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.
You argue I took something too far by doing the same thing in the opposite direction?
In the same way that can doesn't mean should, did doesn't mean shouldn't. This is not black and white, there isn't just "should" and "shouldn't".
Like you said, you write music because you can and enjoy it. That doesn't, in any way, mean that you should do it or that you shouldn't. You just did.
I never said you couldn't have your opinion. But you're arguing mine which is just as pointless as arguing yours, which I wasn't doing, incidentally. I was just trying to understand where you're coming from. And now I think I do. If you're really saying it doesn't matter and that people just do things not necessarily because they should or shouldn't then your original reply to my post was unnecessary as that's just common sense. I never said it was anyone's moral obligation that they absolutely have to do a thing if they have the means. I'm saying if they have a good idea and can pull it off they owe it to themselves to do so. Not because they have to but because they should, if you understand what I'm getting at. "Have" and "should" can mean two different things and I think you're assuming the worst of the two when I say "should." They "should" because creativity is a necessary thing for human beings to have. And the feeling of accomplishment in doing such a thing is one of the best feelings in the world. I'm not saying they "should" because they have to I'm saying they "should" because it's good and perfectly admirable to do things for the sake of creativity.
Aside from that, I'm also saying they "should" because I want them to . But again, not that they have to but just because I'd like to see it and I think there'd be a grateful audience for such a game. And if the story called for it (like a truly epic masterpiece of a Monkey Island game) I think it would actually be to the point of necessary to go all out on everything especially the graphics. Epic movies are epic because of the scope of the detail that went into them, after all. Same with games.
Great writing and great graphics certainly aren't mutually exclusive. If I had to choose, I would of course choose story over graphics, but there's room for both.
That said, graphics and story/game design should go hand in hand. Improving the graphical quality only benefits a game so long as it complements the game's atmosphere. Seven Samurai is a breathtakingly epic movie, and the cinematography a large reason for it, but that doesn't mean that adding color to it would be an improvement. Likewise, the atmosphere of the MI games, in my experience at least, is more fantastic than realistic, and thus a more realistic visual style would alter the mood drastically. Maybe it would work and maybe it wouldn't, but it wouldn't be the MI universe that I know and love.
As a final thought, George Lucas had the vision and resources to make Star Wars more detailed with the prequel movies, and look how those turned out. Though, to be fair, his inability to write believable dialogue had a hand in that as well.
and frankly, i'm very frustrated at how people always tend to choose between graphics and story, music, etc. WHY CANT A GAME HAVE IT ALL???
why must a game with good graphics have a really bad storyline?????!!!!
or why must a game with bad graphics have a good storyline????!!!!!
WHY CANT A GAME HAVE IT ALL?? GOOD GRAPHICS, GOOD STORY, GOOD DIALOGUE, GOOD MUSIC, etc etc etc. I know 'the curse of monkey island' certainly has them all during its years. I know 'Grim Fandango' does.
And as a conclusion, one thing i know for damn sure: IF A GAME HAS GOOD GRAPHICS, IT CERTAINLY REDEFINES CONSUMER'S GAMING EXPERIENCE. HANDS DOWN. NO ARGUMENT.
And for those who thinks graphics are totally not important at all, why the hell do u think Call of Duty 1,2,3&4, Crysis, Assassin's creed, prince of persia, half life 1&2, fallout 3, Metal Gear Solid 4, GTA 3&4, Oblivion, curse of monkey island, grim fandango, max payne, starcraft, diablo 1&2, etc etc etc has such a crazy selling market???!!!
can u honestly tell me whether they're able to retain the same selling market if they release their game NOW (2009) with graphics that looks like DOOM 1 (1993)???
SO, STOP ARGUING WHICH (graphics VS gameplay, story, etc) IS MORE IMPORTANT because ALL OF THEM ARE IMPORTANT!!! story, gameplay, graphics, music, dialogue, etc. That is the essence of an excellent game.
Because games cost money to make and adventure games are a niche genre. Posters here need to realize this reality and be content with what they get - they need to learn the difference between the things that can be changed and can't. Episodic gaming for Telltale won't work with super detailed graphics - it wouldn't ship fast enough. Writing is cheap, hi-def graphics are expensive and time consuming. Why do you think episodic gaming has failed for everyone but Telltale and the adventure game genre? There's a reason my friend.
