Bombs and Bulldogs
Damion over at Zen of Design said in a recent post:
…It’s actually really difficult to convince graphics programmers and artists, who not only want to push the envelope because it’s cool, but who are legitimately concerned their resume and portfolios might fall out of date…
It arose from an ongoing blog discussion on “what made WoW a success.†A lot of great tangents have spun off and I hope to get around to giving my 2 cents on a few of em- still haven’t learned to choose my battles.
WoW would run on virtually ANYTHING (it seemed) and this gave them access to a much larger market of computer users. To accomplish this, they couldn’t push the envelope in ways that would require newer, more expensive video cards. As Damion suggests, that can be a bit of a tough pill to swallow for those committed to the graphics arms race.
I won’t pretend that eye candy doesn’t sell. It does- but a good designer should be measured not only by their ability to use every weapon in the arsenal, but the judgment to know WHEN and HOW.
Time For an Army Flashback
Combat Engineers have a million calculations that tell us how much explosives we need for practically any occasion: blow a bridge, destroy an obstacle, move earth (a shovel? Please…), and cut timber (axes are for infantry). If explosives can do it, we have an equation for it. (Off the record: a little sliver of C4- about 1/16 of an inch thick- burns real nice and makes a good canteen cup of coffee (Kids, don’t try this in Afghanistan.))
These equations are usually represented something like P= (a * x)/r. P represents pounds of TNT. That can be a bit much for a position that only requires a high school diploma, so we have another: “When in doubt, P=plentyâ€
Sometimes at the end of an exercise we’d take every munition we could fine and tie it in for one grand fireball. Strung out, sleep deprived, and smelling rather rancid, we earned a little mayhem. It was time to “Go Hollywood.†Those fireworks were the best, and it was tempting to do that kind of fun all the time.
During operations though, we had other priorities- using the MINIMUM necessary to insure the job got done. It had to work, but explosives are difficult and dangerous to transport. Excess on our part put a greater burden on logistics, supply, and all of operations- possibly to the breaking point.
And Now For Something Complete Different
Dog breeders are growing more aware that focusing only on the qualities that that make a “champion show dog†has led to considerable suffering in some species. We have creatures with poorly-fitting eye sockets, nasal passages requiring surgery, and genetic diseases that decrease life expectancy or greatly increase medical bills- not to mention the pain. Few of these species can still perform the tasks they were originally bred for. The focus has only been on winning the next show.
Now many are waking up and looking for a healthier criteria- for new goals that lead to healthier and happier man’s best friend.*
Back on Topic
I’ve seen visually stunning games in the past that lacked any reasonable facsimile of gameplay or that suffered through constant loading prompts ( I won’t point fingers- I may need a job someday- but you guys know who you are). I’ve had frame rates drop to near-screensaver levels in incidents that were predictable and common, given the gameplay.
If you push the envelope to the level of harming the game experience elsewhere; if you so focus on “pretty†that you forget “fun†or even “functional;†if your game needs such stratospheric system requirements that your market is constrained to machines just slightly below the DOE’s BlueGene in performance; then you’ve “gone Hollywood†at the wrong time and may have jeopardized the whole operation. You’ve focused on the show champion- I hope it doesn’t suffer for it.
Too many games do.
*I’m a cat person.
October 8th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
You aren’t putting people’s lives in danger by using a bigger graphics card.
Point taken, though.