"Are the current quantum advances in graphic and game engine technologies worth the increased rate of system upgrades necessary to handle them?"

Submitted by: Sierra On-Line

This question was posed by one of the Sierra game developers, and thrown open for discussion on the Gametalk message board. Here are some of your excellent replies:

Answered by: O'Jay Robinson

"It depends on how you use it. If you use it to make better games or break-thru games, then it makes it worth it. If you use it as a gimmick or as the basis for a game (we've all played games that looked great and played like crap or were just plain no fun), then its not really worth it."

Answered by: Nadiar

"Yes -- and no. Ultima IX looks stunning and its images allow free camera movement, but many people lack the 266 requirement. But other games which are recommended at a certain speed simply need to run at that speed because of sloppy coding and/or just plain poor programming, not from anything to do with the gameplay."

Answered by: Matt McGuire

"I believe the current trend of 100% 3D graphics has its upsides and downsides. The great graphics we've seen in many recent titles are entirely spellbinding, but to a large extent, unnecessary. It seems like many game designers are elitists when it comes down to system requirements. Many new games require 3D accelerator cards. Although the prices of these cards are falling, they are still fairly expensive when you compare them to the console systems and the plethora of 3D games on them, without the hassle of upgrades and compatability. To play the newest 3D game on a PC, I may need a older $1200-1500 computer plus a $100-200 hardware accelerator, or just buy a whole new system to have the accelerator included for $1500-2500. Compare that to a console system that costs $150 (and includes a controller), and you can see why the PC is facing serious competion as a game platform.

"I think that although the graphics of a game is a crucial part of what makes the game good, you should not overlook overall design and gameplay. It is better to have a well-designed game that uses limited technological advances than to go all out in the graphics department, and have a great-looking game no one can play."

Answered by: "acarotenuto"

"I feel the answer to this question is that it depends on who you talk to. I myself, an avid gamer, would say yes. I've upgraded twice in the last year and will upgrade once more before the year is out. Most of my upgrades are various pieces (a new hard drive here, a new video card here.) The last upgrade a month ago, was the biggie for this year. It was a new motherboard, new CPU, more memory, etc. Needless to say, my bag of gold is running pretty low after these upgrades. But I love games, and if that what it takes then I will do it. If you ask one of my not-so-avid gamer friends they would say no. Their reaction is one of frustration. 'I just bought my system 9 months ago and now I can barely play Quake II!'

"Game developers are in a tough spot. The latest hardware can give them the ability to reach new heights with their ideas. Developers also want to have the world enjoy their creations, but at the same time the whole world does not have a PII 333 powerhouse at home. I guess that is where you can see some truly talented work shine. It takes a talanted team to create a unique and beautiful world and still have it play on an older system. As Homer Simpson would say....'mmmmmm Sierra games....'"

Answered by: Ken Liang

"Considering that one can now buy (in the Toronto area) an Intel Pentium 200 MMX system with a 14-inch monitor (.28 dp), 32 MB ram, 2.1 Gig HD, 16x cdrom, 16-bit sound card/speakers, 2 MB video card for only $825 *Canadian* (that's under $600 US) and 3Dfx Voodoo1 cards can be had for $120 US (or less), I don't think the system upgrades will be too hard on the pocketbook."

Answered by: Michael Horton

"I don't think so. My brother and I (I'm 16 and he's 18) have played through a large number of different games of almost all types, and one of our favorite games comes from a small shareware company called Spiderweb Software, creators of the four Exile games.  All of these games use a viewpoint with a 7*7 top-down view of the game world.  All four are Fantasy-Role-Playing games using a six-member user-created party.  All games were written for the Macintosh and ported to the IBM PC; the PC versions will all run satisfactorily on a 33mhz 486 with Windows 3.1.  The level of graphic violence is minimal, and there are no large pictures apart from the title.  Text descriptions are a vital part of all the game scenes.  In our opinion, the series involves some of the finest moments in computer gaming ever created."

Cindy's Editor-Note: Exile rocks. Download a good chunk of the first game for free and try it out yourself!

Answered by: Rob "it's 2am, you expect coherence?" Sable

"Hi, call me old school, but I don't feel that the graphics really do make or break a game. I've always felt very strongly that the main driving force between sales or sitting in the bargain bin was the story. Does it have a plot? What's making me interested in the characters? Do I care if they live or die? I care more about the story more than anything else; hell my roommate gives me funny looks whenever I start up one of the text-based Zork games in a Win95 DOS box! His remarks are always 'it has no graphics, it sucks!' or something to that effect.

"Concentrate on engrossing the player, not taking advantage of their 3Dfx based card. In fact, if I remember my old InterAction articles correctly, Jeff Tunnell used a great strategy to test whether players would enjoy the the new Take a Break: Pinball game coming out (this could be an industry wide practice, but just chalk it up to me not being in the industry....yet ). He sat Ken Williams down in front of a Pongish looking game and let him play. Ken was impressed; and then, and only then did Dynamix put the fancy graphics on it.

"In any case, I don't look highly upon games that look like portfolios for people who want to work at ILM. Quake is GREAT example of this. Look how many people bought Voodoo based cards because of that sorry excuse for a game; just so they could see their friend's cyber-blood in all it's 640x480/30fps glory!

"Hopefully I got my point across. A good game will push technology to its limit; a great game will engross me, and maybe have me go out and buy a larger hard drive."

