-
Campylobacter jejuni wrote on 2014-06-07 09:10
-
Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2014-06-07 10:10
I hate the fact that people are so obsessed with graphics nowadays. I mean, I get what the article is saying but for the past few years companies have been shelling out shit games with no effort put into gameplay or story just because they look pretty. They are relying entirely on graphics to sell the game. Aaand nobody cares. They just keep going "Oooh, shiny" and buying the shit games simply for graphics so it will never change and games will keep getting closer and closer to movies with little/no player interaction.
-
Kouki wrote on 2014-06-07 10:24
Hmm, for me it's important to a degree, but I don't really care if it's at least as decent as Dreamcast type of graphics, if it has good gameplay.
I've played too many MMOs that looked pretty but ended up boring me to death after a few hours because of the lack of fun things to do or too-linear progression. For example there's a butt ton of MMOs where all you do is follow the quests it shoves in your face, and the extra things it advertises as being unique to the game, are things every MMO has(crafting, upgrade, pets, pvp, etc).
It's not hard to see why something like Minecraft is so addicting, even though the graphics are far from realistic/pretty.
Well, sometimes I wonder if maybe I am just harder to please than when I was first playing MMOs, and content with grind fest games like the old Maplestory and Priston Tale(when they had no quests or story, just pure grinding)... The graphics were pretty(for the time) too, so that probably also is what made me and my 13-year old brain like it so much...
PS: Am I the only one who thinks some games abuse the shiny/gloss shader? Sims 3 and Blade and Soul come to mind, with their shiny people with shiny oily faces and shiny oily bodies, and shiny oily hair...
And then there's Bloom... One thing I will always turn off ASAP in a game.
-
Osayidan wrote on 2014-06-07 11:03
I care about graphics because it's the first thing I'll see when previewing a game. If I'm playing an old game I don't expect it to have awesome graphics, I also don't expect anything special if I'm playing a 2D game. When I play a 3D game though if it was made for example in 2014 I expect the game to take advantage of the kind of computer hardware available in 2014. If it has low poly or crap textures even on max settings to accommodate those with older computers it turns me off pretty easily and laves me unable to appreciate the gameplay.
-
Campylobacter jejuni wrote on 2014-06-07 11:06
The article isn't about simple prettiness at all, why are you talking about that?
-
Space Pirate Nithiel wrote on 2014-06-07 11:10
Quote from Campylobacter jejuni;1224192:
The article isn't about simple prettiness at all, why are you talking about that?
Because contrary to what the article says, that's what most companies are using graphics for. Simple prettiness. So they can get away with lower quality games by distracting you with shiny pictures.
-
Osayidan wrote on 2014-06-07 11:17
In a way it's exactly about that, at least a good chunk of it is. Tricks and illusions to make the game look pretty while staying within the imitations they have during development. Though I'm not a game developer, what I see is the final product. I can appreciate the efforts going into it since I did have to play with these tricks myself when modding for skyrim, but I really don't care in the end. When I'm playing the game it either looks good or it doesn't. If it doesn't then I'll not be satisfied with my gameplay experience.
-
Splatulated wrote on 2014-06-07 11:57
Quote from Osayidan;1224197:
In a way it's exactly about that, at least a good chunk of it is. Tricks and illusions to make the game look pretty while staying within the imitations they have during development. Though I'm not a game developer, what I see is the final product. I can appreciate the efforts going into it since I did have to play with these tricks myself when modding for skyrim, but I really don't care in the end. When I'm playing the game it either looks good or it doesn't. If it doesn't then I'll not be satisfied with my gameplay experience.
but what about games like morrowind that are amazing on a gameplay level ?
-
Osayidan wrote on 2014-06-07 12:15
Quote from Splatulated;1224201:
but what about games like morrowind that are amazing on a gameplay level ?
It also had amazing graphics for the time it came out on the market.
-
Froglord of DESTINY!!! wrote on 2014-06-07 16:14
Graphics are only as good as the gameplay, and invite something new to the table, rather than just polygon count.
Take Super Mario 64 for example, as it was one of the first console games other than starfox for the Snes to include 3D graphics. Super Mario 64 brought more than graphics to the gaming industry, it brought freedom to explore, and freedom of expression in games. You could do anything you wanted, you could traverse hills, or even fly, or just shit around just because you can.
Games that depend on graphics now don't bring anything new, like Final Fantasy 13, it's just over glossy-polygons in a crappy linear game. A good example of games with good graphics and gameplay is the first "Fable" game. It was comical, and it brought that goodness to the gaming industry that felt like you were playing the extension of someone's effort and soul, rather than just a game.
Pikmin is another great example, it's innocent, and the graphics demonstrates the soul and passion behind the game.
When you make something from nothing, you can't just put two and two together and hope it turns out okay. That's what EA does wrong most 99% of the time, and they end up shitting out stupid pointless games like Mass Effect 3.
You're creating artificial life in software format here, with pictures, and stories, and something that can reach out to people who can relate to it, that they can also play at the same time. If you don't put the passion into it, it'll turn out to be garbage. It doesn't matter if you can see all the pores on a character's face, if it's crap in the end, it's crap.
-
Kouki wrote on 2014-06-07 18:00
I actually read an article somewhere about Mario 64, which mentioned about how newer games focus less on their cameras.
It said how in Mario 64, the camera was one of the things they worked hardest on, because 3D was fairly new and they wanted to flaunt that and make it part of the gaming experience.
Of course I do appreciate good graphics in a game(if it's TOO ugly I won't enjoy it), but some games do feel more like an artwork than an actual game(sorry if that sounds weird, I know games are essentially art... but I mean enjoyment from the playability or game mechanics), so I guess it is more of an issue of balance.
-
Campylobacter jejuni wrote on 2014-06-10 21:41
Quote from Osayidan;1224197:
In a way it's exactly about that, at least a good chunk of it is. Tricks and illusions to make the game look pretty while staying within the imitations they have during development.
Well, it's primarily about using graphics technology to increase atmosphere and affect gameplay in a meaningful way, going beyond flashiness for the sake of flashiness. Like the fog in the Shaded Woods with the transparent ghost enemies in Dark Souls 2 they mentioned. That was one of the greater parts of the game, even though the polygon count on the trees was pretty damn low and the texture quality very uninspiring. Another good point is the lighting pre-release DS2 had. That doesn't just look awesome, it actually meaningfully affected gameplay. I remember getting pretty scared the first time I saw the player in an early gameplay demo being attacked by two Old Ironclads in pitch-black darkness without a shield to help him out since he had to use a torch to see anything. That scene was pretty underwhelming in the final release with the weakened lighting.
ANd if we go a bit further back in time, Afraid of Monsters is an excellent example of this. The creator understood perfectly how to use the properties of the graphics engine to increase the atmosphere, i.e. jerky animations, hollow faces, unforgiving flashlight.