FT 9/6: High Production Values: Blessing or Curse?

[Lýfelíëk Heroblãde]

Alright, I know what you're thinking- What the hell is this featured thread about? First off, lemme explain my absence. As you all know, I was away for a bit with the birth of my newest niece, but at the same time, I got pretty ill. And now, 9 days later, I'm just getting to feel better- good enough for another round of "FT"! So lemme lay it out: Have we as gamers ruined the balance between game design and production value by demanding cinematic quality in games? I've wrestled with this topic in my head for a long time. Apostle(GoD-LiKe) and I argued about this all of the time. All I wanted was voice-over work in RPG's for years and he'd look at me like I was nuts. "That's not the point", he'd say. I'd hear, "It'll ruin it. You do realize that it will come at a cost." I completely disagreed- until Final Fantasy X, that is. What a fantastic game, but ultimately, a short one. So short in fact, that Square charged another $50 for X-2 and it was the identical engine plus half the story that should've been included originally. I got my voice work, and damned good voice work it was- but I paid $100 for it. I remember playing Xenogears(with Apostle) for 92 hours!! Now, with so much poured into production value, we're lucky to get 40-50 hours in an RPG and be able to finish the game at not too much more than level 55+. I'm completely convinced that we can't have it both ways. If you read my latest entry in the 'Baten Kaitos' thread, you'll see that I did squeeze 73 hours out of it and didn't even do most of the sidequests. But here again, BK isn't graphically stunning- the backgrounds are painted/rendered, while the characters are usually seen from a distance. Yes, the voice talent was better, but, besides the battle system, it didn't set the world on fire visually. This is a reason why I'm still liking Guild Wars. It has the best of both worlds- nicely done cutscenes plus an assload of content. As a bonus, it can run on 6-year-old machines(I'm living proof). But, I do think that this is more the exception than the rule. Sure, we can half-expect this out of MMORPG's, but what about the single-player experience? I always used to complain about cheesy endings, but it would appear that as they get better, the total experience gets shorter. Should developers allocate their employee's time better? What should be the top priority in a game's life cycle? Sometimes, the answer can be a catch-22, but I'm anxious to see what you all think.

[Breathern]

There are definitely times where high production values have caused games to be worse than they should have been. More recently theres Lair, which critics say the developer should have spent more time tweaking game play and controls than making the game look beautiful.

But if a game can have great production values, and great game play, then I'm usually happy. Even if the game is really short because of it. You have to have the game play. A game could boast having a 500 hour quest, but if the game play sucks, then you're not going to want to sit there for 500 hours doing it. It might actually help for them to keep it short... Cause playing a poor to ok game for 10-20 hours might be better than playing it for 100 hours.

Production values really don't matter. Its nice to have great looking games. But you don't even need a high budget to do that. A game can get by just having a great design, without tons of graphic power. Really, the game doesn't even need that. It just needs the game play aspects.

We could still have new games for older systems. Sort of how right now people are still developing for the ps2, and even the dreamcast. There could be new and innovative games for the Atari if developers have the right ideas.

I think I'm a little off topic, but it still sort of goes with this. Production values can hurt or help a game. But as long as they have great game play first then they can spend their time spiffying up the graphics. Even if the game will only last 20 hours. Thats my take on it anyways.

[dragonarse]

For me, the number one priorty always ends up being the story. I can manage to adapt to awkward game controls and mediocre artwork if the story holds my interest; and a good story teller usually keeps a distinct pace. Sure, I love the best graphics and music and control, but if the production teams mesh their work with the story, I'm usually okay with the result. I play mostly PC games online and don't have the resources to use the best settings, so I've learned to live with it. When I hit the lottery and purchase a top of the line system, I'll come back and edit this post, 'cause I will then DEMAND all the best they have to offer.

You guys also made me think of something else. I played all the TombRaiders and enjoyed the evolution the game went through. I remember the excitement when they introduced a new feature... e.g. snowmobiles... or a new attack or defensive move. And that brings me to my point; It seemed for awhile back then, every game "produced" had one major goal in mind. They needed to introduce at least "1" new feature that their last game didn't have.

Just had a flashback... remember the first time you could run around on the walls in Prince of Persia?

At some point, doesn't it seem natural that all the "good" ideas dry up? With nothing unique to introduce into the gameplay end of it; graphics, voice-overs, soundtracks and such might be the only remaining areas to which the production teams point their efforts.

(future FT suggestion: Building the Perfect Game... think Frankenstein's monster here... take specific features of our favorite games and craft the ultimate dream game. Let's see, graphic/art, soundtrack, voice-acting, lead-character, supporting cast, game control, storyline... ahem, I guess we would do well to set up some parameters first)

[Lýfelíëk Heroblãde]

See, now this is what I like- two different people having two completely differing views on the subject. There's definitely a dichotomy here, but I don't think that the sides are as far apart as one would believe. I completely agree with what you said about craptastic gameplay. No one even wants to give it a chance- assload of content or not. But, by the same token and as dragonarse claims, story was the only thing that got me through Prince of Persia: Warrior Within to the third and final installment. I think kinda raises another aspect of production- not so much the value, but the cycle itself. Developers all too often anymore split the original team into two after the initial game ships- one to work on the direct sequel and the better of the two to develop the content that would come after. This usually results in a crutty "tweener" game(i.e.- PoP:WW or Guild Wars "Factions"). It seems like this side of the coin is our demand for content, the other resulting in better produced, shorter gaming. It's almost like a two-edged sword...

(As for the the FT suggestion, I like it- go ahead and work on it. I wanna spotlight someone different every few weeks and have you guys moderate your own.)

[Zeiram Wing]

I'm more of a per genre high production value kinda guy. Things like FPS's, Action, and more fast paced game, i would much rather have a shorter game with high production values, like RE4. But for RPG's and the like, i would much rather have a solid story and a long ass game. and NO VOICEWORK! Growing up with RPG's without it, I sorta can't get into newer RPG's because of it. I always sorta viewed RPG's as some kind of playable book, and I liked having my own voices in my head... err... i mean... you know... for the characters. A lot of times they use voices that make you question the gender of the characters, they just don't fit at all.

But, anywho, I don't think we really have to settle for one or the other. Its really been nintendo thats been perpetuating this canonlyhavegameplayorgraphicsnotboth sorta mentality, mostly to make a buck. Theres been plenty of games that have done it. I don't see anyone complaining about MP3, and I'd just chalk something like Lair up to just being a bad game. Sure, it comes from a respectable company, but throughout gaming you'd have your great games, and your crappy ones. They should have just stuck with the Rogue Squadron series.

[Rabid Scotsman]

This is what I see here.
A common-minded idea that if the story is good,
or if you at least have some thing that draws me in.
(new mechanics, like Dragonarse said) Then the game will pull it
self along and really stick in my mind as a good game.

We're looking for some imaginitive work, for God's sake, son!
Gimmie' my "BOOM, BOOM!" in my FPS!
My story in my RPG!
I wanna' see ACTION in action adventure games!
SPEED in racing!
I wanna' hear my heart *BREAK* when I play a "Final Fantasy!"

I think when we look back at the games we've played,
the one's where the developer's heart and soul is in it.
That we've enjoyed it. Okay, maybe it didn't have *every thing,*
but they never will. And that's okay. More to explore next year.

After all, Developers are (or were) gamers too, in most cases.
I've never heard of a developer that wanted to make games
because they hate them. (lol)
Okay, so there are a few slackers out there. (Like Zeiram said)
But they know a good game when they make it.

It's all about the "Heart and Soul" aspect for me.

"If the Dev's believe. I will come."

Thought long and hard on this one. Great "FT" Life!