Which rules: Shaders or Gameplay?
by Eric Forhan · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 03/20/2004 (9:18 am) · 27 replies
With all the talk about TSE, I thought I'd offer my experience with the recent demo of "Farcry".
I loaded up Farcry, without really having seen any screenshots of the game. Of course, the first thing I went in was tweak my settings. My machine, once a king among kings, is now a meager 700mhz AMD w/9500 Radeon. So, since many games in the past would allow me to tweak almost to the top, I did such. I went to load...and load...and load...and...lock-up. Rats.
I rebooted and tried again, only to have my machine freeze once more. So, I wisened-up and lowered the settings some more--to about the "medium" mark. Ugh. My mind could had visions of blurry blobs where one could only barely recognize textures. I hit "Start" and finally it loaded.
Wow. The water had real reflections. Vegetation was everywhere. The sand glowed slightly from the sun reflecting off. The level looked huge!
Quite simply, I was stunned and ready to go buy the game and, had I the money, flushed my system and bought a brand new everything so I could see the game in its full glory.
But then I played the game. Ugh. The AI sucked. Totally sucked. They would hear you and easily lose track of where you were. Or, you'd clear out a space, only to suddenly have one sneak up on you without a sound and slay you where you stand. Not to mention repetitive voiceovers, and even graphic problems (I eventually had to lower the graphics to the lowest settings).
So, it looks great--but I'm not going to run out and get it, now.
Build your game. Work on your gameplay. Make rock-solid gameplay and some nice graphics. When your game is this far along and you still can't afford TSE but really want it, beg GG to help you out. Until then, don't worry that your car's brakelights don't have a fuzzy glow. Worry that your racing game just isn't any fun.
Sincerely,
-Eric F
edited because I can't speel.
I loaded up Farcry, without really having seen any screenshots of the game. Of course, the first thing I went in was tweak my settings. My machine, once a king among kings, is now a meager 700mhz AMD w/9500 Radeon. So, since many games in the past would allow me to tweak almost to the top, I did such. I went to load...and load...and load...and...lock-up. Rats.
I rebooted and tried again, only to have my machine freeze once more. So, I wisened-up and lowered the settings some more--to about the "medium" mark. Ugh. My mind could had visions of blurry blobs where one could only barely recognize textures. I hit "Start" and finally it loaded.
Wow. The water had real reflections. Vegetation was everywhere. The sand glowed slightly from the sun reflecting off. The level looked huge!
Quite simply, I was stunned and ready to go buy the game and, had I the money, flushed my system and bought a brand new everything so I could see the game in its full glory.
But then I played the game. Ugh. The AI sucked. Totally sucked. They would hear you and easily lose track of where you were. Or, you'd clear out a space, only to suddenly have one sneak up on you without a sound and slay you where you stand. Not to mention repetitive voiceovers, and even graphic problems (I eventually had to lower the graphics to the lowest settings).
So, it looks great--but I'm not going to run out and get it, now.
Build your game. Work on your gameplay. Make rock-solid gameplay and some nice graphics. When your game is this far along and you still can't afford TSE but really want it, beg GG to help you out. Until then, don't worry that your car's brakelights don't have a fuzzy glow. Worry that your racing game just isn't any fun.
Sincerely,
-Eric F
edited because I can't speel.
About the author
#2
Matt
03/20/2004 (11:17 am)
I second that, there isn't any need for shader support in your game if it doesn't have the game play to back it up. Without the gameplay then it is just a graphics demo. :) Shaders have been around for a while now and they are making their presence known in games but I don't see every game out there using or needing shaders all of a sudden. As far as I know about Farcry, they mostly aim at licensing their engine and the technology that goes along with it. Matt
#3
03/20/2004 (11:56 am)
It's the truth. Still, you know there are millions of people who'll go nuts over FarCry and think nothing of some of the games here which are probably more fun in the end. 
#4
The shader vs. gameplay debate has raged on here numerous times before. They're different markets, and the 'Shader' market is one that will be hard to compete in for indies, even with GG's awesome steps in this area. Just another challenge to overcome.
03/20/2004 (1:14 pm)
FarCry was only released on Friday in the UK, so I havn't played it long. And despite it looking rather great it seems a rather dull game. Designed squarely at the 'tech ramp' FPS shooter crowd. This isn't really indie territory. Lack of innovation does not a bad game make. FarCry is a great achievement and a lot of people will enjoy it. Kudos to them.The shader vs. gameplay debate has raged on here numerous times before. They're different markets, and the 'Shader' market is one that will be hard to compete in for indies, even with GG's awesome steps in this area. Just another challenge to overcome.
