms with no real justification.
The fact that you want something doesn't mean that someone should comply even if they can.
Look at the shape of the buildings, here...
http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/original/996770444-00.gif and the backgrounds are probably even more exaggerated in MI2. Not to mention some of the character animations - at one point Guybrush is so surprised that his hair comes off his head, flips around and lands again!
I think that when people describe the visuals of the first two games are realistic, they aren't really looking or remembering it properly. It has always been a cartoony game, it's just that MI3 went for a more exaggerated style which TMI seems to borrow from in several ways.
The other thing going on is, of course that when characters are drawn at such low resolution the mind tends to fill in details that aren't there, so the new designs appear rather simplistic in comparison to my 'imagined' version of the MI1/2 art.
Also, while I said that I pictured MI1 and MI2 as more realistic that doesn't mean that I don't consider it a cartoon. They're just not exaggerated cartoons like CMI, EMI, and TMI are. They are different. And also I'm not saying it should be completely realistic either. Twilight Priness, despite the realistic style shift, is still a cartoon as well. The characters are even still fairly exaggerated. I'm saying a very detailed mostly-realistic style cartoon for MI (much like Twilight Princess) would be great to see. I'm not saying there can't be cartoon elements, vibrant colours, and eyes bugging out of heads or things like that. I'm saying a style with less of a saturday morning cartoon exaggerated feel like CMI, EMI, and TMI would be welcome. With a darker atmosphere, non-cel-shaded, near top-notch graphics a la Twilight Princess. Seriously, google some Twilight Princess screenshots to see what I mean.
...your genius is showing.
More precisely saying "I can make a cake, then I should make a cake" is just one step bellow "If I can make a great cake, then I should make a cake" this sidesteps the issue entirely of whether or not a cake is necessary.
Look, I'm not disagreeing that such game could be really good. I'm disagreeing on your use of "should". Right now there are several videogame companies out there more than able to do just that (although not to the ludicrous amount of detail of that LeChuck model, obviously), but if for some reason MI became a public property then you're telling me those companies should do the game, regardless of any other factors, which simply isn't true. It might be pretty nifty if they did, but the use of "should" makes it as if it is their moral obligation to so.
For the most part, better graphics won't magically make a game better, and they accomplish nothing more that demanding the target audience to have better hardware.
I'm yet to see a game made in the last 5 years that was better because it had good graphics.
Again, I'm not against the idea of MI game with next-gen graphics. I just don't think it would be necessary or wise to do so.
Don't tell me what I mean. I know what I mean. And I absolutely don't believe a company should just take the MI franchise and run it into the ground with a bunch of meaningless and heartless renditions that completely separates everything that made MI what it was from the good Monkey Island name. If someone has a good Monkey Island story and has the vision to make it into a game with such high-quality graphics and is in a place to do so, he should. And yes, that's my opinion. So why are you arguing semantics with me based on my opinion?
I think you're taking the word "should" way too seriously. What would happen if Monkey Island was never created because Ron Gilbert thought he shouldn't make it? Obviously if someone's got a good idea that can go somewhere it should be done. Realistically there's no way anybody can determine whether something "should have" been made until after the fact when they see how it was received, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't at least attempt it to find out. We'd have no art, entertainment, or even a stable society if everyone thought they shouldn't do things just because they can. Isn't that the very essence of creativity? I write music because I can and I enjoy it. Does that mean I shouldn't do it for just that reason? Your logic is either silly or just plain escapes me.
I never ever once said better graphics would make a game better. In fact for a while I've been fighting that point in earlier graphics complaint threads.
I still don't understand why.