Art and a Good Story > "Gameplay"

[vampirekid.13]

ill take 8 bit graphics/sprites w/ excessively long levels, and plenty of them over "art and story"...lol?


altho there are a few games that the art and story were awesome...


spiderman 1, the dark knight, harry potter...the art and story were awesome, and the gameplay "find the last scene you watched in the vast pools of scenes on this dvd" was very repetitive, but it was still worth "playing" this interactive dvd .


ya ur wrong. thank you for ruining the gaming industry a lil more tho.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

We didn't notice all the little technical aspects of gaming back then because we were so drawn into the worlds that took us in. No one gave a damn about "this mechanic" or the fact that it wasn't the most popular game of the month...games were good because they were good.

Shaq-Fu anyone?

So people who lack any awareness or education are the people who should set the standards in taste?

 

[khululy]

I'm sorry I think you got video games mixed up with movies, no worries happens all the time.

They are all a part of the same mix.

...Roland.

Halifax, and the point I'm trying to make is that Movies are the medium where you go for atmosphere tone and a good story, and while games can be more fun with that stuff it's the gameplay that's most important to a fun challenging experience.
Edit: Also people are probably warded off from your thread because your title makes you seem like a cock.

Here's another form of what I am saying:

Think of the Soul Calibur command lists.
Think of all the "ways" you can kill people.
Think of the weapons and methods in Bioshock to fight.

Everything these days is about some way, shape, or form of killing your opponent to a cheesy degree that hasn't truly evolved the gaming series as a whole. We left behind awesome atmospheres, artistic notions, and all sorts of great ideas and sacrificed it all for X-Box Live, Halo, or whatever random modern Neo-Contra wannabee game is out there. Seriously...gaming is doomed. I hate to say it but developers have long since catered to the unintelligent crowd and it's getting worse. Look at the banner surrounding this board. Blue sunglasses and a Transformers copy? Give me a break...

oh yeah Blue sunglasses are so 2007 and transformer were the first animated robots ever...save for any Mecha anime from around the 70's.
Thank god we have great novelist like Dan Brown and directors like Uwe bol and great original musicians like Britney Spears to make up for all the uninspired crap in the Gaming industry.

the way you discribe it sounds like
The people at Toyota are always looking for ways to make their cars cheaper and more reliable.
You talk about a weapon based fighter and a FPS.
Ofcourse it's about killing people and if you don't improve on that concept it will surely stagnate.

There will always be crap games and great games. Just as there is with everything.
If Bioshock didn't had such a gorgeous looking underwater city with twisted secrets and story of decay it was just another run to the mill shooter.
In some cases the presentation can make or break a game but take a game like Bionic commando Rearmed it has no real story and the graphics aren't all that special but once you get into the swing of the game it rocks. Or even Plants VS. Zombies could not stand on the artwork alone.
In conclusion First of all a game needs GAMEplay in order to enjoy playing the game second it needs a solid presentation and wheter it's artsy, cartoony or hyper realism they go for as long as all comes full circle in the end the developers have succeeded.

I never had any problems with the gameplay/controls from psychonauts and I sadly have never played Shadow of the Colossus.

I doubt gaming is doomed but I do say that it needs some sort of reformation. Like a Fresh breeze.
Anyway I'm waiting for trine to come out. And as far as I know it has both graphics and gameplay.

 

[Kajt]

Let me fix that for you!

Gameplay > Everything Else

 

[GuerrillaClock]

I stopped reading when you mentioned Sewer Shark. If you're going to make a point why you think gameplay should be secondary to story, at least give examples of games that do it WELL, such as Killer7. Besides, some of the games you mentioned (Panzer Dragoon, Jurassic Park) actually had decent gameplay to boot.

While we do need innovation in the industry (just look at how Killzone 2 ended up) I don't think this should mean style over substance, or millions will be put off gaming as the games will end up as empty, smarmy, pretentious shells, and the industry will slowly die amidst a sea of cel-shaded graphics and dialogue to make the Wachowskis blush.

