Graphics arent everything

[Nova]

Do you find that the gaming community focuses to much on good graphics instead of good gameplay.

Its seems like that some games are rated bad because of their graphics.

Look at Zelda Botw, there are idiots rating it bad because they find that the textures are outdated and stuff(geez it was a port from wii u). I just find that childish.

Botw us a pretty good game even though i never played it

A game with super good graphics may look good but if it has bad gameplay its bad.

There are three things that matter.

Graphics

Gameplay

Music

These three need to be in balance. If one of them is too good and the other ones ingnored it will be bad.

Thats the reason why i hate cod or fifa. Good graphics but no change in gameplay.

Look at terraria and minecraft.

They may have not photorealistic graphics but unique and good gameplay mechanics. Thats why they have a huge(partly cancerous) fanbase.

So state your opinion here.

Also do you play games with very good graphics or not so good?

 

[Tsuujou]

Graphical performance and fidelity is extremely important, but I think as long as the visuals are reasonably presentable and the player can make their way through the game with them, they're fine.
Honestly, I know a lot of people who play games for graphics who swear they don't. They veil it under "I'm playing for it's unique art style". lol
Not that it's a bad thing though. I actually don't think buying a game for graphics is entirely something odd. It's not more weird than people who say gameplay isn't as important as plot which to me is backwards as Hell and I can't wrap my head around, but ok. 

Good graphics can help the game be more functional. Good lighting, AA, and high draw distance/FOV options can really help levels in games less confusing to go through. Even if the level design is already good, when your paths are naturally highlighted with good lighting and dynamic shadows or you can put your FOV to 110 in something first person (I consider that as part of graphics myself) it makes visual information much easier to sort out. This is why Quake's levels are legendary and set some standards for level design. Poor AA can make distant objects surprisingly easy to miss. Low texture resolution, depending on the game, can make things very vague and hard to decide what you can interact with until you're right on top of them.

Also, I think good presentation is important. When you go to a store and see an item in dented, beat up, seemingly used box, are you going to buy that one or get the item next to it whose packaging is pristine? What's more likely to be the undamaged product? The shit packaging or the box that's intact?
The better the graphics, the more you'd like to think that the game is going to be good (For the slow people who like to skip over context and shit, I said you'd like to think. I know better graphics doesn't equal a better game). It blows most people away when they see crazy good graphics like Horizon Zero Dawn and it can absolutely make a world more immersive and fun to explore. 

I will ALWAYS put gameplay above absolutely anything though. Always, always, always.

[Crow]

I would add plot to your list of things that make good games. For me the gameplay and story should work together seamlessly and that's what really makes a great game experience. Graphics are important but sometimes a unique art style can work better than your typical high fidelity visuals. And there's just something about the old PS2 graphics for games like Ratchet and Clank, Sly Cooper, Jak and Daxter, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, that I'm not sure video games will ever truly surpass. 

[Revates]

Generally for me to enjoy a game I don't need it to have good graphics but it to make sense and be at a certain level. If the graphics are terrible and it's hard to work things out I generally just stop playing the game and don't bother, but if they represent what they need to in an easy to understand manner, they're fine.

[Mapa]

Basically what Rev said. As long as they don't get in the way of my ability to play the game and they don't burn my eyes, it's fine. In fact, I normally turn down my graphics settings as low as they can go (keeping an eye on things like AA, of course) to increase performance and get rid of unnecessary noise.

That's not to say I don't like good graphics - I just like playability more.

[Vae]

I value aesthetic more than graphics. A game can look good, thematically, without having photorealistic graphics.
Memorable environments and bosses, and being able to clearly see where the player, enemies, and attacks are without any eye-strain.

Plot means little to nothing to me outside of very story-centric games.
Priorities go gameplay > music > aesthetic.
Everything else is optional and secondary.

[Nova]

I have to add that i also hate super graphics because they are used too often in MMORPG and they burn my potato laptop.

I miss the anime artstyle that was pretty but didnt destroy your laptop.

 

[otakufolf!]

ikr? it sucks, but one example of this being untrue is in UNDERTALE. http://store.steampowered.com/app/391540 really high ratings, but the graphics are from when games were real retro, good, as some would say.

