An epic rant of epic proportions -_-_-_- Graphics over Gameplay? Why?
- Thread starter smallharmlesskitten
- Start date
I agree with kitten, we play games for the game! Football isn't fun because of the shiny uniforms, it's the rush of running around the field and scoring a goal. I, personally, would be satisfied with the last generation of graphics (FFX and MGS2:SoL looked good) as long as developers took time to come up with good gameplay mechanics or original stories.
Unfortunately, you're preaching to the choir. I agree with you, though.
Now go post it on, say Newgrounds.
Now go post it on, say Newgrounds.
Ah yes, syndicate wars, wonderful game.avykins said:
Actually, I think they might be adding a marine phase which should be ggod if they actually take the time to make it GOOD!crimson5pheonix said:
While what you're saying is nothing especially new, and has actually been ranted about dozens of times on this site, I still understand the need you felt to rant about this kind of stuff. Personally, I always like to compare Earthbound to any generic RPG you'd find today, just to show how much more innovative, creative, and all around better Earthbound was, even though it was for the SNES, which means that some douche-bags would consider it unplayable today. There are times where I wonder why I even upgraded to the next gen, when all the games that have left lasting impressions on me were from the PS2, N64, PSX, SNES, and NES.
Spyro isn't mentioned but the 'Classic' Spyro's made by their original dev's were not milked. Another Dev went... "We'll fuck that up!!!"Ultrajoe said:
Cookie's all around!EcksTeaSea said:
... Except for you, Crimson. You guessed wrong, you get an dried out oatmeal cookie.
Of course there have always been milked franchises, and that trend looks like it will continue forever (Call of Duty, anyone?) And back in the day there were a lot of shitty games too. As in, A WHOLE LOT of shitty games. But IMHO game developers back then were a lot more inspired to create games, and when I play some of those old gems it just feels like way more work was put into them than what I see today. I dunno, that's just my take on it.Ultrajoe said:
Gameplay is an arbitrary asset that you only learn to appreciate or even register when you're a veteran in the gaming world. New gamers (of which there have been a lot in later years) see only graphics and "fun factor". The way people play games, and the entire concept of what makes a game has also changed a lot since "the good ol' days". Look at Rock Band and stuff like that.
I have a gut instinct that posting that rant in EA forums would result in your taxes getting audited on the same day you win a million dollars.smallharmlesskitten said:
just to really screw up your finances for-, well, ever.
I'm not American. My taxes are taken 'As I earn' I pay 15c for every dollar I earnninjablu said:
Well, developers are, understandably afraid to take risks. Or should I say publishers are afraid to put up the money to back those risks. With development costs as high as they are I can see how they might want to hedge their bets.
On the other hand, we have Brutal Legend, a game that, from what I understand is mostly complete but was unreleased because it could not be franchised until the cows came home.
On the other hand, we have Brutal Legend, a game that, from what I understand is mostly complete but was unreleased because it could not be franchised until the cows came home.
This is so much better than reading Halo 3: Recon forums... actually, anything is better than reading that cesspool of internet failure and "hai gais wil dis main char teem up wit teh arbitr or mstr cheef lol?". *shudders*
Oh, and great rant. Totally agree with every word. In fact, you're my new leader. Where to next, mein kommandant?
Oh, and great rant. Totally agree with every word. In fact, you're my new leader. Where to next, mein kommandant?
Graphics over Gameplay? Why?
My answers.
1. It's a mystary. Good graphics are pretty to look at so just enjoy teh games.
2. If you hire a lot of art people to work on a game then are not going to be happy with their work unless it looks good to them.
3. A significant group of people tend to buy games that push the limits in terms of graphics. Because this group gets their needs more reliably met than other groups they tend to be a large segment of the "core" group of gamers who regularly buy games.
Points 2&3 are supported by the massive complaints by gamers and industry people that Wii is selling so well despite lack of graphical fidelity and genuine puzzlement at the relative failure of games like Shenmue.
My answers.
1. It's a mystary. Good graphics are pretty to look at so just enjoy teh games.
2. If you hire a lot of art people to work on a game then are not going to be happy with their work unless it looks good to them.
3. A significant group of people tend to buy games that push the limits in terms of graphics. Because this group gets their needs more reliably met than other groups they tend to be a large segment of the "core" group of gamers who regularly buy games.
Points 2&3 are supported by the massive complaints by gamers and industry people that Wii is selling so well despite lack of graphical fidelity and genuine puzzlement at the relative failure of games like Shenmue.