#5
03/20/2004 (1:19 pm)
Does good art make a game more fun? To some degree it does, but not as much as basic gameplay. Same thing with shaders. Where the benefits really come for a good looking game is in marketing. Most people look at screenshots before they decide to buy a game. Low quality screenshots can give an impression of a low quality game, and yes that correlation can be true. On the other hand, some games look good but are still rubbish. But I bet you've at least heard of those games ;) Why though? Because they've been releasing cool screenshots for months.
#6
03/20/2004 (2:49 pm)
I've played quite a bit of Far Cry and I don't find any of these problems. The AI is very random, it's a different experience each time you play. It's aimed at being realistic, and compared to a whole lot of other titles, my opinion is that it has had 'relative' success. It's not a dummy action-shooter by any means. Of course gameplay is more important than special effects, though.
#7
I thought the AI really sucked. The only thing that makes it challenging is that it has great aim from long distance and can see and shoot you through walls/brush. I even caught an enemy shooting the wrong direction once. Sometimes I would step right in front of an enemy and he would not respond.
The mission and level design were pretty good overall. Enemies can call in reinforcements, but the sniper rifle is king, since enemies will often leave their cover and just charge you if they hear a shot from it.
The graphics were great. You will have to have a high-end system to run it at the default settings though. I think the game's purpose is to get sales for licenses of the Crytek Engine, and it will probably succeed at that.
IMHO, if you want to play a game that has great gameplay and shaders, try Star Wars Knights of The Republic from Bioware.
03/20/2004 (6:03 pm)
I was just messing around with the Farcry demo today. It didn't run very smoothly on my gaming machine 2.4GHz P4 800MHz FSB, 512MB 3200 RAM, 128MB 5600 GeForceFX until I reduced the resolution and some graphics settings. I thought the AI really sucked. The only thing that makes it challenging is that it has great aim from long distance and can see and shoot you through walls/brush. I even caught an enemy shooting the wrong direction once. Sometimes I would step right in front of an enemy and he would not respond.
The mission and level design were pretty good overall. Enemies can call in reinforcements, but the sniper rifle is king, since enemies will often leave their cover and just charge you if they hear a shot from it.
The graphics were great. You will have to have a high-end system to run it at the default settings though. I think the game's purpose is to get sales for licenses of the Crytek Engine, and it will probably succeed at that.
IMHO, if you want to play a game that has great gameplay and shaders, try Star Wars Knights of The Republic from Bioware.
#8
I've stayed away from pixel shaders - they're not needed at all. Right now I'm developing a game with low-end graphical effects as my target machine is DX7 card (hardware TnL) on crappy cpu (800Mhz standard), but this isn't just harrumping.
In the past, I've been the head of R&D departments at the bleeding edge(yawn) of graphical effects, and I still don't see the need for pixel shaders tbh.
These glow effects only need a texture rendertarget and a stencil buffer, bump-mapping can go through the fixed-function pipeline, etc. etc. There are indeed a lot of things you can *only* do in a pixel shader but I'll bet that few people would notice these in a game.
If we're talking about true immersion, we don't even have decent lighting and shadow in games yet. Sure a lightmap can make levels look nice, but as soon as you run into a dark cupboard carrying a torch and the shadows don't move and/or dissappear ? When problems are this bad, I don't see much point in concentrating on per-pixel caustics on that bit of water in the corner tbh - just spend that time on some more weapons or something and remember we make games.
Remember also that as soon as you rely on a pixel shader, half (or probably more) of your audience is immediately wiped out. I know a lot of commercial developers that won't be touching them for at least another couple of years until every hardcore gamer will have a dx9 card or better.
03/21/2004 (5:33 am)
My take on this:I've stayed away from pixel shaders - they're not needed at all. Right now I'm developing a game with low-end graphical effects as my target machine is DX7 card (hardware TnL) on crappy cpu (800Mhz standard), but this isn't just harrumping.
In the past, I've been the head of R&D departments at the bleeding edge(yawn) of graphical effects, and I still don't see the need for pixel shaders tbh.
These glow effects only need a texture rendertarget and a stencil buffer, bump-mapping can go through the fixed-function pipeline, etc. etc. There are indeed a lot of things you can *only* do in a pixel shader but I'll bet that few people would notice these in a game.
