There's one point that seems to have been missed and that is that the people browsing this forum are 'Gamers' What I mean by this is that most (or even all) of the people browsing this board are people that play games, have played games and will play games in the future.
However, we are a relatively small portion of the population, where the money is for the game companies is the Average Joe on the street, and the easiest way to get Average Joe interested in a game is make it look pretty so he's interested and will buy it.
If you showed Average Joe some of the game listed with lower (or older) quality graphics, they wouldn't be interested and go watch TV or something instead.
Do I agree with the trend towards better graphics at the expense of the rest of the game? No, it does result in games that are less fun.
But graphics, more than anything else, are what sells a game to the Average Joe, and there are a lot more Average Joe's out there then there are Gamers.
And in the end, game companies are companies, they are trying to make money creating games.
Diazo
Edit: After all that rambling, what I'm trying to say is that as Gamers, we recognise that graphics are not the be all, end all of a game. While the Average Joe will look at the graphics, go "Wow!" and buy a game for that reason.
BreakthroughTexture Artist (ns_prometheus)Join Date: 2005-03-27Member: 46620Members, Constellation
I agree with <b>Diazo</b>. The fact of the matter is, games don't have to be graphically intensive to be fun. We just evolve, and play the newer games because everyone else slowly abandons the old ones. Then you have nobody to play with online. If these games were still fun, I'd still be playing Battlefield 1942, or even Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear. Classics are a totally different matter though (e.g. Super Mario), but the fact of the matter is this: Graphics sell.
I believe we are starting to get to the point where gameplay is getting as important as graphics. This can be seen in a couple games current and upcoming:
Guild Wars: Concentrating 80% on gameplay while still having great graphics and attention to detail. The world is so detailed that I found a beehive with bees on a tree.
TES IV:OB: Working to correct past gameplay mistakes with Daggerfall (too magic reliant) and Morrowind (too melee reliant/getting lost) while maintaining absolutely stunning graphics. I do have to admit that they graphics will sell this game, but the gameplay will keep it selling.
HL2: I know, I know. Not exactly the best in gameplay, however, what VALVe has done is awesome. They have basically given us, the gamers, the ability to create free games with kickass graphics and whatever gameplay we give it. When you bought HL2 you didn't buy a game; you bought an engine.
Thief 3: Decent graphics with fabulous gameplay.
Personally, I can't wait for what the next 1-2 years brings us. Unreal 3, TES4, GW, HL3 (I can wish...lol). We are getting to the point of Gaming heaven. The gods of the gaming realm will descend in a bravado of game soundtracks to lift us to the Lay-Z-Boy in the sky with the endless supply of pizza. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Keep in mind, you still will have your companies that are trying to make a quick buck making sub-standard games with over-the-top graphics. But alas, that is the kind of world we live in. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Traken+Apr 2 2005, 02:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Traken @ Apr 2 2005, 02:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I believe we are starting to get to the point where gameplay is getting as important as graphics. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's ALWAYS been this way.
no offence traken but I'd say your opinion on guild wars is subjective. You might think it has good gameplay and you're entitled to your own opinion but so am I and I think it's shallow, dull and lacking in proper interaction <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I will agree with HL2 though; darn good fun ^^
I think the good examples are more exceptions to the rule than the norm though :/
Old gameplay styles are still fun, even if 3D developers have abandoned them; GBA still sells ye olde platformers, shootemups and whatnot more than happily :3
Doesn't matter if there are only a few quality titles out there - as long as there are enough of them to cover my want for quality gaming. As long as I have enough good games, I don't care about the ten thousand mediocre to bad titles on the shelves at the game store.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Old gameplay styles are still fun, even if 3D developers have abandoned them<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> QFT. Case in point: The Jumper series.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I believe we are starting to get to the point where gameplay is getting as important as graphics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gameplay has always been <b>more important</b> then graphics. What you mean to say is that developers are starting to relized that gameplay is important.
