A text-based game consists of text and nothing more.

They can be. You just aren't thinking the same thing I'm thinking about it. Graphics have just as much potential to be as powerful as programming, that is, if you are skillfull enough to use it.
And why not? They sure do define the game. What difference the graphics are is what makes the user interpret what type of game it is. If it's side-scrolling graphics, then the user can assume the game is going to be side scrolling. Programming just merely adds to gameplay
No, it would be a totally different game visually. Gameplay could also be affected, depending on how the visualization affects the player.
I know, but it's still visual, and it's still represented via graphics, wether or not it spawned from a mathematical equation.

dos / text games are still gfx when displayed on screen ... and you can argue all you want but they still are graphics

Text maybe be applied to the screen, but that doesn't mean it is graphical.

The text isn't graphics? All the fonts you use are images, no? They may not be detailed, but they are still made up of pixels.

Bah. Well of course if you guys want to get so technical then everything is considered a graphic that exists because HEY anything that is visible must be a graphic! So sure then script is a graphic in that you can see it...

But thats such a stupid argument.

The point about script is that it provides information that is interputed by the computer which executes actions..and tells graphics to be displayed or change or whatever if needed.

A txt only script game can survive and work on its own without graphics, but the same is not true the other way around.

It's valid, and I got technical because I'm sick of this argument. It has been brought up many times, and I have discussed it many times. The argument isn't stupid, it's the people who think scripting is the magical twilight that creates a game.

Lets put it this way, Zen, would rather play a MUD, or play a game with actual decent graphics? I'm sure 99.9% of gamers would say graphics. It may just be the eye-candy, but programmers would be out of jobs if people didn't make graphics now'a days. Whilst the artists could go into pencil and paper drawing.

The deal is, the two infact do rely on eachother. Board games require no coding, except perahaps the machines that make them. Those machines need programming, no? I'm surprised you, being the Global Graphics Admin cannot realize this, and close the argument stating that programming and graphics are equal in value.

Graphics and programming rely on eachother. Without the other, one will not function. Period.

i was just about to say the exact same thing...GOD you people are annoying!!!


Good thinking!! So lets make MORE arguments!!!!!

Not really. All but the most shallow people play MMORPGs for the gameplay, not the quality of the graphics. Again and again I say: Graphics are of secondary importance to the majority of people. They might grab some attention at first, but they don't do anything to sustain long-term interest.

What the hell.

1) Have you even been reading the thread? We're talking about the differences in graphical quality, not style. And specifically in relation to Graal. If Playerworld X had beautiful graphics but terrible scripts, whereas Playerworld Y had default graphics and superb design, which would be more popular?
2) Putting 'side-scrolling graphics' into a folder is not the same as making a side-scrolling game. The programming defines every single part of game's behaviour. How the user interacts with it, how it reacts to his actions, etc. The graphics are just a visual representation of the underlying game.

Sure, perhaps even by a whole 1%.

Again, missing the entire point of the debate. This is why I shouldn't argue with artists.



Nice work. Now try again without missing the entire focus of the argument.



Unfortunately your weariness is not justification to close a thread. You don't matter as much as you think you do.

Dont remember stating that I was "important", please find the statment in which I did.

Playerworld x has great graphic but no scripts while playerworld y had graphic and great scripts. But playerworld Z great scripts but very very bad graphic.

See Kaimetsu they would rather play playerworld y because it has graphic maybe not the best but it has them and it has great scripts that use them. Scripts might define the playerworld "and things" but with good graphic its not as fun. So I would have to say that scripts nor graphic are better then each other. Both of them combinded are great cant you see that? Both need to be done well you cant say 1 is more important then the other.

Okay, I'm not going to talk to you if you're incapable of understanding something so simple.


T'was in the implication that the thread should be closed/deleted simply because you were tired of it.

I know you were trying to say that people would rather play a server with regular graphic and good scripts then a server with good graphic and no scripts. That is because the scripts are what make the game fun. But still a server with better graphic and good scripts would have more players then the other one. If there was a server with like a 6 color tileset and great scripts people would want better graphic. You need to have a balance of good scripts and graphic. Sure playerworls with good scripts but are lacking graphic may get a good player bace but graphic do make it better.

Btw Kaimetsu whats going on? First you block me on aim. I asked you why you said you dident want to talk to me. Then your basically calling me an idiot on the forums. Wtf did I do to you man?!?!

I was trying to say exactly what I did say: That scripts have a great impact on the popularity of a server than graphics (assuming the graphics are at least as good as the default tileset etc).

Sure, if there were a playerworld with great graphics and great scripts and great everything then it'd be the most popular. So? That isn't relevant to the debate.

I simply ran out of tolerance.

Yes scripts do have a greater impact on the popularity of a server that is true and I do agree. But just because it does doesnt mean graphic's are not just as important. Without good graphic it can make the npc script not as good.