If we're talking about true immersion, we don't even have decent lighting and shadow in games yet. Sure a lightmap can make levels look nice, but as soon as you run into a dark cupboard carrying a torch and the shadows don't move and/or dissappear ? When problems are this bad, I don't see much point in concentrating on per-pixel caustics on that bit of water in the corner tbh - just spend that time on some more weapons or something and remember we make games.
Remember also that as soon as you rely on a pixel shader, half (or probably more) of your audience is immediately wiped out. I know a lot of commercial developers that won't be touching them for at least another couple of years until every hardcore gamer will have a dx9 card or better.
#9
Shaders (as seen in the upcoming TSE) will ONLY add to the visual perception of a game when applied as "textures" on your current geometry, am I right?
Therefor, if your game-idea and your art-work sucks, the game will still be boring and bad looking, am I right ??
03/21/2004 (5:41 am)
Let me try to understand this:Shaders (as seen in the upcoming TSE) will ONLY add to the visual perception of a game when applied as "textures" on your current geometry, am I right?
Therefor, if your game-idea and your art-work sucks, the game will still be boring and bad looking, am I right ??
#10
If your game idea and artwork sucks, adding shaders to it will leave the game still boring, but it may look a little less bad looking :)
OTOH, if your game is good, then adding nice glowy headlights or whatever will help it along even more - just watch your minimum specs...
03/21/2004 (6:11 am)
I assume so, yes. There are some behing-the-scenes things that can be done with shaders, but generally they're just a way of adding effects to textures to make them more 'happnin'. In the same way as you can make a chrome effect just by twiddling the u/v of an existing texture at render time, for instance.If your game idea and artwork sucks, adding shaders to it will leave the game still boring, but it may look a little less bad looking :)
OTOH, if your game is good, then adding nice glowy headlights or whatever will help it along even more - just watch your minimum specs...
#12
03/21/2004 (7:10 am)
I played the demo of FarCry and thought it was ok. Not really impressed with it. I have found that all the new games come out are ok but I still always go back to Tribes 1 and Tribes 2 for the game play. You think these companies would look at those games that get played for several years not months. The high end graphics really don't mean crap in the long run. Maybe with the Torque engine and this new TSE we can get a balance of both worlds at a low price. Yes. some of us might not be able to afford it right now, but it does give us options to invest in the future. Make your game playable, sell it, take the money made from it and buy TSE, update your game and release a new version of your game, make more money. That's what I plan on doing. Think about the games you like the most and why you like them. Was it the game play or the graphics? Go from there. The option to spend the extra money is yours.
#13
A good game is a good game is a good game. To bad there seem to be so few high-profile games out there today that is.
I believe there is alot of AAA game-developer-companies that need to rethink their way of doing buisiness, they seem to be very fx-orientend today, forgetting much about gameplay.
I am not the first one stating that, still there is alot of the same making too much money out there, only difference seem to be the way effects are used trough out the title.
IMHO the reason for this repeat-what-is-selling scenario is our excessive lust for technological breaktroughs, and our lack of putting them to good use.
Therefor I believe that putting this tech in the hands of hobbyist could really mean that we get some excellent gameideas packaged in a really bright and shiny box. I am all for that.
So I hope everybody remember that a good game really don't need to rely on magnificent graphics, the graphics are just there to communicate the message of the author.
I think GG need to add a Q&A to the FAQ when the TSE is released:
Q: I don't have a gameidea, any content or even a name for the game I'm making, will Shaders help me in any way ??
A: Short answer: no, Long answer: no
[EDIT: I can't sppeel either]
03/21/2004 (7:45 am)
Quote:
OTOH, if your game is good, then adding nice glowy headlights or whatever will help it along even more - just watch your minimum specs...
A good game is a good game is a good game. To bad there seem to be so few high-profile games out there today that is.
I believe there is alot of AAA game-developer-companies that need to rethink their way of doing buisiness, they seem to be very fx-orientend today, forgetting much about gameplay.
I am not the first one stating that, still there is alot of the same making too much money out there, only difference seem to be the way effects are used trough out the title.
IMHO the reason for this repeat-what-is-selling scenario is our excessive lust for technological breaktroughs, and our lack of putting them to good use.
Therefor I believe that putting this tech in the hands of hobbyist could really mean that we get some excellent gameideas packaged in a really bright and shiny box. I am all for that.
So I hope everybody remember that a good game really don't need to rely on magnificent graphics, the graphics are just there to communicate the message of the author.
I think GG need to add a Q&A to the FAQ when the TSE is released:
Q: I don't have a gameidea, any content or even a name for the game I'm making, will Shaders help me in any way ??