Yelling and screaming with over exclamation like that does nothing but make you look like a rambler and fails to enforce your point. It makes you look unreasonable.
Dude, Diablo 2 graphics were famously outdated. I actually know people that didn't play the game because the graphics were too bad.
And by the way, most of those games sold well because they were good games, not because they had good graphics. Otherwise you can't justify that several of those (namely Starcraft, Diablo 2, and Half-life 2) are still selling very well.
And by the way, 1) WRITING LIKE THIS DOESN'T HELP YOUR POINT!!! 2) No one said that games have to choose between good graphics and good story, but they usually do for several reasons.
why must a game with good graphics have a really bad storyline?????!!!!
or why must a game with bad graphics have a good storyline????!!!!!
A game can have fantastic graphics and a great story, just look at Bioshock. But then Bioshock sold millions, the developers had the budget to spend a fortune on creating highly detailed models and textures. So if you want it all, keep your eye out for mainstream games.
If you want a graphics adventure though, budgets are inevitably going to be lower. Lets say Telltale were to make a game as detailed as the screen shown. Odds are they'd have enough resources to make a Lechuck model, a Guybrush model and a single screen. It would take some pretty incredible writing to make a good story with those limitations. I think it's far better they stick to their cheap 3d models so we can get a story spread over 5 islands.
You got so crushed in this discussion and yet you keep on going, arguing stupid points, just making stuff up and just defending yourself because you can't let go. That's why I /facepalm.
You got so crushed in this discussion and yet you keep on going, arguing stupid points, just making stuff up and just defending yourself because you can't let go. That's why I /facepalm.
What?
EDIT: Allow me to elaborate. If it any point I insisted in a particular point, it was because I was trying to have an interesting discussing, since I felt that was the reason of the thread. And what stupid points? All I said was that better graphics cost money while not making for a better game and still raising hardware requirements. All facts. I never even argued that a better looking MI wouldn't be nice, I argued against the need and advisability of such.
I don't see how I could have been defeated since I never did more than express an opinion.
Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm retarded.
I'm pointing out that I know that you knew your position was so weak in the discussion you deliberatly pretended not to understand at one point- and also to add that you were just arguing for the sake of arguing and that your points were hollow.
I'm pointing out that I know that you knew your position was so weak in the discussion you deliberatly pretended not to understand at one point- and also to add that you were just arguing for the sake of arguing and that your points were hollow.
What position? If you're talking about the "should" thing, then I never pretended it was an argument in the first place. The argument that started from there was as stupid and pointless as the one that we are having now and has no bearing in the in the thread at hand.
You never pretended it was an argument in the first place? You repeatedly tried to make a point you knew was silly. It was very clear what he meant.
I'm not playing your kinda games sorry, I'm not gonna keep on "discussing" when you choose what you want to understand and purposely will argue just for arguing- that's a waste of time. I just entered the thread, read through it, and pointed out you were full of it.
Comments
You argue I took something too far by doing the same thing in the opposite direction?
In the same way that can doesn't mean should, did doesn't mean shouldn't. This is not black and white, there isn't just "should" and "shouldn't".
Like you said, you write music because you can and enjoy it. That doesn't, in any way, mean that you should do it or that you shouldn't. You just did.
It's my opinion. I think I'm entitled to it in the same way you're entitled to yours.
But if you really want to know, it's because I think it would be a waste of resources to go that far.
Aside from that, I'm also saying they "should" because I want them to
My only point at the start of all this is that I find "should" too strong a word in this context. It was mostly me being a grammar Nazi. :rolleyes:
Anyway, hopefully we understand each other now.
That said, graphics and story/game design should go hand in hand. Improving the graphical quality only benefits a game so long as it complements the game's atmosphere. Seven Samurai is a breathtakingly epic movie, and the cinematography a large reason for it, but that doesn't mean that adding color to it would be an improvement. Likewise, the atmosphere of the MI games, in my experience at least, is more fantastic than realistic, and thus a more realistic visual style would alter the mood drastically. Maybe it would work and maybe it wouldn't, but it wouldn't be the MI universe that I know and love.