Not to mention that as far as fighting games go, 2D for some reason remains VASTLY superior to 3D. The only 3D fighter I really liked was Psychic Force. Well guess what? It may have been 3D graphics, but you still only fought in two dimensions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Old gameplay styles are still fun, even if 3D developers have abandoned them<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is quite true. I'd rather dig out my old SNES and play Mario than play Doom 3. (Actually, I sold my SNES, but that is beside the point). Some games, Splinter Cell being my example, benefit from good graphics, while still having great gameplay. I personally wouldn't like Splinter cell as much if it were text-based, or even a sidescroller. I guess I'm pretty shallow in liking it better for graphics, but I think that some games <b>can</b> benefit from the latest graphics. This is not an argument to say that all games benefit from good graphics. I like NS better than many newer games, but there's not bump mapping, million polygon models, or any other flashy graphics, but it's still <b>fun</b>. I see no reason why NS:S (or any other game) could be any worse than the original, but I see no reason why it could be better either.
Hmm, you could always borrow my one Condizzle. If you decide to make a trip to Caister one day. I'm sure I can dig it out of the loft <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
lol psychic force... I'll have to dig that out again sometime if I can get my DC to ever work again. I'd totally kick your rear with wendy :p
The point is condizzle, having super fancy graphics is nice and nobody is really saying "omg I want all my games to look poop". The point of the thread (at least to me) rather, is that publishers have been putting graphics OVER gameplay often leading to really nice looking but tragically shallow games :/
I also threw in the fact that in their haste of going "oooh! 3D! shiny!!!" they've left the good old gaming of 2D behind instead of trying to bring it with them which is a damn shame because many of them are still vastly enjoyable to this day. I don't see any reason why they couldn't make nice 2D gameplay games with 3D graphics... there ARE some out there but they're few and far between :o
<!--QuoteBegin-Geminosity+Apr 3 2005, 08:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Apr 3 2005, 08:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> lol psychic force... I'll have to dig that out again sometime if I can get my DC to ever work again. I'd totally kick your rear with wendy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Meh, Wendy was the favourite for one move, which had a hit radius of about half the cube! <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The point is condizzle, having super fancy graphics is nice and nobody is really saying "omg I want all my games to look poop". The point of the thread (at least to me) rather, is that publishers have been putting graphics OVER gameplay often leading to really nice looking but tragically shallow games :/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Or, you might even come across the pile of complete tat that is "Playboy: The Mansion" (Don't give me that look. I have to play as many games as possible in my job)
Like "The Sims", but worse graphics. And even worse gameplay. Clunky interface, "cute" bubbles, and incredibly shallow theme play.
<!--QuoteBegin-Geminosity+Apr 3 2005, 10:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Apr 3 2005, 10:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->lol psychic force... I'll have to dig that out again sometime if I can get my DC to ever work again. I'd totally kick your rear with wendy <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> [...]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd kick yours with Wong. How can you hit me when I reappear BEHIND you? Or when you are frozen in midair, unable to do anything at all? Time! Proceed! March! March for me, Edward Wong!
Besides, despite the DC being the better system overall, the PS version was better. I've played both, so mine is an educated opinion. Besides the PS version having more gameplay modes, you also had four freely configurable shoulder buttons. I don't quite remember what was wrong with it, but the DC controls just didn't work quite as well as the PS controls. On the other hand, the DC version was graphically superior, no contest there. Oh, I'm talking Psychic Force 2/Psychic Force 2012 by the way. I only played the original Psychic Force at a friend's, and never on the DC.
And when did you start saying lol all the time? Please stop. I am reminded of AOL. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I got this example with the DS and PSP. I am buying neither of them. Why? Because why the heck would I want 3D graphics on a handheld? Gameboy have had me for years, with just that charming 2D and mode 7 effect. I can't really belive that my game experience would heighten in 3D and on a reaaally small screen. If they can't make a good game in 2D, (<i>The</i> graphic mode that is father of all games) then they probably can't make good games at all on a handheld.
I've never been interested in graphics. What I'm interested is expanding the world i can play in. Games have done this... making vast worlds. Where they have gone wrong is not filling this vast world with interesting and varied expiriences for the player, and often the world would feel empty.
Hopefully after the graphics craze reaches it's peak... game developers will look more into expanding the "gaming world" so to speak.
Everyone seems to have gone down the "gameplay over graphics" route, but i have to disagree to quite an extent.
As far as gameplay goes, i love a game that is challenging, has a good plot, has good charactors and is fun to play. As far as graphics go, i love a game that is immersive, good looking and has graphics that allow you to bond with the charactors or even better, feel and understand their emotions.