A: Short answer: no, Long answer: no
[EDIT: I can't sppeel either]
#14
I love that :D
I think this about sums it up:
Great graphics won't make a crap game good. Great graphics *will* make a good game great.
Graphics are important to gamers but they're not the *most* important aspect - A fact that most commercial publishers and developers seem to have overlooked completely.
03/21/2004 (7:54 am)
"Short answer: no, Long answer: no"I love that :D
I think this about sums it up:
Great graphics won't make a crap game good. Great graphics *will* make a good game great.
Graphics are important to gamers but they're not the *most* important aspect - A fact that most commercial publishers and developers seem to have overlooked completely.
#15
03/21/2004 (8:01 am)
True... gamers today don't want a game that looks dated. 
#16
You'd be surprised about what such a gamer thinks is a game that looks good, and most importantly (like you were saying ;)), fun to play
Edit : what follows is part of the edit
To add to this, I konw of quite a few "kids" (late teens, early tweens ;)) who have decently recent machines, but couldn't be bothered playing anything that doesn't run on MAME , in 2D s'il vous plait :)
Even a recent series of games like the Metal Slug stuff, which were in prime time arcades not that long ago, is still completely 2D sprites and backgrounds.
real time 3D gfx research a game does not make :)
That said, I'm expecting TSE with much glee ;)
03/21/2004 (8:28 am)
You mean core gamers Eric : casual gamers couldn't care less if the game looks are dated or not, as they're (as a generalisation) not aware of the tech curve :)You'd be surprised about what such a gamer thinks is a game that looks good, and most importantly (like you were saying ;)), fun to play
Edit : what follows is part of the edit
To add to this, I konw of quite a few "kids" (late teens, early tweens ;)) who have decently recent machines, but couldn't be bothered playing anything that doesn't run on MAME , in 2D s'il vous plait :)
Even a recent series of games like the Metal Slug stuff, which were in prime time arcades not that long ago, is still completely 2D sprites and backgrounds.
real time 3D gfx research a game does not make :)
That said, I'm expecting TSE with much glee ;)
#17
03/21/2004 (8:41 am)
Very true! I agree with all that was said. Half my gaming time goes to playing the 'old school' games like the good old Super Nintendo games. The only reason to play a game is to have fun. Graphics don't play a part in that, they only add to the thrill, if the thrill is there to begin with. 
#18
03/21/2004 (9:10 am)
Once you've conquered GAMEPLAY, geometry, animation, textures, and lighting... then you are ready for shaders... and not a moment before. Shaders will not make bad game play fun. They will also not make bad art look good. Some people are so misguided... I am just glad I don't have to work with them.
#19
Here is a thread that you need to read about the TSE:
www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=17017
kind of explains what is going on. I will not go out and purchase it today or in the next couple of months. I will wait until I get my game play setup to where I want it, then determine if it is what I need. Another thing I wanted to add is, when you publish a game, setup a forum for the people who play your game. It gives a chance for the people to tell you the problems,likes, dislikes and a chance for them to talk to others about your game. And the most important thing is to read them so you can decide what you will do on the next version. Now if the bigger game companies would do this, it would probly produce better games out there. Don't be like THQ...continues to just put out quanity, not quality games. Example, Red Faction... good game but didn't bother to fix the problems. Thet just released a more inhanced graphics version with the same problems as the first release. Now the game is in the $9.95 rack after 3 months in the market.
03/21/2004 (9:10 am)
Downloaded another version of the demo. Was much better than the first one. Have to see how it does when it is released.Here is a thread that you need to read about the TSE:
www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=17017
kind of explains what is going on. I will not go out and purchase it today or in the next couple of months. I will wait until I get my game play setup to where I want it, then determine if it is what I need. Another thing I wanted to add is, when you publish a game, setup a forum for the people who play your game. It gives a chance for the people to tell you the problems,likes, dislikes and a chance for them to talk to others about your game. And the most important thing is to read them so you can decide what you will do on the next version. Now if the bigger game companies would do this, it would probly produce better games out there. Don't be like THQ...continues to just put out quanity, not quality games. Example, Red Faction... good game but didn't bother to fix the problems. Thet just released a more inhanced graphics version with the same problems as the first release. Now the game is in the $9.95 rack after 3 months in the market.
#20
MY game is gonna slap YOUR games butt (shaders or no shaders), just so you know it...
couldn't resist ;-)
03/21/2004 (10:13 am)
Well, to conclude:MY game is gonna slap YOUR games butt (shaders or no shaders), just so you know it...
couldn't resist ;-)
Associate Matt Summers
Dark Industries
Later...