[QT Melon]

Of course not. I believe most people already know this, however people are just invested and hyped over what technology can do. It's nothing we need to convince people over, some people will just bash games because it's very easy to rile people up that are fans over certain games. Some of them are upset like in the case of Zelda they weren't getting something closer to Twilight Princess.

People are excited to push the boundaries and immerse themselves. Some believe it should be hyper realistic, but games like Journey can show it can be artistic and draw out emotions.

Games like Horizon Zero dawn show it is becoming more possible.

Discussions like these tend to discount that games cover many different platforms and forget things like mobile gaming is a thing and people rarely talk about high end resolution graphics because they understand the limitations in those platforms right now. So worrying about "Graphics" is moot.

There are some troubling aspects with things company wise like SE making those kinds of missteps with so much investment in their Luminous Engine, or how they nearly killed off their MMO FFXIV, with the same "let's make things look pretty" instead of engaging gameplay. It's good that there are some in the company that can reign that back in, and when they do focus SE can make some pretty damn good games like Nier.

 

[Socketosis]

On 3/12/2017 at 2:16 PM, Vae said:

I value aesthetic more than graphics.

I kid.

On 3/12/2017 at 6:54 PM, Nova said:

I have to add that i also hate super graphics because they are used too often in MMORPG and they burn my potato laptop.

Which MMORPGs have "super graphics"? I was under the impression they had more subpar graphics to reach wider audiences and because they often have a lot of shit to render on screen.

[Nova]

9 hours ago, Socketosis said:

I kid.

Which MMORPGs have "super graphics"? I was under the impression they had more subpar graphics to reach wider audiences and because they often have a lot of shit to render on screen.

I mean games like aion, tera, revelation online, final fantasy 14 , blade and souls.

I currently play mabinogi, dragon nest and elsword.

They run really smooth on my laptop on 30 fps or nearly 60 fps.

Well they  have rather simple graph7cs and not over detailed.

Tera runs like crap on my laptop even with low settings

Blade and souls is optimized for low end pc but it has stability issues.

[QT Melon]

Final Fantasy 14 still runs (albeit barely at this point) on a PS3. It will be only in the summer that it will ask people to upgrade for certain systems (mainily it is dropping Ps3 support but allows a free transfer of your character to the PS4 version) The 2010 version of the game was horrible because it demanded too much for an MMO and delivered little gameplay, but A Realm Reborn changed that in 2013.

It doesn't demand "super graphics" since we're talking about a game that (re)launched 5 years ago. Even with the expansion coming, "Stormblood"  it still will hold support for 32bit systems, and still a rather large range of PCs. It is only dropping support for PS3 which is extremely reasonable. It will give more benefits to higher end CPUs but it still playable for a vast majority.

The reason why it may need more graphics demands isn't due to trying to render every polygon of hair. It needs to put on more UI elements/HUD for players because it is an MMO. It also has attention to detail that people appreciate. Your character turns to face enemies,/NPCs/other players. Your character does animations when it is executing moves. When you type in chat your character's mouth actually moves. Even when you take meals or potions it also animates to move. Though it may get busy or flashy with a lot of characters on screen executing attacks, you do have the option of turning it off (other people's animations).

It also has weather elements, animations from bosses that allow certain telegraphs from the game, so you have indicators on the floor not to stand in dangerous stuff aka AOE (Area of Effect). If I remember correctly WoW didn't have that kind of prompt.

I guess there's a  certain point to the rant about "graphics aren't everything" if it was all show and no gameplay. but otherwise it comes off as whining over "my old PC can't play all these games and I shouldn't have to update"  I mean, I think it's crazy to think game designers shouldn't take advantage of what technology has to offer? It should be brushed off as "super graphics" when you have an MMO that is friendly and cross plays on multiple platforms? I personally think it's awesome I can play with people on a PS3, PS4 and PC.

 

[Toshabi]

 

[Feelwell]

I'll be honest, some times graphics being low quality really bug me.