Here is where i get to my point. Almost every awe inspiring moment in a game has been due to a games graphics, not to a games gameplay. Half-Life 2 had great gameplay, but to me the best moments were the first time stepping off the train and following the swirling newspapers on the floor. Watching Alyx move and communicate with other charactors in brilliant fluid motion. Seeing water for the first time in the canal, complete with floating debris and an upturned wooden boat. I never once thought "Great, this AI is amazing!" or "Amazing, the gravity gun was a great idea". My thoughts were always about the stunning graphics.
On to another example, Doom3. The game was pretty shallow and repetitive, but i loved every minute of it. The graphics were so amazing that i could not care less about the (sometimes major) gameplay flaws. The first time i saw a Pinky, i did not care about how easy he was to kill, or how boring it would be to play this part of the game again. I was absolutely hooked by the amazing attention to detail - all thanks to the great graphics in the game.
I always enjoyed the 2D games (I still consider Super Mario World to be one of the best games ever), but i much prefer games in 3D. I would much rather have an average game in superb, immersive graphics than an amazing game in crap 2D. Gameplay may be vital to a games fun factor, but once you hit a relatively low point, graphics are more important. Call me shallow, but i would much rather have an hour of awe-struck fun playing doom3 than an hour of monotone gametime on deus ex.
A game that has average gameplay can easily become great by having amazing graphics. A game that has amazing gameplay can very rarely become great if it has poor graphics.
<!--QuoteBegin-TheMuffinMan+Apr 4 2005, 02:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TheMuffinMan @ Apr 4 2005, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Everyone seems to have gone down the "gameplay over graphics" route, but i have to disagree to quite an extent.
As far as gameplay goes, i love a game that is challenging, has a good plot, has good charactors and is fun to play. As far as graphics go, i love a game that is immersive, good looking and has graphics that allow you to bond with the charactors or even better, feel and understand their emotions.
Here is where i get to my point. Almost every awe inspiring moment in a game has been due to a games graphics, not to a games gameplay. Half-Life 2 had great gameplay, but to me the best moments were the first time stepping off the train and following the swirling newspapers on the floor. Watching Alyx move and communicate with other charactors in brilliant fluid motion. Seeing water for the first time in the canal, complete with floating debris and an upturned wooden boat. I never once thought "Great, this AI is amazing!" or "Amazing, the gravity gun was a great idea". My thoughts were always about the stunning graphics.
On to another example, Doom3. The game was pretty shallow and repetitive, but i loved every minute of it. The graphics were so amazing that i could not care less about the (sometimes major) gameplay flaws. The first time i saw a Pinky, i did not care about how easy he was to kill, or how boring it would be to play this part of the game again. I was absolutely hooked by the amazing attention to detail - all thanks to the great graphics in the game.
I always enjoyed the 2D games (I still consider Super Mario World to be one of the best games ever), but i much prefer games in 3D. I would much rather have an average game in superb, immersive graphics than an amazing game in crap 2D. Gameplay may be vital to a games fun factor, but once you hit a relatively low point, graphics are more important. Call me shallow, but i would much rather have an hour of awe-struck fun playing doom3 than an hour of monotone gametime on deus ex.
A game that has average gameplay can easily become great by having amazing graphics. A game that has amazing gameplay can very rarely become great if it has poor graphics. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> God it's so... so true...
If only I could sig it all. ------------
THIS is why I want a game visor that puts the screen up to my face and gives me a complete field of vision. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-TheMuffinMan+Apr 4 2005, 02:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TheMuffinMan @ Apr 4 2005, 02:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Everyone seems to have gone down the "gameplay over graphics" route, but i have to disagree to quite an extent.
As far as gameplay goes, i love a game that is challenging, has a good plot, has good charactors and is fun to play. As far as graphics go, i love a game that is immersive, good looking and has graphics that allow you to bond with the charactors or even better, feel and understand their emotions.
