Gameplay First - Graphics Later

The Dungeon Siege 2 Example

Published on July 29, 2005 By mittens In Game Developers

2005 is a great year for gamers as a whole, with the release of the highly-touted Xbox 360 headlining the news (and, consequently, the temporally inferior PS3) for the brutes of the gaming crowd and new graphics card technology and big-name game titles for the intellectually elite [Ha.] PC gamers. Far and wide the most important event of 2005 is the release of Gas Powered Games' Dungeon Siege 2, the sequel to the relatively under-appreciated original game of the same name, one of my top titles of all time. It is only through my striking ability of clarity, along with my tendency to avoid any type of "fanboyism" that I can say that the under-appreciation of the original game was quite well-deserved. The game was able to present the user with an absolutely gorgeously organized array of colored pixels for its time but, alas, the game was more of a visual spectacle than a well-designed gameplay-centric phenomenon.

Yeah, it was basically a mildly interactive screensaver. And I say this with love.

Not content to be just another roof housing cheap imitation game developers, Gas Powered Games instantly set to work on making the sequel to their beloved Dungeon Siege franchise (while plotting the mind-blowingly sexy Supreme Commander, of course). I've personally been following the development of Dungeon Siege 2 since the moment it was announced, taking in each newly released screenshot and interview with a bit of my inner-fanboy emerging with every new screenshot pixel or interview letter.

However many years later, and Gas Powered Games makes the announcement I've been waiting for: it went gold. And take a look at those screenshots (Or the ones from my DS2 gallery)... Wait, what has Gas Powered Games doing doing all these years? What the hell? This game isn't new. What the hell. They didn't change anything. What the hell!

What you've been absorbing is the best example of a game being released where the development company has all the resources of every other game development company around and uses them to... make a better game? That's right. Almost three-four years in development under the guiding powers of the infamous Chris Taylor (of Total Annihilation fame), Gas Powered Games now prepares to release the sequel to their Dungeon Siege franchise for the video gaming consumption of rabid gamers everywhere. And in these three years in development, the graphics engine was hardly touched at all. Sure the textures are crisper and some shader effects were thrown in, but the graphics engine for Dungeon Siege 2 is essentially the same one we all saw in the first game. This is one of the best instances I've ever seen where a developer has actually decided to divert their focus from the much criticized "graphics over gameplay" path that a lot of developers take, and instead focus almost all of their time trying to make their game world seem more alive through details while simultaneously spending time to make the actual gameplay perfect. Three years in development, and we get what Chris Taylor says "is the closest to perfection I've ever come on any game I've done!" Bold words from a game designer said to revolutionize the real-time strategy genre with Total Annihilation.

And here's where the point comes in: gamers are already up-in-arms about Dungeon Siege 2. And not about the developer's immense focus on detail and gameplay, but rather about the developer's lack of time spent upgrading the graphics engine. Comments I've seen from average gamers across a number of sites chastise Gas Powered Games (though, not directly of course, that would require backbone and thought) for releasing a game in 2005 that looks "so bad," yet go on to complain about the original game being a "screensaver." The nerve of Gas Powered Games! What were they thinking when they were following the ideal that so many critical editorials and articles express their fears that games are becoming so technologically advanced that the gameplay begins to suffer. What on Earth were they thinking in actually spending time trying to perfect their new game's gameplay instead of focusing on visuals?

And there's the beauty of this industry folks: graphics make the game. Despite whatever article on any game development, game review, or game-related website or periodical may say, at the end of the day, a game simply cannot be released these days unless it's using a shader model higher than any graphics card can support, unless it is taking advantage of HDR lighting, lens flares, per-pixel lighting, physically accurate shadows, mega-detailed textures, and super-shiny rough wooden surfaces (because that's totally realistic, dude). Nobody wants to play a visually par game anymore; hell, take a look at Battlefield 2. A ridiculously popular game, yet, it's released months before it should have been so buyers can function as beta testers, and with requirements that alienate anybody without the latest and greatest graphics cards. The video game industry is an industry well-versed in gamer hypocrisy, and the developers acknowledge it when they release games like Battlefield 2, Half-Life 2 (it's not a good game, I'm sorry), and DOOM 3.

If gamers really do mean it when they say that they would rather have a visually sub-par game with excellent gameplay, then let's all put our money where our mouth is. Buy games like Dungeon Siege 2. Reward the developers for releasing a great game and focusing on what really matters to gamers everywhere: the gameplay. I will be buying Dungeon Siege 2 as soon as I possibly can, and not only to support the developer's focus on gameplay, but because I think their laser-like focus and precision during the development of Dungeon Siege 2 has resulted in one of the best action/RPGs in gaming history being released on August 16th, 2005.