I'm not like "Holy shit where is my 9999x9999 resolution and high definition nostril shadows"

but the retroy/pixel arty graphics kinda bug me, and there's only a very small amount of games that I find are good with that.

And some of the really old graphics make my head hurt. 

Like old kirby games. Fantastic games, but they make me want to headbutt a wall, tear my eyes out and throw up everything I've eaten that week.

[Nomris]

I'd be one to care less about graphics. As long as I can discern which thing is supposed to be which in my own, things should be fine.

Playing ye olde games can still be really fun. But that is mainly when story is not of the essence. I will agree that dastardly good stories can be told without using any graphics, but they make the game all the more enjoyable.

Seeing a wall of pixels explode or see that main city in its glorious graphics rendered state can, for me, make the game that much better.

That said, I'll gladly make the game run smoother at the cost of prettiness. Especially when a lot of action is going on. Pretty pictures is all and well, but I'd like a silky smooth action scene if I can get one.

Tl;Dr, graphics support gameplay, there are areas where it is more important such as emphasising certain environments or scenes.

[TrishaCat]

My most hyped game right now is Nier Automata. That game does not look pretty in any sense of the word.

A game's graphics typically do not make or break it as a game. However, while I say that, I DO however want my games to look as pretty as I can possibly make them, and in that, graphics are important. I want to have AA options or even be able to downsample games whenever possible. I want that extra detail in the textures when possible. But I do not believe graphics are everything or something that a game needs in order to be good.

I will say though that if you make a game that looks too realistic, I'll be less interested in it, though. Realism in graphics kills games for me. I see so many games that people say are great and I find it difficult to have interest in them because they mimic real life. The Witcher 3 is an example of this. Its a gorgeous game technically, but I don't like that general realistic fantasy aesthetic. So in some ways, a game's graphics can affect my desire to play them, but that doesn't necessarily mean it makes the games bad nor do I think they're everything. A game can have fantastic graphics, but if it doesn't have good music/story/gameplay, then how can I hold interest?

I'm a sucker for games with anime-y art for example. That doesn't mean I can go around touting how amazing Neptunia games are. Because they aren't. They're pretty meh and I couldn't recommend them to anybody. 

[QT Melon]

I do not know if I'd say Nier is "not pretty' it's pleasing to me and works really well.

I still feel there's a lot of misconceptions about graphics in this thread however. I mean that people assume because something is more realistic it takes more graphics where cartoony or stylized does not.

Simply not true.

Point in case is Journey. It uses a highly stylized look to it, however, it most certainly did utilize what "super graphics" had to offer. Without updates to technology and how graphic cards render scenes Journey would have had a different look to it. It was able to create fluidity with the cloth, sand looked like sand. I don't think I really would have felt as much as I did when you journeyed into certain environments, especially the snow. You really felt the cold, and the warmth with how well rendered the environment was.

It very much felt like you were in some kind of liquid in another stage, and not just shuffling in sand. People weren't labored with the task of creating or drawing drop shadows because the characters were now actual objects. You could have fog/clouds semi transparent objects that work in a more believable fashion.

However we don't think about that. Most consumers see something like The Order:1886 and wonder why there's so much waste on super detailed figures it affirms their misconceptions about graphics and graphics cards.

[Deskai]

Its a nice balance for me

I do prefer gameplay over all cause: its the reason why I'm playing

[Lopaw]

I prefer gameplay before graphics. A decent soundtrack helps a lot as well.

I wish developers (mostly indie ones) would stop relying on the 8 bit/16 bit pixel retro look though as today's hardware can do so much more than that level graphically. I'd rather see more 32 bit/64 bit early 3D style games like yooka laylee.

[Pignog]

actually, they arf everything

[Victor-933]

Pic related.

Visually, the game aged like milk, but it's still fun as hell.

[Zeke]

See: Undertale.

 

I prefer a good story and gameplay before graphics. If the graphics are amazing and the story sucks, it will be returned/traded in as soon as I finish it. If the story and gameplay mechanics are amazing but the graphics are meh, I will still enjoy it.

[Lucyfish]

Final Fantasy 7's graphics were inexcusably bad for the time. Bad game with bad graphics.

