Graphics are taking over Gameplay

[imaloony]

Oh yay. This topic again.

I don't think graphics are taking over gameplay. If that were true, Final Fantasy XIII would have been named the best game evar. However, it wasn't, so we see that there actually needs to be substance to the game backing the graphics up.

I mean, I enjoyed playing FF13, (even though I never finished it ) but I think it had the wrong idea in terms of gameplay. It was too linear, and the combat was a poor mixture of real-time and turn-based combat. The only game thus far that has pulled that off well is Fallout 3 because the two are clearly separated.

 

[Mr. Omega]

*see what everyone else has said about being late on this one*

I have no problem on them making graphics fancy. What I DO mind is when fancy graphics come at the cost of games. I also am sick about hearing how some visual/graphic advancement *coughHDcough3Dcough* will 'revolutionize the game market'. No. It won't. As much as a step back motion controls are, at least they have some merit to saying this will change gameplay. It's a change for the worse, but a change none the less. Better graphics just mean you're playing the same game, just hidden under fancy effets and appearances. We didn't care about graphics in the 8 and 16 bit era. We knew that if a game looked nice, and can be a good thing, but the game had to be good as well. Sometimes graphics are an attempt to hide bad gameplay. Not all the time, mind you, in fact hardly ever, but it's a classic trick; look at the waving left hand so you don't see the right hand cleaning up the mess.
Plus, I don't mind progression to realism, but now all they have to do to be 'realistic' is be really dim, brown or grey, gritty and then they slap a 'realistic' label on it. I want REAL progress on realism. I want to walk in on a guy playing a game and think he's watching TV, not be able to tell they're playing a 'realistic game'. Unreasonable? Hell yeah, but if you're gonna market realism, expectations are going to be unreasonable.

Edit: Almost forgot... the core of my rant.
The sad thing is that the market doesn't seem to understand that we gamers don't care as much for graphics as they seem to think we do. We're a smarter bunch than they give us credit for. If the game is relying soley on graphics, we can easily see through the smoke and mirrors and see the game for it's true quality; the gameplay. WE still focus on gameplay. THEY are focusing on the graphics. Yes, we're still dazzled by graphical progression, but once we actually PLAY it, we expect the gameplay to be good! Graphics may pull us in, but the GAMEPLAY is why we actually LIKE the game!

Ok, rant over.

 

[Good morning blues]

This criticism has been a cliche literally since before I started playing video games. I don't see it anymore, frankly. What is the appreciable difference between a game released last month and a game released two years ago?

Yes, it takes a lot of time to do the graphics. I don't think the same percentage of development time is going into them now that the hardware has more or less stabilized, however.

 

[danintexas]

Gameplay > Graphics for me

Choplifter on the Sega Master System is still one of my fav all time video games.

 

[Pearwood]

Good graphics does not equal bad gameplay so I have to disagree. I can name something of any genre that has good graphics and is fucking awesome. A little bit of advice is any game that promotes its multiplayer as its main selling point tends to have piss poor gameplay in single player.

 

[Ertol]

I don't think graphics are over taking gameplay, I just think that it is getting hard to come out with a game with completly original gameplay. At this point a lot of plots are starting to repeat, I mean we have all seen the evil overlord or bad guy is trying to take over the world, now go stop him thing a dozen times. Sure games have great plot twists, but I bet you have seen that plot twist before. Being betrayed my someone you thought was your friend might catch you by surprise while playing the game, but you get betrayed by friends a lot in games. It's been a long time since I've played an FPS game with a really strong story, most FPS out tend to try and create a strong multiplayer then concentrate on the single player campaign.

I prefer gameplay to graphics, I love older games and play them all the time. But that dosen't mean I don't love new games like Fallout 3 or FF13 (yes I liked it). At this point I think graphics have started hiting it's peak. I don't see how games are going to really look any better then FF13 did. Another problem is that creating a game is so expensive, and you can't be sure the game will sell, a lot of developers try to stick to what they know will sell. Take SC2 for example, sure it's an amazing RTS game, but I don't think it took any leaps to try and drastically change how you play an RTS game. It's still the same Starcraft game from before, it's just got some tweaks that make it a more enjoyable game.

 

[weker]

well this thread title is obviously wrong because games like uncharted 2 and killzone..... oh wait

 

[Hyper-space]

Oh look, its this thread again.

Yes, everyone knows how much graphics have "taken" over gameplay (btw you are about 20 years too late) nowadays and how you stand out from 10% of gaming audiences. Give it a rest.

Whats interesting to me is that games like fallout 3 gets flak for having outdated graphics engine and yet people always seem to be disregarding graphics.