Comments

LDiCesare

on Aug 08, 2005

I like gameplay, not graphics. I don't like Diablo-likes very much though, so didn't answer at first. There's a (so huge it's silly) demo, though, so I might give it a try.
I am a bit worried that noone made any comment on this topic. People do buy games because of their looks, and that noone answered this post may mean there are few people who actually worry about gameplay? I still play NetHack and Civ2 despite there being games with better graphics out there, so I'll probably add 'unfortunately'.

Efthimios

on Aug 08, 2005

First of all I disagree that DS1 was a screensaver. The game was close to excellent for what it was, a dungeon hack and slash game. It was more for the old 80s generation and for the people who loved Diablo series, but it was not an RPG, though it had elemts of one. IMO of course.
I haven't downloaded the demo yet of DS2 and I do not want to comment on the graphics just with screenshots.
If some gamers want to complain about the graphics in that game, let them! They have as much right as you and I. Chris Taylor is not new to the business and I am sure he had people "complaining" about the graphics of T.A. for not being as good as other more traditional RTS games at the time. I know because I was one of them. Still, I bought the game...I am sure that every single one of the people who complain about the graphics in DS2, that played and liked the first one, will buy the sequel. You can also look at the DIablo games. Graphically they sucked (IMO), and the second one was looking a couple of generations old even when released. We both know how much that affected the sales of the game.

Looks matter, but DS2 has nothing to worry about in that department. Now, if after all these years it was looking like Diablo II, then perhaps there would be a problem.
Don't get me wrong, I WANT good graphics from games, even though my mobility radeon 7500 cannot handle new games so well, why shouldn't we demand more and better as gamers?

Yarlen

on Aug 08, 2005

Trent is absolutely correct when he says that graphics matter most - the vast majority of players today couldn't care less about gameplay, they want it to look great on their $500 video card (or whatever - I can't fault them on that point ). To most people visuals matter the most because that's what they absorb the most - when you play a game, sight is key. I'd venture a guess that older gamers, those of us who've been around since Pong and Zork, think graphics are important but not the be all-end all of the experience. Unfortunately for those like myself, we're a minority now (I only look forward to maybe 1-2 PC games a year now) and game publishers know it; hence why we complain that so many games these days aren't that good, but look great.

It takes a lot of time and money to create art assets, which leaves less room in the budget for gameplay. Factor in publishers' fear of getting too creative and original - except for the big name developers - and you're stuck in a high visual-reduced gameplay rut. For business, it's just a safer place to be.

mittens

on Aug 08, 2005

"Trent is absolutely correct when he says that graphics matter most"

Let's keep in mind that I said that graphics matter most in terms of a selling point to the mass gaming public. Most people don't really care about gameplay until they've actually played the game. Get a demo in people's hands with crappy graphics and if the gameplay is there, it'll keep people interested. Though the hard part is getting people to actually play the game before passing it off.

I wish there was some sort of gameplay standard that could be shown on every box, rather than screenshots which show nothing save the graphical aspect of the game.

Efthimios

on Aug 09, 2005

It is called Reviews, but nowdays we all know how some well known magazines/sites give their marks...

LDiCesare

on Aug 10, 2005

Indeed reviews are often not reliable. Demos are much more useful, but require time to download /install/play (from a magazine you skip the download part but still need time).
The problem with demos is they show mostly graphics too:
You'll know if your machine can run the game.
You may not know if the gameplay will suit you as demos are dumbed down. For instance the Knights of Honor demo doesn't let you recruit spies, who are a very important and essential gameplay element.
Now the most reliable source about gameplay is other players that you know or web sites. For instance I bought Galciv because yin26 on apolyton forums said it was a good game for people who wanted good ai, bla, bla (not just "it's a good game". And knowing the guy (who's not overly optimistic) I trusted him much more than I's trust a review. But then again, finding reviews by lambda players about a given game, and checking whether their taste may match yours, is not easy.

iTZKooPA

on Aug 11, 2005

I think this topic reached a head when Nintendo first showed The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker, how many people flipped out over the graphics? Damn near everyone, and yet it still won numerous Game of the Year/Console Game of the Year awards.

mgosh

on Sep 01, 2005

I do have to say the game play of it is smoothened out, as I played DS1 first and now this. I do like the fact that people with older machines can actually play the game without it chocking on it. I have to give the a really high thumbs up upon its single player experience. I have to also give it a real thumbs down on the mutli-player expereince having great difficulties getting a game playable through that.

The graphics verses content, look at Genforge those graphics are right out the late 80s. To me its content over graphics anyday of the week. Give me a good abadonware game with a great plot and gameplay over Doom3 or Halflife anyday of the week.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!