Answered by: J.D. Robertson

"I suppose that as long as people are willing to pay to upgrade the computer, then they must feel the improved graphics are worth their investment. Also, the price of the investment is getting less. Few, if any, games right now require more than a 166MHZ processor, and such a computer can be purchased currently for less than $1000. Of course, one wouldn't want to pay $1000 a year just to keep running the newest computer games, and I suppose if continued upgrades become a burden, then people will stop buying games that require top-of-the-line systems and settle for an established level of graphics detail in their games."

Answered by: Trinker

"That, to me, is one of those 'double-edged swords' -- it cuts both ways. On the one hand, it's great that game companies are taking advantage of technology as it comes, because it increases the immersion factor. I personally think that games, along with very high end software packages are what drives people to upgrade. At least, in my case this is true. The only time I consider upgrading is when a cool new game makes me have to. Like DVD, for instance. I won't buy one until something I want to play only comes on DVD and nothing else.

"Which brings us to the other side. I HATE having to upgrade, only because I can't afford it most of the time. I'm not against technological advances at all, but it is so hard to keep up. I know it must be rough on game developers, wanting to stretch their creative muscle and all. I sympathize. However, I really hate getting left in the dust because I can't afford whatever it is I need. And I'm sure I'm not alone in this feeling. I just got my system to where it can run most things and already I see it falling behind again. Gah! But hey, that's my problem. Right?

"So, in closing, from my point of view it's a catch-22. Yes I want it, but no, I don't."

Answered by: Greg the card carrying materialist

"I really haven't perceived an increase in the rate of upgrades necessary. At least, not an intolerable one. Yes, computer technology is moving at a blinding pace, but if more people would upgrade individual parts, rather than the whole system at once, they could save a lot more money, and make their lives a lot easier. Computers are not like cars... it's a lot easier to rip out the engine and drop a new one in than it is for a car. :)

"Anyway, to answer the question, and get off my 'build your own pc' soap box, yes. It's worth it. There has always been a 'cutting edge' and some people will always rush out and buy the latest toy. I prefer to stay about 1 step behind them, maybe 2 if the University needs money that month (which they inevitably do... :P), and get the benefits of someone having blazed the trail already, but still be near the forefront of technology. In order to maintain the level of immersion necessary for a game to really hook me, it needs to be more realistic than others, etc. In order for a pure action game to hook me, it had better have some pretty SNAZZY graphics and sound. Or some other twist. The same old same old ain't gonna get me very interested. (I never said I wasn't susceptable to the "Bigger, Better, Faster, MORE MORE MORE!"... ;)

"You'll note, however, that I said 'a pure action game' and 'same old same old'. New kinds of games... with more twists and turns than Bill Clinton's politics... have a much better chance of snagging me."

Answered by: Joe Jaquette

"I see gaming as a hobby. Like any other hobby, one has to spend money on it to keep at it. If you're a car-buff, you spend money on car parts. If you're a model train maniac, you spend money on model trains. I'm a gamer, therefore I spend money on games and gaming equipment. Hey, shelling out about a grand (do I realy spend that much?!) every year is cheaper than buying and restoring old cars!

"In addition, computer technology has maintained its current pace for a while. What I mean is, to play the current tech cost about the same. When I got my first 486 to run games from the Doom era it cost the same as my P200 to run the current games. <--- by the preceding I mean entire systems."

Answered by: Paul Lalonde

"One thing we have to say is that the gaming industry is always on the leading edge of computer technology. In fact it is probably the driving force behind such a high pace of advancement.

"That said, we have to look at the games coming out now and compare them with games from say 2-5 years ago.

"For the graphics I'd have to say the system upgrades aren't worth it. Especially if the story sucks!

"As for the game engines, if it weren't for the graphical demands on them, they would probably perform with much lower system requirements. But still some major improvements have been made in game engines and I think some of those improvements are really great!"

Answered by: Chris Davis

"Absolutely! As a software engineer, myself, I LOVE to see the newest graphics and such pushed to their limit. Let me add. however, that graphics for the pure sake of graphics is a big turn off for me. I want to see games that are BETTER, more complex and rich... not just games that use cool graphics to look spiffy. I abhore games with a lot of FMV that you get to sit back and watch... if I wanted to WATCH action, I would rent a movie. :) I want to be part of it."

Answered by: Kick, the rubber chicken

"ABSOLUTELY. So long as the requirements aren't truly unreasonable, it is worth the upgrade. If people's computers can't handle it, especially in today's markets when a 266 pentium 2 w/ 64 meg ram and a 32x cd rom drive is about 1000 bucks, they either need to upgrade to play anything these days, or really aren't interested in games."

Answered by: Edward Kim

"Yes, it is worth it. This is what makes computer gaming so fun. :) As long as these advances in technology help developers create really fun and cool games, I'm all for it!

"I think that this is just a natural progression in game design. After floundering about for a period with flat images, 2d sprites, etc., many developers have discovered the joy of the third dimension! :) Now worlds can be much more interactive, explorable, and hopefully more interesting. Gabriel Knight III comes to mind. Although GKI and GKII were really GREAT adventure games, by leaving behind the trappings of 2d images for backgrounds and jumping into 3d, we are in for a totally different adventure gaming experience.

"So, yes, as long as these advances make the gaming experience more fun, I think it is worth upgrading our machines."

Answered by: Ryan Wetherill

"Yes, but that doesn't mean you designer types should make the game engine your sole concern. I'd rather play a text-based game with a great story line and excellent game play rather than a game with a state of the art graphics engine but no other redeeming features. *cough quake quake cough cough* Sorry, I had something caught in my throat."

Read more questions and answers!