 

[Krantos]

*cough*Elemental: War of Magic*cough*


Really, though, if you don't like 4x strategy games you probably won't be interested in it. However, I like the fact that they're doing storybook style graphics with the benefit that the game (which releases Aug 24th) can be played "on a crappy netbook." That's what Brad Wardell, CEO of Stardock, claims at least, and while I feel that's probably an exaggeration, it is nice to see a developer (Stardock, go figure) that is willing to run the risk of using less than stellar graphics in order to allow more development time for other aspects of the game. As well as keeping it accessible to those of us who don't have super gaming rigs in our home.

Just another reason Stardock is my favorite dev.

 

[Continuity]

from my experience as i gamer i have came to find that with most games the devolpers put the graphics ahead of the gameplay.

You only just noticed this huh? its been a growing trend since the mid/late 90's when graphics accelerators (like the 3dfx voodoo) took off.

 

[Songbird-O]

Lots of gamers value gameplay over graphics and go all gung-ho about it. But don't forget that graphics are still important. You won't like looking at something ugly or hard to look at, and you won't notice something that doesn't make itself stick out from the rest. Gameplay should be prioritized, yes, but graphics are very important.

 

[Deacon Cole]

from my experience as i gamer i have came to find that with most games the devolpers put the graphics ahead of the gameplay. An example of this is killzone 2. When i first played it the graphics blew me away but i found that the gameplay didn't receieve the same feeling, i felt the campain was too short and not enought effort went into the enemy AI as it could of been

I am wondering to you think that companies are putting too much effort in making a game look good instead of focuses on the overall gameplay experience

Welcome to 1982, kiddo. This sort of thing has been happening for years, even back when there wasn't much gameplay nor graphics to speak of.

 

[Seydaman]

Graphics are the hardest and most time consuming part of a game to make so I suppose to an extent I agree with you.

Making better graphics means they have less time and money to make longer games and better modes and etc.

But I don't think companies put graphics completely over gameplay, they want their games to look good and appeal to the masses (read = idiots).

But their are still good looking games out there with decent gameplay... I'm just too tired to name any.

I think the new generation of gamers is more "Omfg needs betar graphics"
As evidence by my three of my friends
and my little brother
Who when I was playing kotor, all of them made the comment "Those graphics aren't that good"
And all have declared
that graphics make the game.
*Slamming face into desk repeatedly*

 

[Ironic Pirate]

I'm so anti-establishment and cool, I prefer gameplay over graphics.

Ahem, I was in a GameFAQs mood.

Anyway, because graphics are easier to showcase. A trailer can show me graphics, and make even a game like Dark Void look like it has awesome gameplay. To demonstrate gameplay, you need betas, which won't get as much exposure as ads anyway, and if the beta has too much content people may not buy the game, too little and they'll think the game is short.

So, companies started marketing graphics. Graphics also make people feel smart, "It has a techo-jargon 4 processor! And shit!" and etc. People started to associate graphics with AAA gaming, and gaming as a whole entered the mainstream. John Q public doesn't care about plot or story, John Q public cares about ads and how awesome they look. John Q prefers Michael Bay to Michael Mann.

Also, on the 2600, for example, graphics didn't mean shit. The games looked the same. Now, systems are alot more powerful. To quote myself, the more powerful a creation tool, the worse shit you can make with it, and the greater difference between top notch and shit.

Example, I have a character creator, the options are limited to eye color, blue or other blue. No matter what, the character model will look decent. Why? Because there's no room for you to fuck it up. If I can move people's foreheads around, and I have more sliding bars than something I have a lot of (I'm tired...) then there's a greater chance of me making a monster. The same goes for graphics, if I have a powerful engine, and code it by writing "boobies" in c++, then the graphics will god damn suck!

And now I lost track of what the hell I was talking about.

 

[Woodsey]

No, they're not.

I really can't think of anything else to say on the matter.

 

[maturin]

Played many old games recently? Most of them suck.

Here's something I'd sooner consider: skyrocketing development costs related to graphics and technology are taking over gaming.

 

[Buizel91]

Good graphics does not equal bad gameplay so I have to disagree. I can name something of any genre that has good graphics and is fucking awesome. A little bit of advice is any game that promotes its multiplayer as its main selling point tends to have piss poor gameplay in single player.

Im in love with you Avatar <3

OT: Yeh graphics are taking over games, having said that game play is becoming slowly better...

 

[Continuity]

Lots of gamers value gameplay over graphics and go all gung-ho about it. But don't forget that graphics are still important. You won't like looking at something ugly or hard to look at, and you won't notice something that doesn't make itself stick out from the rest. Gameplay should be prioritized, yes, but graphics are very important.

no no, I will notice a game that doesn't have good graphics just so long as it has good gameplay to commend it. Graphics are important yes, but their importance is minor relative to gameplay.