Here is where i get to my point. Almost every awe inspiring moment in a game has been due to a games graphics, not to a games gameplay. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't think of any awe inspiring moments I've ever had that were due to a game's graphics. Physics engine maybe, but not the graphics themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Half-Life 2 had great gameplay, but to me the best moments were the first time stepping off the train and following the swirling newspapers on the floor. Watching Alyx move and communicate with other charactors in brilliant fluid motion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I haven't played HL2 (because I can't afford a system that will run it), but it seems to me that the gameplay must be extremely shallow if your fondest memories were of papers swirling on the floor. Great games are remembered for their gameplay long after their graphics have become lackluster.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seeing water for the first time in the canal, complete with floating debris and an upturned wooden boat. I never once thought "Great, this AI is amazing!" or "Amazing, the gravity gun was a great idea". My thoughts were always about the stunning graphics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> See above. Either Valve didn't do a very good job with the gameplay, or you're just one of those people who prefer eyecandy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On to another example, Doom3. The game was pretty shallow and repetitive, but i loved every minute of it. The graphics were so amazing that i could not care less about the (sometimes major) gameplay flaws.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I see. The latter then.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The first time i saw a Pinky, i did not care about how easy he was to kill, or how boring it would be to play this part of the game again. I was absolutely hooked by the amazing attention to detail - all thanks to the great graphics in the game.
I always enjoyed the 2D games (I still consider Super Mario World to be one of the best games ever), but i much prefer games in 3D. I would much rather have an average game in superb, immersive graphics than an amazing game in crap 2D.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In many cases 2D can actually be <i>more</i> immersive then 3D would be. 2D and 3D are abstractions of a game world, nothing more. Some game worlds are better abstracted by 2D graphics. (actually, all graphics are 2D, but we understand the difference in terminology so I won't press the issue).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Gameplay may be vital to a games fun factor, but once you hit a relatively low point, graphics are more important. Call me shallow, but i would much rather have an hour of awe-struck fun playing doom3 than an hour of monotone gametime on deus ex.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You're shallow. No two ways about it. I didn't care for Deus Ex, but it is still a far superior game to Doom 3. Combining this with what you've said earlier, I have decided that you are not, by my definition, a gamer. Gamers enjoy games as games, not a as a collection of pretty pictures.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A game that has average gameplay can easily become great by having amazing graphics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No it can't. Well, maybe it can, but only to an eyecandy obsessive like yourself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A game that has amazing gameplay can very rarely become great if it has poor graphics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not true at all! Look at the Jumper series for crying out loud. They're some of the greatest games I've ever had the joy of playing, and they use (fairly poor) 2D graphics! But YMM (creater of Jumper) is a friggin' genious, 2D is the perfect abstraction for the game he created and the unimpressive artwork doesn't detract from the experience at all. You want to know what a true awe inspiring moment is? When you first beat 3-4 in Jumper 1 and not 2 stages later the tip for the level is: "Things get pretty insane from here on". This is probably the only game I've ever played that had the ability to make people cry, and still keep playing it. Thats the mark of a great game. Not pretty pictures, but gameplay that makes you part of the game, that draws you in and challenges you and makes you want to keep playing it, even though your fingers hurt and rage is building inside you to the point that you might put your fist through the monitor, even though it makes you cry when it tells you that your greatest accomplishment thus far isn't even one of the hard stages, and when its all over you want to keep playing! The game can beat you to a bloody pulp and leave you begging "please sir, may I have another?".
Not that all games have to be as brutal as Jumper. The point is that a great game will draw you back even when its graphics have long since been surpassed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I haven't played HL2 (because I can't afford a system that will run it), but it seems to me that the gameplay must be extremely shallow if your fondest memories were of papers swirling on the floor. Great games are remembered for their gameplay long after their graphics have become lackluster. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not at all, the gameplay in hl2 was pretty damned good. I just never really <i>got</i> anything out of it, while the paper swirling scene (along with the first scene in the lab) really left me in awe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> many cases 2D can actually be more immersive then 3D would be. 2D and 3D are abstractions of a game world, nothing more. Some game worlds are better abstracted by 2D graphics. (actually, all graphics are 2D, but we understand the difference in terminology so I won't press the issue).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed it can. I, for instance, loved Super Mario World but hated Mario 64 with a passion. Some games are more suited to 3D graphics and some games are more suited to 2D graphics, i just think that a 3D game has the potential to look absolutely amazing (take doom3 or hl2 for example) while a 2D game has the potential to look <i>nice</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're shallow. No two ways about it. I didn't care for Deus Ex, but it is still a far superior game to Doom 3. Combining this with what you've said earlier, I have decided that you are not, by my definition, a gamer. Gamers enjoy games as games, not a as a collection of pretty pictures.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, there is no doubt in my mind that Deus Ex is the better game out of the two. Given the choice, however, i would much rather play Doom3 because it looks so much better. I can generally only play games for an hour at a time or so, and i would much rather spend an hour immersed in the doom3 world than an hour trying to immerse myself in the Deus Ex world but failing whenever i catch a glimpse of a square head or a flat face. To me, a gamer is someone who plays and enjoys playing games, nothing more, nothing less. A game is nothing more than a collection of pretty pictures, and i would much rather look at the prettier pictures in general.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not true at all! Look at the Jumper series for crying out loud. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have, in detail. Any advise on how to get past 7-3 on jumper2? It is bloody impossible to make that jump onto the '1 use red squares' without hitting the spikes <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
while some of the graphics of HL2 were amazing I don't actually remember any of them except the slowed down explosion ^^;
All my memories of HL2 are much like my memories of any other good game; elements of story and elements of character. Stuff like the chatter between all the cast, the moments with D.O.G. (he rocks XD ), running about fighting zombies and being somewhat scared, etc.