K then I have also ran out of silly ness and insain ness for the moment on the forums you should read my new thread in the graal main forums its going to be getting interesting ;). Btw I know you dont want to play Battle field any more so I wont ask you to like I dont ask karsh.

oops meant to quote the your getting on my nerves </mistake>

YOUR GETTING ON EVERYBODYS NERVES

Then go away, you're in the wrong discussion.

No, you're talking about graphics compared to programming. Because, as I've already covered, you completely failed to understand the focus of the debate.

It shows.

Yuh-huh. Except that the most popular MMORPG at the moment has horribly outdated graphics, and that doesn't seem to bother many of its 400,000 users. Compare that number to the population of the prettiest MMORPG. People don't just want to look at pretty pictures, they want engaging gameplay as well. That only comes through good programming.

Again, wandering off-topic. We're not talking about first-person shooters, we're talking about Graal playerworlds.

Not ignoring, merely dismissing. And only because you seem fundamentally incapable of recognising and staying on the topic.

Whereas artists evidently can't think at all.

.. Would you really stop changing how you act every day to try to get friends back?

I'm an artist, I don't think games need graphics.
Without programming how do you even apply the graphics?

They sure don't just make themselves show up in the game.

Hmm maybe your right its not really worth it. You cant really please everyone yeah I should stop this lol.

Yes, exceptionally. But what WOULD be the prettiest MMORPG, then? I think what the outside 'shell' of the game is irrelevant to what the game can really bring along the lines of quality, gameplay, and creativeness. CAN the game attract people? CAN it provide what the player wants? THIS graphics cannot provide. Graphics are merely just the skin of a thriving and complex (or not so complex) organism (not literally :)).
I'm just going to start off by saying that I deleted my post(s) for the people that are wondering/curious. Kaimetsu IS right about what he is saying; we just want to believe what we do for fun actually has worth and meaning to it. And in some ways, yes, it is meaningful and has it's worthiness. But to look at the big picture, graphics are only a very small part of what can actually make a difference in the quality of a game (in this case, playerworlds). People that are interested in a game only for it's graphics are not looking at this big picture, only it's frame. Graphics are only the finishing touch to a bigger complexity.
Take, for example, the human body. It has it's head, the brain, the eyes. It has it's own, unique figure. Then it has it's indentity; what it is, why it is. It's has a skin, and that skin tells the viewer what this being is.
Programming and graphics can pertain alot to this example. The engine is the brain; programming sets the boundaries of what that figure can do and what it can't do. It set's the life into the figure, gives it it's intelligence, and so fourth. Then we have the skin: This is where graphics come in. Graphics merely tell the viewer what this figure is and who it is. Graphics are only what the person can see: programming is what gives those graphics feeling and actuality. So hencefourth, graphics aren't as powerful as we (artists) seem to want them to be. It's something even I hate to admit, but it's certainly true.
Well, maybe. This is true in this situation, especially in the case of me and you, but this is like saying all programmers can't think at all. There's as many intelligent artists as there are intelligent programmers, it's just who you meet with and who you're talking to that counts.

So are you saying that all artists are stupid and that programmer are smart? You really have no idea how much planning and intelligence it takes to make good art. Sure anybody can draw a line in ms paint. But to make good art you have to know how shading and light hits certain places. Yeah art may not require as much thinking but it still does require thinking.

Deek arguing with kaimetsu is like arguing with a monkey, they just seem to be able to pull **** out of the oddest places and sling it at you. It doesn't have to be legitimate ****, but it does make you try to figure out what the hell he is talking about. Anyway, Kaimetsu knows nothing of graphics leave it at that. He spends his days arguing/debating with 12 yr olds on the forum about a game that he doesn't even play. If he has intelligence he isn't using it to get ahead in this world.

Kaimetsu, saying artists don't think is like me saying all 20 year old british men obviously have no social life, and plan to live with there parents at 30.

[edit]and Kaimetsu if you think graphics people are dumb, why don't you stay the hell out of the graphics forum and let lord zen mod it? He is more than capable of such a feat, even if you don't think so. That would keep you from listening to us 'idiot artists' and would keep us from having to listen to your 'superior than thou' ignorant attitude. You know nothing of graphics, you can't make graphics, you don't even know the process! [/edit]

But not much. Actually, it takes little to no thinking at all for me to do those actions. It occurs naturally to me. On the other hand, programming requires alot of thinking because you have to know what exactly makes things work and how can you represent those using a programming language on the computer (with restrictions). Learning to program isn't easy, and some probably can't even learn it at all. Comparing that to graphics, you can see which one would be the easiest to pull off. Kaimetsu can make graphics. I can make graphics. Anyone can make graphics. But could those graphics be good? It depends on if you know what you're doing or not. Anyone can pick up a mouse and draw a stick figure on MS Paint.
And yet again, we ARE talking about Graal and all. Graphics, in this sense, don't have to be taken that seriously.

Owned?


Umm I dont know about you but it does require a bit of brain power and thinking process to make good graphic...

That may be so, but I think it would differ from person to person. To you it might take some thinking process while compared to another person it may be uncompareable.

