Sorry your browser is not supported!

***Could a Mod please move this post to GD Theory please***

First of all, I'de like to say hi to everyone.

I am currently in development of an RPG game that I intend to have similar graphics to that of "Breath of Fire" games (4+5 mainly), but I am unsure as to how this game would rate with you lot.
I am capable of programming a game with graphics on par with Final Fantasy 7 although this would take a lot longer than the BoF5 graphics.

How much of an impact would this cause, would you prefere a game with lots of effort put into the story and gameplay or into the graphics?

Would anyone want to play a game made for the PC that has graphics on par with BoF5?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I thank all that have replied.
So it would be best to not go all out on the graphics, but make them enough so that the player doesn't die of boredom (even though the storyline is good, I think).

I have decided that the best thing to do would be to complete the game using low graphics and then comprimise on the graphics later as then I would be able to see what the overall effect would be.

When I have the first demo done it will have low graphics, but fear not, I am hoping the final product will be good enough for everyone to enjoy from start to finish. (Could be a while though!)

What sort of an impact on the random encounters (which can become seemlessly boring) do you think it would have if I made the camera angles change for every action (might give some people motion sickness), in a way that makes every encounter different and more interesting? (This is not intended to be an essay question, lol!!!)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again, so many useful comments, although I very much doubt my graphics are going to be anything like that of Halo or even FFntc!

I think I shall just use graphics on par with 'Breath of Fire 5', and if by the end of the project my modeller gets better or I get a new modeller in then I shall upgrade the graphics, but for the sake of size I shall only include basic graphics in the demo.

Incase anyone was wanting to see what the main character looks like I shall post a picutre when I get back onto my computer at home.

Again, thankyou for your time people...

Shouldn't this be in Game Design Theory?
*back on topic* I'd play that game for sure, assuming the story, gameplay, and controls were astounding. Graphics and music are only secondary thoughts to me. Other people will care about graphics, though, so I'd go as far as you can, graphics-wise, to appease the largest audience possible. Just don't skimp on anything and you'll be fine.

never played or seen breath of fire (atleast not that i would to have recognised it)

Graphics are important, however don't sacrifice for gameplay.
Remeber RPGs can get away with alot more graphically speaking, because players focus more on the storyline rather than how breath-taking scenes are.

Look at Tales of Symphonia. The models and world depth isn't ultra-realistic and that helps them because they simply used textures for most of it with a lack of light accentuation to provide the game with a more drawn appearance that works bloody well and doesn't push the hardware much, this allowed them to do more complex things with the characters themselves such'as add in physics for the hair and clothes that just provide the game with a nice touch.
It also ment that in battles they could go totally OTT with particle effects and screen effects without slowing anything down so the battles looked amazing with the artists not having to do alot.

Something FF titles tend to have which others don't is a huge selection of monsters. While other games do have the same overall amount (250ish including bosses) most of these are the same monster with different skin and statistics. Alot of the game is played out through the locations, characters and monsters. So graphics levels that fit together and provide atmosphere are important, but to complete with state-of-the-art ultra-realistic FPS games and alike, I wouldn't worry.

Yeah but FF is more like an interactive movie than a decent game nowadays. My favourite RPG is either Ultima IX or Sudeki. They both look pretty nice but I like them for the story and gameplay not the graphics.

Or bugs ... UIX always crashed on my computer after 10minutes of play with some annoying error and ran at a god aweful speed.

Most people have mentioned to be aware of not letting spending more time on graphics then gameplay, but I would also like to add that it is important to focus on graphics enough so that they do not detract from the gameplay.

It graphics don't belong in the game, don't put them there or they will detract from the experience.

Also, grahics is what the eye catches first. People look for games that don't look like they were made 10 years ago, and there are the people that don't give a rats ass about the gameplay, but want the game becouse the good graphics. But there are the ones that want a good story line and gameplay.

This is just something that has to be balanced out.

Graphics are the most important to me then gameplay in second. Thats why I bought halo2. Halo2=best graphics in the freakin world!!!!!!!!!

Even though it can be disheartening when coding, prehaps dont use decent graphics till youve got pretty much everything else sorted (engine, chat system, story line flow, etc) that way you can concentrate on making the game fun, and then afterwards you can stick in some awesome graphics and TADAAA ! a totaly brilliant game.
Well thats the theory anyway !

Your game engine should always come first. Until you know what the limitations are of the control system, and design there is no way to be able to optimise the graphics.



Halo 2 looks crap, and plays even worse. Sorry but quite frankly it is a typical example of what NOT to do developing a game. If it hadn't been the sequal to Halo, it would've had aweful reviews and very few people would've actually bought it.

Also considering the genres are completely different you can get away with different things. You screw an RPG Gamers over on gameplay you will promptly be linched at ANX or such
Seriously have you ever played a REAL FPS like Perfect Dark after playing Halo 2, Half-Life 2, or Doom 3?

Wow they all have amazing graphics, and you know what... a 6year old game still is easily much better than they hope to be.
If it hadn't been an N64 exclusive, it would've become a far bigger game that it is now.
You know why it was so good?
Because it had the most advanced graphics the N64 had ever seen?

No, because it had inherited and extended the Gameplay that had been established in Goldeneye. There are so many nuanices that just make the game feel so much more alive than even these top titles with Rag-Doll Physics.

How many games do you know where you shoot someone in the leg and not only will they limp from then on, but it will affect how quickly they will be able to attack you, even fall over and have to get back up?

How many games do you know where the enemy will go to shoot you, only for thier weapon to jam.. swear at it like a salior while you can then blow them away?

Or how about the fact that you have realistic objectives on your missions, such'as having to reprogram a taxi cab in order to make it crash in to a wall so you can distracts, to sneak past a bunch of guards who lock your escape route if you come close.

Things like that have NOTHING to do with the graphics, what-so-ever. Sure the game did push the graphical bounderies that were not capable of being toppled until the next generation consoles 2years later (first by the same team), but compared to the PC at the time; the graphics weren't exactly pushing what could be done in engines like Half-Life or Quake3, simply because the model polycounts were so much lower and the UV Mapping on the N64 really tied hands quite alot.

But honestly speaking, if you just add something as simple as Field of Depth to a relatively low polygon game, it adds to the depth of the game. Can change it's look completely.
Provided ther graphics fit it doesn't matter how good they are to begin with, hell most of the time you start with a basic test graphics set so you can get in place the engine, the features you want. Then you know you can just push polycounts until you reach the wall. Allows you to optimise if you choose or have a lower systems specification then you thought.

I'm a graphics freak myself really, sinse graphics is what I do.. But seriously, graphics is not what make a game great.. in any way.. a great example for this Rise of Robots for the SNES.. which can be discussed if had great graphics or not.. it used rendered sprites which on screenshots looked amazing... (same as Killer Instinct, though it played better) but you couldnt do much more then move around, kick and hit..

And lets take a moment to look at Doom 3;
it did indeed have fine looking graphics.. but it was like it only tried to make a game worth playing for 10min as for fun factor.. after that it became simply a shoot'em up.. a primary one I would say.. in other words.. it became boring.

Bottom line, graphics are great.. but without gameplay it has no value

Halo 2 does not look like crap. It is the best looking game out.