[Victor-933]

1 hour ago, Lucyfish said:

Final Fantasy 7's graphics were inexcusably bad for the time. Bad game with bad graphics.

Clearly someone wasn't gaming during the mid '90s. For the scale of the game and the hardware involved they were pretty damn good for the time.

[Lucyfish]

3 hours ago, Victor-933 said:

Clearly someone wasn't gaming during the mid '90s. For the scale of the game and the hardware involved they were pretty damn good for the time.

No, they weren't. I was absolutely gaming in the mid 90's and I had a game called Tomb Raider. This game came out before FF7 and surpassed it graphically in every way.

Not to mention when you compare FF7 and FF9, which are on the same console, FF7 looks like absolute child's play. FF7 was originally going to be an N64 game, but when Sony obtained the rights to publish, Square made the decision not to make a very needed and very doable graphics overhaul, and instead say "fuck it."

Thank goodness they put more effort into future titles.

 

 

VS.

 

 

 

You can't even make the argument of them getting "better at graphics over time" because it was only 3 years, and they had a game in between that also looked waaaaaaaay better. Square was lazy with FF7.

[FlynnCoyote]

8 hours ago, Lucyfish said:

Final Fantasy 7's graphics were inexcusably bad for the time. Bad game with bad graphics.

I understand and agree with bad graphics here, but bad game? The fuck are you on about?

[Nova]

9 hours ago, Lucyfish said:

Final Fantasy 7's graphics were inexcusably bad for the time. Bad game with bad graphics.

Did you just call FF7 BAD.

 

REEEEEEEEEEEE TRIGGERED

[Lucyfish]

Compared to other FF games it has the most boring story, the least likeable characters, and the most bare-bones combat system ever. Sorry folks

[Vitaly]

FF7 is a terribly overrated game with long, boring plot and autistic characters. Like any other final fantasy game.

[Nova]

The only final fantasy games that pulled graphics and gameplay and Story good off was the 13 saga.

The only final fantasy games that pulled graphics and gameplay and Story good off was the 13 saga.

[FlynnCoyote]

FF7 was far from perfect, but I don't believe for a second it had the weakest story.

FF9 was my favourite game, but that doesn't stop me from feeling that it was the weakest game in terms of storytelling. Half the characters are petulant and childish, the other half angsty and emo. Only character that was ever honest with themselves and everyone else was Quina. Story goes from being about war, to being about stopping a weapons dealer, to saving the world. Every major recurring villain fucking redeems themselves, and then the final boss comes out of nowhere and ties into nothing we've seen so far. None of the villains died with their convictions intact, the final battle had no context and Zidane's survival afterwards and year long absence is unexplained.

FF7 started out simple. We want to stop this corporation. Then it turns out that this bad guy from a few years back is still around and he's even more dangerous. The characters all have their personal stakes, their reason to be around. So you go after this bad guy next, then it slowly becomes more and more apparent just how dangerous he really is and the stakes grow more and more high as the story progresses. Things seem bad, and the heroes are left with one final hope left behind by a fallen friend. The line between hero and villain is clear, the reasons for it all were clear, and the ending tied it all together and made sense. No stupid surprise final boss out of nowhere, just a satisfying conclusion to a story you just spent hours following.

FF9 was definitely more enjoyable to play and vastly superior on the graphics, but 7 told a better story. Although still not quite as good as the story told by FF8.

[[null]]

Gameplay > Graphics

Atmosphere, inc music and world design > Graphics

Frames > Graphics

Story > Graphics

Gameplay > Atmosphere  > Frames > Story > Graphics

This is why the Souls games are some of the best videogames released in recent years, although even they jumped the shark a little when they caught a glimpse of that "AAA" money.

 

The modern console generation's approach to making games:

Graphics > Graphics > Graphics > "Story" > Graphics > Gameplay > Atmosphere > Frames

In short, "AAA" (*cough* greedy *cough*) publishers/developers focusing on how shiny the protagonist's ass is over crafting an interesting world with enthralling gameplay is the worst thing ever to happen to gaming. Shame the big companies won't risk releasing anything new and interesting anymore because they're too busy working on revolutionary new eyebrow physics for their vapid and uninspired npcs.

