Graphics are taking over Gameplay

[Mista Stevo]

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

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

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.

 

[FinalDream]

Happened a long time ago, I knew people who's first console was a PS2 and they flat out refused to play the great PS1 games because of the 'poor' graphics.

 

[Applejack]

I don't agree I think games are much more playable now than they were in the NES and even PSX era.

 

[II2]

You're about a decade late with this argument.

 

[Archindar]

i really miss the great gameplay of older games...

 

[blankedboy]

Yeah. People question why I play "shitty pixel games" (psx games) on my 1680x1050 monitor.
I don't even know WHY people want graphics over gameplay. Gameplay is the actual GAME part, good graphics are just an addon if the company has some leftover money.

 

[Souplex]

This problem came aboot around last generation when good graphics became more expensive to develop than good gameplay.

 

[Jandau]

Well... yeah. It's not like this is anything new. Ever since 3D graphics came into their own (and by 3D I mean when we moved from 2D sprites to 3D models) graphics were pushed to the forefront. It was pretty much an arms race to attract customers with shiny things. The arms race has died down in the past few years, but visuals are still on the forefront.

It's sad, but it's true.

 

[Kagim]

If you don't mind taking a hit to graphics there are many, many independent game developers that would love you to give them a couple bucks in return for there games.

There's even more that give you there game for free in hopes you donate.

Here's http://www.kongregate.com/ which is full of free video games. They might not be AAA beyond the next zone graphics but a number of them are impressive as hell and fun to boot.

Check Out the company of myself http://www.kongregate.com/games/2DArray/the-company-of-myself for a really cool game as well a really sad story.

 

[megs1120]

You're about a decade late with this argument.

Agreed, the graphics rush is all but over at this point. Pretty much everything looks as good as everything else and we're locked into a very long console cycle and the limits of CPU speed on PCs, which has led to the emergence of multi-core processors. The tech is about as good as it'll get for a while, and the focus is finally returning to gameplay.

Aside from that, indie games have exploded onto the scene lately, and few of them have what you might call bleeding-edge graphics.

 

[Fisk777]

This seems to work backwards too. Obsidian haven't given much of a graphics upgrade to Fallout: New Vegas and now people are saying that it's just a $60 expansion and a ton of other crap. It's so goddamn ridiculous. But back to the point I think a middle ground between graphics and gameplay is the best way to go.

 

[Thaius]

Well for one, this has been an issue ever since 3D graphics existed, so you're a bit late to the party on this one.

But really... well, yeah. Once again I have to point out Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. Games with good graphics and no actual quality are like mindless action flicks: they look cool, but suck, because the focus is all wrong.

It's not something to get all bent out of shape about. It happens in an industry like this. As long as there are still good games being made on a regular basis (and there definitely are), this doesn't matter much.

 

[DanDeFool]

You're about a decade late with this argument.

Agreed, the graphics rush is all but over at this point. Pretty much everything looks as good as everything else and we're locked into a very long console cycle and the limits of CPU speed on PCs, which has led to the emergence of multi-core processors. The tech is about as good as it'll get for a while, and the focus is finally returning to gameplay.

Man, I remember them talking about this in gaming magazines back in the mid to late 90's. This is OLD NEWS, people!

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.

This too, but from the perspective of a late-90's gamer, the graphics of the games of this day and age are beyond anything we could have imagined, and yet the gameplay of a great many mainstream titles is still pretty damn good.

Personally, I think the 'slippery slope' of graphics devouring gameplay is probably not as slippery as they thought back in the day.

That and we have easy access to indie games with the opposite focus (i.e. Gameplay > Graphics) through Steam, PSN, and XBLA, so I would argue that gaming, as a whole, is actually moving back up the slope.

 

[Condiments]

Videogames have becomes such a massive investment due to their overwhelming presentation that developers are taking huge risks every time they make a game. Which is why we've seen a bit of stagnation this generation, because publishers try to minimize risk and go for what sells.

 

[LugubriousJest]

I believe so. When a game is being advertised the first thing I hear quite often about is the "Wonderful graphics." it has. Personally, sure nice looking games are cool and all but it isn't what we are there for. I still play old games from the 90's and what not.

On the other side, we now have these machines that can create amazingly beautiful scapes, so I can understand why they would put so much time into the graphics.

 

[Sebenko]

You're about a decade too late.

Maybe two.

focus on graphics has been ruining games for years.

 

[sketchesformysweet]

Most people have ALWAYS (or at least as far back as I remember) been regarding graphics the most important part of a video game. And while older games such as Chrono Trigger on the SNES may be considered great games even today, there have been a lot of improvements in gameplay, and gaming has developed a lot over the past twenty years, and there are a lot of great current games which are able to immerse you in the gameplay in a completely new way.

 

[Sion_Barzahd]

Gamplay over graphics anyday for me. Heck i keep going back to the weak-looking RPGs because their stories can happily last me a few months, whereas modern ones have enough to captivate me for a week tops.

A large issue is that the games graphics take up so much memory space, leaving little for anything else. That said i believe this is an excuse used so that developers can get away with handing in 2 pages for their 5000 word essay.