If a game is fun, I'll forgive any story flaws. Indeed, most games don't even have major plot holes because there's little plot - and that's fine, because a simplistic, functional plot doesn't mean it's a bad one. I'll take the plotless LittleBigPlanet or the 'Humans vs Aliens' simplicity of Gears of War over tosh like MGS any day. If a game isn't fun, I won't forgive the gameplay just because the story was epic. While an immersive storyline and atmosphere can improve an otherwise mediocre experience (SotC, Psychonauts), it can't save an outright bad game.

 

[CheeseSandwichCake]

Gameplay should never be sacrificed for story.
I think Assassins Creed had a great story, but after the first few levels, the game sucked to the point where I haven't even bothered to pick the controller back up to finish.

(bash me all you want)
Then there's Halo (first one), trying to stay up all night to beat the game on Legendary Mode was fucking amazing. The game mechanics were on point and presented a very tough challenge but (as most say) the story wasn't that great.

As much as I hate Halo, I have to say the storyline in the first one was great. It's not as great as other games but it's in no way terrible like everyone says it was. Now, Halo 2 came in and wrecked that and then when we think Halo 3 might make amends to this they do it AGAIN.

The first Halo did it right. The sequels tried to re-create this and didn't. What it did right was perfectly balancing the storyline and gameplay. It was challenging, and it really drew me in with the storyline. The multiplayer was excellent as well. The first Halo is one of my favourite FPSes but it's in no way my favourite game. That title goes to Total Annihilation.

Oh, did you hear Chris Taylor might be able to make a sequel next year because the copyright wears off for TA? Exciting

edit: Oh, I said ONE OF my favourite FPSes. My favourite FPS is Half-Life. Not HL2, that's my second favourite

 

[Labyrinth]

It comes down to the individual tastes that developers are playing to. Or, if you want it spelled out, some people will honour gameplay over everything else (and that's fine for them) while others venerate the visual and narrative design. That's fine for them to.

I would like to make one thing clear. "Visual design" does not mean that everything looks amazingly realistic and that you can't move a foot but kick up a perfectly designed cloud of post-apocalyptic dust. I'm talking about games which are aesthetically appealing, whether they work with a minimalist pallet to design something quirky and stylistic or the aforementioned machine-killing extravagance. Visual design should tie in with the story, married to a perfection where what you see reflects what your characters are doing, their personality, and the narrative environment.

Of course gameplay relates to all this. It's an integral part and trying to argue that one can be intrinsically separated from another is just silly. The personal preference comes down to importance, not a stand-alone idolisation.

 

[Simalacrum]

artistic design is very important in a game as it sets the tone and the mood for any given title.

buuut, at the same time, gameplay and how it controls is also very important, because if you have an unplayable game from glitches and shoddy controls, it doesn't matter how pretty the game looks, it'll still suck.

 

[Sindre1]

Is the art and a story not better these days?
I think so (the games I played/play now anyways).

 

[October Country]

While I agree that art, story and atmosphere are important aspects of games, they are far from the most important. The thing that basically separates games from for example movies is their interactivity and the gameplay, and if a game doesn't have at least functional gameplay, I most likely won't finish it, no matter the story. I think Silent Hill 2 is a great example of this, because the first time I played it I basically found it to be so bad, that I didn't play for more than a few hours, and if I hadn't kept hearing about it since with people talking about it being one of the best stories ever, I wouldn't have touched it since then.

A game needs to be a game so be enjoyed as such, otherwise the developers got the wrong medium. So gameplay is needed as it is the essence of what games are all about, but a great story will certainly give the game a boost and a reason to play it through to the end.

 

[pigeon_of_doom]

A game needs to be a game so be enjoyed as such, otherwise the developers got the wrong medium.

Bang on, gaming is not a primarily narrative medium. It's the interaction that makes the game, everything else is just decoration. Not to say other elements outside the raw mechanics are meaningless, but they shouldn't take precedence over the core of the experience and ideally would all complement each other. I'll play a crap game if the story is really that good, but if limited gameplay fits the story (Silent Hill and Bioshock being good examples) then it means that much more to me that it's part of a cohesive whole.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

A game with a brilliant gameplay idea will not be considered good if it has completely inadequate graphics.

Prototype would like a word.