[QT Melon]

I'm not sure how to respond because while some of null's points are a bit accurate, there's so much hyperbole to wade through, I'm drowning.

 

This isn't a console problem for one (I mean really? PCs aren't a console), it's just that there's technology, and like anyone who isn't a curmudgeon people will want to push it. If they didn't we'd be doing the same old boring shit. So yeah while there is focus on silliness like how many polygons can you put in a flowerpot (FFXIV) without trying to push certain renderings we wouldn't get something that can be entirely useful. Things like ragdoll physics for example, love it or hate it, they save so much time if someone didn't try to push technology. It beats having to animate each scene depending on how a character falls.

On another point, what do you mean by frames? Are we neckbearing about the amount of frames or consistent frames? I am kind of tired of people groaning about their FPS these days when games are perfectly playable at a lower frame rate. I don't like seeing frames drop, which is something I'll agree with, when it's IMPORTANT. Given that games are constantly moving and such you'll need those frames.

The problem is investing in something new is money, and people keep demanding more from the last time. See Fallout. Gameplay aside one of the biggest complaints was that the newest Fallout didn't look much better than the previous one. So improvement on graphics was definitely a fan concern, but improvement takes time and money.

Now developing for each platform I get is a pain, and I understand why people want consoles to die...but whatever...If we did have them die the same problem would exist if it were for just PC users, probably as much and moreso as people's quirks in various PCs can cause odd things to happen or people would cry about their graphics card. It could backfire even if it was just PC because people would cry about "hey I spend XXXX on this graphics card, why aren't you pushing for better graphics" , where as consoles they know what the bottom threshold is and can develop for better if they so chose.

[Zeke]

I thought FF7 was mediocre, but it was more enjoyable than FF8.

I didn't really jump into the Final Fantasy series until 9. I rented 7 from Blockbuster.  At the time, I had Lunar, Legend of Dragoon, Chrono Trigger with FF6 and Chrono Cross.

[MalletFace]

8 hours ago, [null] said:

Gameplay > Graphics

Atmosphere, inc music and world design > Graphics

Frames > Graphics

Story > Graphics

Gameplay > Atmosphere  > Frames > Story > Graphics

But there's a reason (among many) that Dwarf Fortress, Space Station 13, Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead, and games like them are niche; they absolutely pile on gameplay, atmosphere, frames, and story, but their graphics suck (or sucked, until recently).

I think games like those - and there are so very many - help squash the idea that everything else tops graphics for most people. When so much focus goes into the other elements that user interfaces get filled, mechanics get pilled together and extremely difficult to master, stories get so long and convoluted that nobody knows them all, frames get so exceedingly high that counting them is pointless, you have a game that few people want to play. That's why so many attempts are made to make games like those look better, or to essentially clone the game in a better looking way. They mostly fail, though, because of the excessive pile of everything but graphics people expect from those games.

Even games like Minecraft, Team Fortress 2, and Kerbal Space Program have excellent graphics, even if people won't readily admit it because they believe realism is the only element in good graphics.

14 hours ago, Lucyfish said:

You can't even make the argument of them getting "better at graphics over time" because it was only 3 years, and they had a game in between that also looked waaaaaaaay better. Square was lazy with FF7.

Nearly everyone released crap 3D in 1997 because of the "better at graphics over time" reason. That is why about the best 3D you got that year was some characters' faces in Fallout because Interplay Entertainment had access to the technology and experience to do this, and it wasn't very much.

That's also why Tomb Raider 2 (1997) and Tomb Raider 4 (1999) are so different, even though the change isn't as severe as between Final Fantasy games. That, though, may be due to their extreme success and Tomb Raider's moderate success.

But also, 

is an abomination. It haunts my nightmares and stalks me in my dreams.

[Lucyfish]

2 hours ago, MalletFace said:

 

 

is an abomination. It haunts my nightmares and stalks me in my dreams.

really nigga?

3D models in 1997 had textures. Square were lazy cunts.

[Victor-933]

1 hour ago, Lucyfish said:

really nigga?