Like I said, nobody would really complain if a great game has great graphics, it's the fact that much of the industry has just decided that 3D graphics with as many flashy techno-catchphrases and technologies thrown at it is what they need to do to make 'games' rather than.... y'know... include gameplay :p
Sometimes 2D is better than 3D really but it entirely depends on the heart and atmosphere of the game. Ragnarok Online used 2D sprites on a 3D background for quite possibly one of my favourite looks I've seen in MMORPGs and a really colourful world filled with character :D
The style of the graphics and whatnot should be defined by the game and be 2nd to the powerful core components of gameplay, story and character rather than the driving factor.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A game is nothing more than a collection of pretty pictures, and i would much rather look at the prettier pictures in general.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This right here shows exaclty why I don't consider you to be a gamer. You don't enjoy the games, you enjoy pretty pictures. You can't even proporly define what a game is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have, in detail. Any advise on how to get past 7-3 on jumper2? It is bloody impossible to make that jump onto the '1 use red squares' without hitting the spikes<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Its hard, but it is possible, you just have to time it right with the wind.
Edit: Expanding on this, after I replayed it: walljump from 1 through the spikes and double jump and land on 2 (this gets you back your double jump). the wind will start soon so jump almost immediately (single jump!) towards 3. The wind should be pushing you towards 3 so keep wall jumping off it to climb. Before the spikes wall jump and then double jump around the spikes. By the time you reach 4 the wind will have just about stopped. Wall jump between the red bricks and the wall, try to manuever so that you walljump off the very top part of the highest brick to ensure that you have enough hight to make it to the platform. Good luck.
Good graphics stick in your mind and form your first impression of a game. Good gameplay is what keeps you playing the game in the first place.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh, there is no doubt in my mind that Deus Ex is the better game out of the two. Given the choice, however, i would much rather play Doom3 because it looks so much better. I can generally only play games for an hour at a time or so, and i would much rather spend an hour immersed in the doom3 world than an hour trying to immerse myself in the Deus Ex world but failing whenever i catch a glimpse of a square head or a flat face. To me, a gamer is someone who plays and enjoys playing games, nothing more, nothing less. A game is nothing more than a collection of pretty pictures, and i would much rather look at the prettier pictures in general. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why do you play NS, then? Why do you even play games? Watch a movie.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I haven't played HL2 (because I can't afford a system that will run it), but it seems to me that the gameplay must be extremely shallow if your fondest memories were of papers swirling on the floor. Great games are remembered for their gameplay long after their graphics have become lackluster.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reason Half Life 2 is the best game I've ever played is simple:
1.) Amazing gameplay ideas.
3.) Stunning graphics and physics system.
I don't believe Half Life 2 could have rocked so many worlds without Source.
The physics, and... wait... Well, that's about it. The AI was nothing special, and to me the AI and level design are pretty much what make or break a first-person shooter. It doesn't matter how pretty it is, if you have retarded enemies that just stand there and occasionally strafe. Ooh! You can take cover and throw grenades! That's sooo 1998.