A game needs to be a game so be enjoyed as such, otherwise the developers got the wrong medium.

Bang on, gaming is not a primarily narrative medium. It's the interaction that makes the game, everything else is just decoration. Not to say other elements outside the raw mechanics are meaningless, but they shouldn't take precedence over the core of the experience and ideally would all complement each other. I'll play a crap game if the story is really that good, but if limited gameplay fits the story (Silent Hill and Bioshock being good examples) then it means that much more to me that it's part of a cohesive whole.

Exactly, I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

A game with a brilliant gameplay idea will not be considered good if it has completely inadequate graphics.

Prototype would like a word.

Would it now? I haven't played it, but from what I've seen, I think the graphics are OK. I didn't mean graphics quality-wise, as in "Shader Model 8.0 and 64x antialiasing", I just meant the graphics style has to fit the gameplay... And doesn't it in Prototype?

 

[Jumplion]

A game with a brilliant gameplay idea will not be considered good if it has completely inadequate graphics.

Prototype would like a word.

Would it now? I haven't played it, but from what I've seen, I think the graphics are OK. I didn't mean graphics quality-wise, as in "Shader Model 8.0 and 64x antialiasing", I just meant the graphics style has to fit the gameplay... And doesn't it in Prototype?

Those are called "visuals" young patapon padawan. There is a difference, and it is important that you seperate the difference between the two.

"Graphics" is as you implied, it's the technical side of visuals. This includes things like lighting and core processors and polygons, ect... "graphics" can be used in it's own merit, but I usually prefer calling it its sister...

"Visuals". "Visuals" implies the aesthetic viewpoint of games, things like art style, the atmosphere, the animations itself at times. This is what I prefer to use because that's what I always want to improve as "visuals" go on. If you improve "visuals" (such as hyper-realistic visuals or cartoony ones) then so does everything else.

Know the difference, feel the difference, taste the difference, live the difference! It will save you a lot of arguments in the future, trust me.

 

[LOOY]

I'm sorry I think you got video games mixed up with movies, no worries happens all the time.

This.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

Those are called "visuals" young patapon padawan. There is a difference, and it is important that you seperate the difference between the two.

"Graphics" is as you implied, it's the technical side of visuals. This includes things like lighting and core processors and polygons, ect... "graphics" can be used in it's own merit, but I usually prefer calling it its sister...

"Visuals". "Visuals" implies the aesthetic viewpoint of games, things like art style, the atmosphere, the animations itself at times. This is what I prefer to use because that's what I always want to improve as "visuals" go on. If you improve "visuals" (such as hyper-realistic visuals or cartoony ones) then so does everything else.

Know the difference, feel the difference, taste the difference, live the difference! It will save you a lot of arguments in the future, trust me.

Thank you, Hamster Master. I shall bear this lesson in mind from now on.

Well, you live and learn...

 

[Bocaj2000]

Shadow of the Collosus and Psychonauts are perfect examples of this. Face it, SotC and Psychonauts did not have the most prestine gameplay elements in it.

But damnit, if Shadow of the Collosus didn't have such a rich atmosphere, or feel as if it had meaning, or gave off emotion with it, I don't think it would of had the same impact as it did with many other gamers.

And damnit, if Psychonauts wasn't funny, or hilarious, or set in a unique place with a unique twist, it would have been just like any other platform at that time.

you see, I have a personal belief that if a game is trying to do something new, or innovative, or just plain interesting, then I will forgive its shortcomings in the gameplay department (obviously it still needs to be working but I have yet to encounter that problem). Mirror's Edge is a good example of this, it tried to innovate the way we think of gameplay but it was lacklustre in that area. I forgive it mainly because it's rarely, if ever, been done before and maybe the next time will be better. It's just part of gaming evolving.

Am I the only one who believes that the thread should've ended here? This guy is spot on.

Yes, there are famous games that have virtually no story but are still fun.

Regardless of that, the best are the artistic ones with great story. Gameplay mechanics are there and good, but the art and story makes the game top notch. Okami, Silent Hill [series], Half-Life, Final Fantasy, Crono Trigger, etc. There is no argument against what this kid is saying.