3D models in 1997 had textures. Square were lazy cunts.

>complains that FF7 models have no textures

>posts a FF7 model with textures

 

TIL @Lucyfish doesn't know what textures are

[QT Melon]

Not sure why Simplified = Bad?

[Lucyfish]

8 hours ago, Victor-933 said:

>complains that FF7 models have no textures

>posts a FF7 model with textures

 

TIL @Lucyfish doesn't know what textures are

A solid color that is affected by an exterior shader is not a true texture. It's using the paint bucket tool on a 3D model and calling it a day.

 

@QT Melon It isn't simplified. It's lazy.

[QT Melon]

Ok, still confused, how is simplfied, now lazy because there wasn't a need to add normals and displacements along with an alpha?

[DrGravitas]

Normal calculations can easily be automated, displacement is another mapping technology and not available on the PS1, and alpha is about as difficult as applying a shader.

That said, I still wouldn't qualify their approach here as lazy. After all, the PS1 had all of 2 MB of system memory and 1 MB of video RAM. They put a lot into prerendered backgrounds. More over, IIRC, you could display something like twice as many shaded polygons as you could textured polygons. It was a different approach to scope, combined with brand new hardware that drove the differences between the two, I think.

[[null]]

15 hours ago, QT Melon said:

I'm not sure how to respond because while some of null's points are a bit accurate, there's so much hyperbole to wade through, I'm drowning.

 

This isn't a console problem for one (I mean really? PCs aren't a console), it's just that there's technology, and like anyone who isn't a curmudgeon people will want to push it. If they didn't we'd be doing the same old boring shit. So yeah while there is focus on silliness like how many polygons can you put in a flowerpot (FFXIV) without trying to push certain renderings we wouldn't get something that can be entirely useful. Things like ragdoll physics for example, love it or hate it, they save so much time if someone didn't try to push technology. It beats having to animate each scene depending on how a character falls.

On another point, what do you mean by frames? Are we neckbearing about the amount of frames or consistent frames? I am kind of tired of people groaning about their FPS these days when games are perfectly playable at a lower frame rate. I don't like seeing frames drop, which is something I'll agree with, when it's IMPORTANT. Given that games are constantly moving and such you'll need those frames.

The problem is investing in something new is money, and people keep demanding more from the last time. See Fallout. Gameplay aside one of the biggest complaints was that the newest Fallout didn't look much better than the previous one. So improvement on graphics was definitely a fan concern, but improvement takes time and money.

Now developing for each platform I get is a pain, and I understand why people want consoles to die...but whatever...If we did have them die the same problem would exist if it were for just PC users, probably as much and moreso as people's quirks in various PCs can cause odd things to happen or people would cry about their graphics card. It could backfire even if it was just PC because people would cry about "hey I spend XXXX on this graphics card, why aren't you pushing for better graphics" , where as consoles they know what the bottom threshold is and can develop for better if they so chose.

In my defense applying mountains of hyperbole and sarcasm is the only way i can stomach wading into an argument about the importance of graphical fidelity in modern videogames on a furry forum. Of all the things i could be doing i'm doing this so i might as well have some fun with it.

Defining it as a console problem...well, the current raft of bullshittery regarding how shiny games are is a result of modern console developers and AAA publishers pushing that as a selling point because they really have nothing better to offer (case in point, every Ubisoft and Activision game in recent memory). I should make it clear that i'm not talking about engines that only exist because of the power of modern processors, they're actually useful and can add something to gameplay. I was primarily referring to the shallowness of a game's aesthetic being considered a priority in modern gaming. That idiotic thought process leads to things like people arguing over the quality of textures on 20 year old FF characters. Lazy cunts indeed, focussing on crafting an interesting gameworld with memorable characters as opposed to making those characters look sexier. How the fuck is anyone supposed to make rule 34 of those blocky monstrosities? Seriously Square get your priorities in order. Whenever i hear people talk about FF7 it's not about how the game itself is considered a masterpiece within the JRPG genre that can still be enjoyed 20 years down the line. No, who remembers that Aeris died and how significant it was for the story. That's not what's important about the game, what's important is that she didn't have realistic breast physics. Fuck you Square. Tits are more important than immersion and emotional investment. 

Ahhh yes, neckbeardy framerate talk. Yes games are perfectly playable at a lower framerate, years of playing certain games on toasters with a consistent framerate of 20 or lower has taught me that, but it does impact gameplay significantly. I mostly play multiplayer FPS games and at higher framerates everything does feel smoother and more responsive. While you do only need a consistent 30 more will always be better from a perspective of pure gameplay, i'd go as far to say it makes a game more enjoyable. So when companies waste processing power crafting detailed streetlights and plant shadows that adjust dynamically to various light sources instead of making a game feel better to control (and then use the bullshit reasoning that an inferior framerate is more cinematic and thus somehow adds something to the game) it's frankly a fucking joke. I understand the importance of these things from a technological standpoint but it shouldn't be used as the selling point of a game that lost any sense of originality or fun 8 sequels ago. Games aren't about photorealistic graphics, they aren't about dynamic lighting and they're not about HD textures. They're about fun and providing an interesting challenge or a unique experience. Something the modern gaming industry seems to have lost sight of for the most part.

Now there many complaints i could level at the latest Fallout, but it's prettiness in relation to the last game isn't one of them. If that was an important fan concern it's no wonder Fallout 4 (and Skyrim, seeing as that had the same issues) ended up feeling so vapid and hollow. 

I don't want consoles to die, i grew up with them. I want consoles to be worth having again. Modern games for the most part are just uninspired, rehashed shit. Nothing that's been released in recent years, except Bloodborne, has felt like it's worth playing. And even then that's only because they did something slightly different with the basic formula that's underpinned the series since Demon's Souls. At this point if a new game is released you can guarantee that a better version of it's basic premise has already come and gone and the new thing won't add much if anything to it. It's a waste of time.

13 hours ago, MalletFace said:

But there's a reason (among many) that Dwarf Fortress, Space Station 13, Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead, and games like them are niche; they absolutely pile on gameplay, atmosphere, frames, and story, but their graphics suck (or sucked, until recently).

I think games like those - and there are so very many - help squash the idea that everything else tops graphics for most people. When so much focus goes into the other elements that user interfaces get filled, mechanics get pilled together and extremely difficult to master, stories get so long and convoluted that nobody knows them all, frames get so exceedingly high that counting them is pointless, you have a game that few people want to play. That's why so many attempts are made to make games like those look better, or to essentially clone the game in a better looking way. They mostly fail, though, because of the excessive pile of everything but graphics people expect from those games.

Even games like Minecraft, Team Fortress 2, and Kerbal Space Program have excellent graphics, even if people won't readily admit it because they believe realism is the only element in good graphics.

 

Well i've not played those games but a quick Google search reveals that from a graphical perspective they differ quite a bid from the modern industry standard (incidentally something that would make me want to play them, it's actually something different).

It may be more of a case that in your own words those games are difficult to master and may well require a great deal of time and investment to get the most out of, that combined with the ascetic equivalent of a fuck you to the modern standard likely doesn't make the games seem inviting and thus would explain a lower playerbase. But people still play them in spite of that because of the gameplay and what it offers don't they?  

"Essentially clone the game in a better looking way" That sentence genuinely makes me sad. The game is already out there, it already offers everything it can from the pov of gameplay so what does making it look prettier for no reason than to make it prettier add? I'll tell ya, it lets people make astonishing pre rendered cinematic trailers for idiots to jerk themselves off over at E3. I absolutely hate the mindset of focusing on the skin deep aspects of a game instead of what makes a game worth playing. It just leaves you with realistic looking rainclouds to populate a dull and repetitive game with.

And yes all those games look amazing. TF2, a game that's almost a decade old, even looks amazing with FPS configs that destroy the graphics as much as possible while still leaving everything recognizable installed. And you know what, it takes absolutely nothing away from the game. The graphical obsession carried by certain people in the modern gaming sphere is just pointless and frankly fucking ridiculous.

[QT Melon]

I'm not questioning the difficulty, I'm asking about the necessity. I'm don't enjoy backseat dev everything SE has made but we weren't as privy to info as we are now.

FF7 wasn't about pushing graphics during gameplay as much as it did utilizing CG cutscenes for episodic story. The only other significant part was dazzling summons but that can get tiring pretty fast if you're trying to play and you're having to watch the same summoning animation over and over.

Then there was 8 and 9 which were on the PS1, FF8 dumped the Sprite to 3D stylization of 7 and sold a lot of copies due to its success from the previous title. However, it doesn't seem to be loved by many fans. Many didn't like the "Fantasy" being taken away and they tried to go back to roots with 9.

10 was a much loved title on PS2 (it's girl power sequel not so much) 11 is an MMO and still ongoing. To a bit of annoyance it's the nostalgia MMO for a lot of fans. (I say it because I play 14 and it's not the same but people who played 11 wants to make it that way ...and sorry today's day and age that's not gonna work).

12 which wasn't well regarded, though some of its battle systems and ideas are now in 14's MMO today.

13 was a development nightmare because SE decided to make their own gaming engine, Crystal Tools. 13 while graphically nice, people felt the characters were badly written and bland. So no, not great story there. Crystal Tools was a nightmare to work with apparently, so much so that when 14 came out it was a failure, and the engine wsa dumped for a new one that has some basis from Luminous.

Keep in mind around that time 15 was announced and here we see the beginnings of the problem SE has where it announces titles too quickly instead of making sure it has solid development. 15 was only 20-30% done. It was just a conceptual  piece that was demo'd and Luminous was just as problematic as Crystal Tools. Factor that in with the 10 years since its announcement it was actually only 3 years of development due to Nomura sitting on the project for so damn long.

One game I think was very good during the PS1 times RPG wise was Xenogears, but even that showed that it was an unfinished game ....yeah that last disc anyone? It had some great mature themes in that game. It's a damn shame they couldn't continue directly because Xenosaga didn't really have what Xenogears had.

 

 

@[null] Horizon Zero Dawn, Nier Automata. Great games. Surprisingly World of Final Fantasy had some memorable characters, so don't be scared off from the Cutsey look.

 

[Data]

I honestly could care less if it was just ascii art, as long as it has a good plot or point to the game, I'll play it

[QT Melon]

Trying to remember the last time someone said "hey play this ascii game the plot and game play is intense" and were actually serious

[Victor-933]

1 hour ago, QT Melon said:

Trying to remember the last time someone said "hey play this ascii game the plot and game play is intense" and were actually serious

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_Fortress

[QT Melon]

So the game that @MalletFace said was already niche is being mentioned again. So like what 11 years ago was the last time?

[Lucyfish]

21 hours ago, DrGravitas said:

Normal calculations can easily be automated, displacement is another mapping technology and not available on the PS1, and alpha is about as difficult as applying a shader.

That said, I still wouldn't qualify their approach here as lazy. After all, the PS1 had all of 2 MB of system memory and 1 MB of video RAM. They put a lot into prerendered backgrounds. More over, IIRC, you could display something like twice as many shaded polygons as you could textured polygons. It was a different approach to scope, combined with brand new hardware that drove the differences between the two, I think.

You can't make the "PS1 was limited" excuse because FF9 was on the same console.

Not to mention they DIDN'T have twice as many shaded polygons. FF9 was better graphically in every possible way, and it was because they actually put effort into it.

[[null]]

[QT Melon]

I like how it was about effort, and not about understanding the system they programmed a game for. Basically games graphically improved as there was understanding of technology on the same system. That's why you always hear about really cool games near the EOL of a system. Someone figured it out by then. Not because they're lazy.

Quote

One of the key factors in the PlayStation's success was Sony's approach to third party developers. Whereas Sega and Nintendo took an isolationist approach, focusing on first party development while generally leaving third party developers to their own devices, Sony took efforts to streamline game production by providing a range of programming libraries which were constantly updated online, organizing third party technical support teams, and in some cases giving direct development support to third party companies

 

That's like calling a new artist lazy because they lacked knowledge on how to construct a drawing.

 

Also we're talking about 1994-2006, this was the time technology burst.