To me art comes natural, so there isn't that much thinking involved with what I do.

When I do lighting, it comes natural where the shadow falls and where the light hits. I don't have to even think about it, I just draw it.

It does me too but I guess I'm more aware of my thoughts then most.

If I wanted to, I could do the same. The thoughts have always existed when I do my work, there's just no need to use them other than why they're there.

I know that I certainly can think for myself. :o

And hey, just because I am the gfx admin doesnt mean that I have to let my judgement become clouded and stand up for graphics in every since for every dumb argument that comes my way, like I'm a hero or something, which I'm not.

Its pretty damn clear that script can stand alone to make a game work and be fun, but if you had just graphics they would sit there and do nothing--no interactivity--it'd just be a pretty picture to stare at.

Graphics do help, they can help alot--but only if it is adding to and inhancing an already really great code.

Scripting is the base of any game's infrastructure. erm, duh lol.

Well, only that programmers are generally more intelligent and more logically-minded than artists. I'm not saying that all artists are stupid or that all programmers are hyper-intelligent. It was just a little riposte, people weren't supposed to take it to heart.


So, now you're back to hating me again? If you stick to your usual cycle, I guess that means you'll be apologising and asking for forgiveness in maybe... two weeks? I'll see you then.

I don't need to know anything about making graphics in order to know two things:

1) Quality of art isn't as significant to a game as gameplay.
2) Programmers tend to be of above-average intelligence, while artists do not. Also artists predominantly use the creative sides of their brains, while programmers use the logical side.

I'm not here as a moderator, I'm here as a user. My name was mentioned, so I came to redress the balance.

As for the rest of your spiteful bile: Grow up. If you came back to the forums simply to flame people then you're not going to be staying long.

Zen, I do not like you. I was not stating that you were to stick up for "graphics people". I was stating that you were competent enough to admin this part of the forum (which you just said you weren't?)

Basically, you just defended Kaimetsu saying Graphics people do not think. Again you really do a great job of representing the graphics community as GGT admin and as moderator of these forums, I solute you. :rolleyes:

And no Kaimetsu, I am not here to flame people. I took your comment personally since I create graphics.

It seems unlike the rest of the crew here, I do think when I am doing graphics.

Great place to use that sort of riposte that's like going into an all african-american college and start shouting racist terms.

I think when I make graphic...

Hardly. My comment was directed at a single person, it wasn't shouted to all in range. Furthermore, the wording and the context implied that it wasn't a literal statement. If you can't tell the difference then that's your problem, not mine.

I read this whole thread, and well, think of it like this:
Scripting is important.
But, to visualize all scripting, graphics are needed. Even though you need very little graphics to have "a game", the more and the better graphics are included with the great scripting, the more enjoyable the game will be.

Not precisely. There's plenty of situations where it's predominantly required to use logic as a basis for your work. Especially, for example, realism. It's not like you can randomly spawn a precise representation of an object that actually reflects it's realistic quality using only creativity. You have to have some sense of logic (or intelligence) to spot out what an object actually looks like, how light reflects off of it....Is it a solid? Is it a liquid? Is it a gas? This you use as a basis. What you draw interprets what the object actually would look like in real life. So henceforth, you would need some amount of logic in order to accurately present those objects using only a pencil and paper.

Perhaps so, but those are heavily outnumbered. The reality is that skilled artists do use the 'creative' sides of their brains more - that's not just an opinion. They need to think about their art occasionally, but the major use of their brains is in visualising the image and being creative about representing it.

Meanwhile, programmers almost exclusively use the 'logical' half. It's only reasonable to expect that they're usually more logical people.

Yeah maybe they do use their more logical side of their brain then artist do but it doesnt mean that artist do not think. Yeah scritps are what make a game and graphic are what cover it. But it is the combination of these two things that really give a game the feel of being like real life almost. So games are mearly copys of life right Kaimetsu? Then to be the best copy it can be it should not only look graphically but also system wise be alot like life is. So you really cant say that 1 is more essencial in the creation of a playerworld then another now can you?

Donald, read with your brain and not just your eyes. Obviously the statement was not literal.

Still missing the point.

No, most of them are not. We've already covered this.

Even if your previous idiotic conjecture were true, it would still be possible for one aspect to be more significant in fooling the mind.

And until you manage to at least understand the topic of a debate that you started, I'm not gonna continue to reply on the subject.

Great then, Kinatt, the feeling is mutual. :)

But besides that, I think you totally misunderstood my post.

I was not responding to anything you said, infact. It was to a comment Scott had made which he was talking like he was disappointed in me for not sticking up for the graphics side of this argument better. And no I didnt just say that I wasnt competent enough to admin this part of the forum--WHERE did you get that from?

Also, how am I defending Kaimetsu in saying that graphics people do not think?
Doesnt me saying that seem to infer the exact opposite? I was saying that I as a gfx person think for myself and I was therefore not agreeing with Kaimetsu there...lol.

Man how did you manage to screw that up so bad, hah.