If an FPS came out that had the best FPS AI ever developed and quality level design and the graphics of Half-Life 1 it'd pretty much own HL2/Doom 3/Far Cry in everything except the "pretty screenshots on box" category.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Good graphics stick in your mind and form your first impression of a game. Good gameplay is what keeps you playing the game in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the contrary. What kept me playing doom3 (and to a limited degree, hl2) was the consistently stunning graphics. The gameplay got quite boring in both games towards the end, but it hardly made a difference to me because I was having so much fun observing my surroundings.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why do you play NS, then? Why do you even play games? Watch a movie.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I play games for fun. I enjoy playing games immensely, actually. I do often watch movies, but I can play a game for an hour a day and stretch it out for two or three weeks (sometimes even more). A movie lasts two hours tops, and is hard to re-watch any time soon. I'm sorry if I have offended you, but I simply enjoy a good game for its graphics more so than its gameplay. If we both enjoy the game, does it matter that I prefer the graphics over the gameplay?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If an FPS came out that had the best FPS AI ever developed and quality level design and the graphics of Half-Life 1 it'd pretty much own HL2/Doom 3/Far Cry in everything except the "pretty screenshots on box" category. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would definitely enjoy playing a game like that, but I would probably prefer doom3/hl2 (I did not really enjoy the type of scenes in farcry), at least the first time around. It is the "pretty screenshots on box" that turn a game from <i>alright</i> to loads of fun for me, so I would rather play an average game on the source engine than a brilliant game on the half-life engine.
well... I can enjoy good graphics but if the game is bad then I usually dump it as it's the games I buy them for (though if the artwork is really that good I might see if I can get the artbook or whatever :3 ).
After some thought, while I don't agree with an average game with super-amazing graphics being better than a fabby game with 'average' graphics for enjoyment it's really just a personal choice. Putting you down for your tastes isn't exactly the best thing to do as the actual reason anyone plays games is for the simple reason of enjoyment. I enjoy a game with a bit of depth and/or character, I like something with 'soul' but it doesn't excuse me being snobbish about anyone who takes pleasure in something I consider 'shallow'; the point is we're both having fun <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The problem is the industry is catering to the graphics side of things which leaves us 'gameplay' nutters a tad high and dry on the supply and demand scale :s
Comments
There's one point that seems to have been missed and that is that the people browsing this forum are 'Gamers'
What I mean by this is that most (or even all) of the people browsing this board are people that play games, have played games and will play games in the future.
However, we are a relatively small portion of the population, where the money is for the game companies is the Average Joe on the street, and the easiest way to get Average Joe interested in a game is make it look pretty so he's interested and will buy it.
If you showed Average Joe some of the game listed with lower (or older) quality graphics, they wouldn't be interested and go watch TV or something instead.
Do I agree with the trend towards better graphics at the expense of the rest of the game? No, it does result in games that are less fun.
But graphics, more than anything else, are what sells a game to the Average Joe, and there are a lot more Average Joe's out there then there are Gamers.
And in the end, game companies are companies, they are trying to make money creating games.
Diazo
Edit: After all that rambling, what I'm trying to say is that as Gamers, we recognise that graphics are not the be all, end all of a game. While the Average Joe will look at the graphics, go "Wow!" and buy a game for that reason.
Graphics sell.
Guild Wars: Concentrating 80% on gameplay while still having great graphics and attention to detail. The world is so detailed that I found a beehive with bees on a tree.
TES IV:OB: Working to correct past gameplay mistakes with Daggerfall (too magic reliant) and Morrowind (too melee reliant/getting lost) while maintaining absolutely stunning graphics. I do have to admit that they graphics will sell this game, but the gameplay will keep it selling.
HL2: I know, I know. Not exactly the best in gameplay, however, what VALVe has done is awesome. They have basically given us, the gamers, the ability to create free games with kickass graphics and whatever gameplay we give it. When you bought HL2 you didn't buy a game; you bought an engine.
Thief 3: Decent graphics with fabulous gameplay.
Personally, I can't wait for what the next 1-2 years brings us. Unreal 3, TES4, GW, HL3 (I can wish...lol). We are getting to the point of Gaming heaven. The gods of the gaming realm will descend in a bravado of game soundtracks to lift us to the Lay-Z-Boy in the sky with the endless supply of pizza. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Keep in mind, you still will have your companies that are trying to make a quick buck making sub-standard games with over-the-top graphics. But alas, that is the kind of world we live in. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
It's ALWAYS been this way.
