Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)
"I don't do eye candy" - Major H. in the strategic ng to someone
complaining about the "1993 graphics" of TacOps.
It triggered a chuckle, but then it got me wondering about the
importance of graphics in wargames. The main school of thought in here
is that graphics in wargames should be clear and functional, nothing
more, so that the developer can use the time saved by not adding
"superfluous" eye candy on the things that matter more, like AI or
additional features.
I used to be a fervent (and outspoken) proponent of this school of
thought, but lately my views on this are getting more and more
challenged. It seemed logical that time *not* spend on eye candy could
be spend on something else but as I'm now somewhat getting a inside
view on the wargame production process this turns out to be not so
clear-cut.
If you're a "one-man-shop" like Major H or Ron Dockal the adagium still
hold true, but producing a wargame in most cases is the work of a group
of people, each with their particular talents. The developer who takes
care of the graphics is not the guy working on the AI.
Ok - so forget about the "time saved" factor, but how about costs ? Are
eye-candy level graphics worth the additional cost ?
Well, I'm starting to think that to a certain extent they are.
Current hard- and software in combination with a graphics guy who knows
his stuff can produce astounding graphics for a fraction of the cost it
would have taken 10 years ago. I've done some experimenting with the
bitmap graphics of GGWaW and got good results in a fraction of the time
it would have taken me way back in the DOS days.
Then there's screenshots - it's the first thing gamers ask for when a
new game is announced and it's the first thing you see when you browse
to the site of a published game. It's a first impression - and it
counts. I've caught myself getting dragged into reading more about a
particular game when the initial impression is positive and I'm more
likely to check out a game when the screenshots are spectacular. For
anyone wanting the same experience : check out the screenshots of the
new Tin Soldiers : Julius Caesar at the Matrixgames website.
Ugly graphics have an opposite effect - I really have to force myself
to look beyond them, but wouldn't the casual (war)gamer just make the
split-second mental equation bad graphics = bad game ?
Wargamers are just as susceptible to eye candy as every other
monkey-like biped on this planet. Just visit a miniatures tournament or
convention. It's not the best battle that draws the crowd, it's the
tabletop that looks good, even if the battle played out on it is a dead
duck.
Maybe it's a case of wargamers consciously claiming that eye candy
doesn't matter, but their subconsciousness playing a nasty trick on
them ?
Gentlemen, your thoughts on this - as always - highly appreciated
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
"I don't do eye candy" - Major H. in the strategic ng to someone
complaining about the "1993 graphics" of TacOps.
It triggered a chuckle, but then it got me wondering about the
importance of graphics in wargames. The main school of thought in here
is that graphics in wargames should be clear and functional, nothing
more, so that the developer can use the time saved by not adding
"superfluous" eye candy on the things that matter more, like AI or
additional features.
I used to be a fervent (and outspoken) proponent of this school of
thought, but lately my views on this are getting more and more
challenged. It seemed logical that time *not* spend on eye candy could
be spend on something else but as I'm now somewhat getting a inside
view on the wargame production process this turns out to be not so
clear-cut.
If you're a "one-man-shop" like Major H or Ron Dockal the adagium still
hold true, but producing a wargame in most cases is the work of a group
of people, each with their particular talents. The developer who takes
care of the graphics is not the guy working on the AI.
Ok - so forget about the "time saved" factor, but how about costs ? Are
eye-candy level graphics worth the additional cost ?
Well, I'm starting to think that to a certain extent they are.
Current hard- and software in combination with a graphics guy who knows
his stuff can produce astounding graphics for a fraction of the cost it
would have taken 10 years ago. I've done some experimenting with the
bitmap graphics of GGWaW and got good results in a fraction of the time
it would have taken me way back in the DOS days.
Then there's screenshots - it's the first thing gamers ask for when a
new game is announced and it's the first thing you see when you browse
to the site of a published game. It's a first impression - and it
counts. I've caught myself getting dragged into reading more about a
particular game when the initial impression is positive and I'm more
likely to check out a game when the screenshots are spectacular. For
anyone wanting the same experience : check out the screenshots of the
new Tin Soldiers : Julius Caesar at the Matrixgames website.
Ugly graphics have an opposite effect - I really have to force myself
to look beyond them, but wouldn't the casual (war)gamer just make the
split-second mental equation bad graphics = bad game ?
Wargamers are just as susceptible to eye candy as every other
monkey-like biped on this planet. Just visit a miniatures tournament or
convention. It's not the best battle that draws the crowd, it's the
tabletop that looks good, even if the battle played out on it is a dead
duck.
Maybe it's a case of wargamers consciously claiming that eye candy
doesn't matter, but their subconsciousness playing a nasty trick on
them ?
Gentlemen, your thoughts on this - as always - highly appreciated
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram