Too much emphasis on game engines

I have read alot of posts, here and at other sites where people pan a game based on it's "obsolete" engine. What's up with that?

These are fantasy games, aren't we supposed to use just a wit of imagination? Don't we have to anyway (dragons aren't real, you know).

I admit, the really old games had very bad graphics, so bad they interferred with game play (not being able to see objects, or move around properly).

But take a game like Crusaders of the Dark Savant (my personal all time favorite). It had a good, detailed, non-linear STORY, good character developemnt, a big interesting world to explore, and ****-loads of fun to be had. And the "primitive engine" didn't impede my enjoyment at all.

Newer games have 3D. Nice, and now we can fly and swim...cool. You can also end-up so close to a monster that you are inside it (not my favorite perspective). But people who whine about which engine is best are missing most of the fun. Will they not be happy until they can plug the game right into the cerebral cortex, or take a stroll on a holodeck.

My advise (for what little it is worth), is sit back and enjoy the fantasy. After all, you bought a game, not an engine with a plot add-on.

[freudianslip]

I think the key here is versimilitude; if you get a game that combines not only a riveting story, and engaging set of characters, AND breathtaking visuals, then you are well on your way to the perfect game. Afterall, if graphics weren't important, we would all still be playing Infocom's text adventures. (Not that that would necessarily be a horrible thing.)

I don't put as much emphasis on graphics as I do on story or character, of course; still, when you can bring these facets together, it can only help the experience.

[Sazerac]

Kharv, I agree with you very much. For me, Crusaders still has replay ability (even Cosmic Forge does, and you want to talk about dated graphics!) However, I do enjoy seeing a lot of the eye-catching details of the newer games. I would never reject a game solely on the basis of its engine. I remember a lot of people in some of the other groups when Might & Magic 7 came out saying that they would NEVER play it because of its dated engine, blah, blah, etc. I played it and enjoyed it, even though it was a little sparse at the end on things to do. My guess is that the complainers are generally those who are very young and have held a Nintendo control in their hands since they could toddle, and are more used to graphics than plot. (No offense to any Nintendo fans out there; I've played quite a few games myself). However, most of the posters here at this forum are at least 20, and the majority of them in their 30's. I think we as a group tend to look for more compelling factors other than just eye-popping graphics.

I did enjoy the game (I read your other post as well), but I can understand the issues you raised. I don't think I had many expectations on the game (I picked it up on a whim from a store while it was on a $30 introductory special and feel I got my money's worth out of it.) I fully agree with you about two of the best roles of the game not being available until the bloody end being rather ridiculous. I also realize that W&W is the "first" game of this particular release, and first games always are a bit sparse on details while the developers are getting the main bugs out of the engine, whathaveyou. A perfect example of this was Bethesda's TES:Arena which was just one long silly dungeon crawl (rather addictive, though), versus TESaggerfall which had much more plot and an almost overwhelming nonlinear scope. (I'm looking foward to the release of TES:Morrowind coming out soon). I hope that HPI's next release (and I do hope they are planning one) will be a lot more compelling in terms of plot and quest development. I guess I've just taken a long way around to say that generally first games are the "testing grounds" to work out bugs so that the follow-up games can take what was built and fly with it. Just my opinion.

Thanks for a good topic!
Sazerac

I hope I didn't give the impression that I am against good graphics, or a good engine. I like eye candy as much as anyone, and think the ideal game should be beautifully presented. I just worry that if people place too much emphasis on the graphics and engine, two things will happen.

1] Game makers will put appearance before substance, and the story will suffer.
2] The "minimum system requirements" for every new game that comes out will want me to upgrade my computer.

I like the idea that message posts like this one get checked from time to time by D.W. Bradley and other people who make decisions about future games (despite the problems I have with W+W, I do hope that Mr. Bradley will make another one). I would hate it if all these people ever saw were demands for better engines. I wanted to post here and let them know that for my money (literally), a good engine is fine, but a good game is the goal.

[gaunty]

At least 95 percent of these games, (D&D, sience fiction, millitary engagements, and so
on) do not have two things I want to see in
a modern game.

1. In life you can not learn things instantaniously. I would like a game where you have the spell or skill fail a few times,
before you can really rely on it.

2. A lot of these games are point, click and
arrow fun, no memorization work or combonation jobs. (In half life get into a forklift and move boxes and stuff around)
hitch the horse to the wagon, get on the wagon and whip the horses to go, that stuff.

Well I think that the "game engine , graphics and AI" is the Dungeon Master in a CRPG and if it can get better then its also better....If we get a better visual, we also get a better wiev how things look, act etc etc,,,But ofcourse you also will have to have a good storyteller(human)who writes the stuff,,,,and in W.W case I have to say It has visuals but a very poor story..

[Sazerac]

The story is rather weak, which is very surprising given Bradley's other works, esp. Wiz 6 and 7. Many of the side quests are really good, though, which has been Bradley's strong point (that and NPC characterization). One of the many things I have always liked about Bradley's work is that there is no truly "good" or "evil" characters, just like real life; and with the exception of Elyssia and Cet (IMO), this holds true. A perfect example is the character of G'Zerred Ra (the Lich); who has done terrible things to achieve his state, yet regrets it and is suffering horrible agony. Or Pris' the Boogre, who traps you initially, but has enough heart to mourn over her lost lover, Grunaxe. Bradley's other works show this multi-dimension in NPC's as well.

Unfortunately, it was this area that I found the most sparse as well. Where is Jathil from, BTW, and what is the Gezrite way? It practically screams for a follow-up. I was thinking that when my group got to Brimloch Roon that they would eventually find a Gezrite community and be able to ally with them, complete quests, gain in knowledge/enlightenment/traits, what-have-you. Who were the Boogres originally (other than Grunaxe, who we do know his prior history), and why can't you lead them to the Aku idol and "heal" them back to their original state? What is the "crime" that Grunaxe's Ghost speaks of? Some vague reference to "greed" is all we get, then he stops talking. Why shouldn't we have Talrik join the group for a bit? It would have given the old boy a kick to be out adventuring again and he could have had the pleasure of finding his lost treasure before he eventually went to his greater reward. These are just a few issues I would have addressed in the game. Of course, we'd probably have had to wait another year or so, so I'm really not complaining much. I'd love to see more of this followed up in a new game.

And Bradley will be back. Don't doubt that. It's in his blood.

Cheers,
Sazerac.