As a final thought, George Lucas had the vision and resources to make Star Wars more detailed with the prequel movies, and look how those turned out. Though, to be fair, his inability to write believable dialogue had a hand in that as well.
I wasn't, either. As I said, I was referring to the Star Wars prequels. The updated versions of the original trilogy is a separate debacle.
If you meant my Seven Samurai example, I was using that primarily to demonstrate how adding detail can dramatically change mood and atmosphere.
and frankly, i'm very frustrated at how people always tend to choose between graphics and story, music, etc. WHY CANT A GAME HAVE IT ALL???
why must a game with good graphics have a really bad storyline?????!!!!
or why must a game with bad graphics have a good storyline????!!!!!
WHY CANT A GAME HAVE IT ALL?? GOOD GRAPHICS, GOOD STORY, GOOD DIALOGUE, GOOD MUSIC, etc etc etc. I know 'the curse of monkey island' certainly has them all during its years. I know 'Grim Fandango' does.
And as a conclusion, one thing i know for damn sure:
IF A GAME HAS GOOD GRAPHICS, IT CERTAINLY REDEFINES CONSUMER'S GAMING EXPERIENCE. HANDS DOWN. NO ARGUMENT.
And for those who thinks graphics are totally not important at all, why the hell do u think Call of Duty 1,2,3&4, Crysis, Assassin's creed, prince of persia, half life 1&2, fallout 3, Metal Gear Solid 4, GTA 3&4, Oblivion, curse of monkey island, grim fandango, max payne, starcraft, diablo 1&2, etc etc etc has such a crazy selling market???!!!
can u honestly tell me whether they're able to retain the same selling market if they release their game NOW (2009) with graphics that looks like DOOM 1 (1993)???
SO, STOP ARGUING WHICH (graphics VS gameplay, story, etc) IS MORE IMPORTANT because ALL OF THEM ARE IMPORTANT!!! story, gameplay, graphics, music, dialogue, etc. That is the essence of an excellent game.
Yelling and screaming with over exclamation like that does nothing but make you look like a rambler and fails to enforce your point. It makes you look unreasonable.
And by the way, most of those games sold well because they were good games, not because they had good graphics. Otherwise you can't justify that several of those (namely Starcraft, Diablo 2, and Half-life 2) are still selling very well.
And by the way, 1) WRITING LIKE THIS DOESN'T HELP YOUR POINT!!! 2) No one said that games have to choose between good graphics and good story, but they usually do for several reasons.
What?
A game can have fantastic graphics and a great story, just look at Bioshock. But then Bioshock sold millions, the developers had the budget to spend a fortune on creating highly detailed models and textures. So if you want it all, keep your eye out for mainstream games.
If you want a graphics adventure though, budgets are inevitably going to be lower. Lets say Telltale were to make a game as detailed as the screen shown. Odds are they'd have enough resources to make a Lechuck model, a Guybrush model and a single screen. It would take some pretty incredible writing to make a good story with those limitations. I think it's far better they stick to their cheap 3d models so we can get a story spread over 5 islands.
You got so crushed in this discussion and yet you keep on going, arguing stupid points, just making stuff up and just defending yourself because you can't let go. That's why I /facepalm.
EDIT: Allow me to elaborate. If it any point I insisted in a particular point, it was because I was trying to have an interesting discussing, since I felt that was the reason of the thread. And what stupid points? All I said was that better graphics cost money while not making for a better game and still raising hardware requirements. All facts. I never even argued that a better looking MI wouldn't be nice, I argued against the need and advisability of such.
I don't see how I could have been defeated since I never did more than express an opinion.
Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean I'm retarded.
I'm pointing out that I know that you knew your position was so weak in the discussion you deliberatly pretended not to understand at one point- and also to add that you were just arguing for the sake of arguing and that your points were hollow.
Let's just agree to disagree.
You never pretended it was an argument in the first place? You repeatedly tried to make a point you knew was silly. It was very clear what he meant.
I'm not playing your kinda games sorry, I'm not gonna keep on "discussing" when you choose what you want to understand and purposely will argue just for arguing- that's a waste of time. I just entered the thread, read through it, and pointed out you were full of it.