I will agree with HL2 though; darn good fun ^^
I think the good examples are more exceptions to the rule than the norm though :/
Old gameplay styles are still fun, even if 3D developers have abandoned them; GBA still sells ye olde platformers, shootemups and whatnot more than happily :3
Old gameplay styles are still fun, even if 3D developers have abandoned them<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
QFT. Case in point: The Jumper series.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I believe we are starting to get to the point where gameplay is getting as important as graphics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gameplay has always been <b>more important</b> then graphics. What you mean to say is that developers are starting to relized that gameplay is important.
This is quite true. I'd rather dig out my old SNES and play Mario than play Doom 3. (Actually, I sold my SNES, but that is beside the point). Some games, Splinter Cell being my example, benefit from good graphics, while still having great gameplay. I personally wouldn't like Splinter cell as much if it were text-based, or even a sidescroller. I guess I'm pretty shallow in liking it better for graphics, but I think that some games <b>can</b> benefit from the latest graphics. This is not an argument to say that all games benefit from good graphics. I like NS better than many newer games, but there's not bump mapping, million polygon models, or any other flashy graphics, but it's still <b>fun</b>. I see no reason why NS:S (or any other game) could be any worse than the original, but I see no reason why it could be better either.
The point is condizzle, having super fancy graphics is nice and nobody is really saying "omg I want all my games to look poop". The point of the thread (at least to me) rather, is that publishers have been putting graphics OVER gameplay often leading to really nice looking but tragically shallow games :/
I also threw in the fact that in their haste of going "oooh! 3D! shiny!!!" they've left the good old gaming of 2D behind instead of trying to bring it with them which is a damn shame because many of them are still vastly enjoyable to this day.
I don't see any reason why they couldn't make nice 2D gameplay games with 3D graphics... there ARE some out there but they're few and far between :o
Meh, Wendy was the favourite for one move, which had a hit radius of about half the cube!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The point is condizzle, having super fancy graphics is nice and nobody is really saying "omg I want all my games to look poop". The point of the thread (at least to me) rather, is that publishers have been putting graphics OVER gameplay often leading to really nice looking but tragically shallow games :/<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Or, you might even come across the pile of complete tat that is "Playboy: The Mansion" (Don't give me that look. I have to play as many games as possible in my job)
Like "The Sims", but worse graphics. And even worse gameplay. Clunky interface, "cute" bubbles, and incredibly shallow theme play.
I'd kick yours with Wong. How can you hit me when I reappear BEHIND you? Or when you are frozen in midair, unable to do anything at all?
Time! Proceed! March! March for me, Edward Wong!
Besides, despite the DC being the better system overall, the PS version was better. I've played both, so mine is an educated opinion. Besides the PS version having more gameplay modes, you also had four freely configurable shoulder buttons. I don't quite remember what was wrong with it, but the DC controls just didn't work quite as well as the PS controls. On the other hand, the DC version was graphically superior, no contest there.
Oh, I'm talking Psychic Force 2/Psychic Force 2012 by the way. I only played the original Psychic Force at a friend's, and never on the DC.
And when did you start saying lol all the time? Please stop. I am reminded of AOL. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Relative powers of consoles mean nothing. The Dreamcast was a better piece of kit than the PS and it tanked. Software > all.
Hence if people make good 2D games, the players will come. It's selling a decent 2D idea to a company that's the challenge.
Because why the heck would I want 3D graphics on a handheld? Gameboy have had me for years, with just that charming 2D and mode 7 effect. I can't really belive that my game experience would heighten in 3D and on a reaaally small screen. If they can't make a good game in 2D, (<i>The</i> graphic mode that is father of all games) then they probably can't make good games at all on a handheld.
Hopefully after the graphics craze reaches it's peak... game developers will look more into expanding the "gaming world" so to speak.
As far as gameplay goes, i love a game that is challenging, has a good plot, has good charactors and is fun to play. As far as graphics go, i love a game that is immersive, good looking and has graphics that allow you to bond with the charactors or even better, feel and understand their emotions.
Here is where i get to my point. Almost every awe inspiring moment in a game has been due to a games graphics, not to a games gameplay. Half-Life 2 had great gameplay, but to me the best moments were the first time stepping off the train and following the swirling newspapers on the floor. Watching Alyx move and communicate with other charactors in brilliant fluid motion. Seeing water for the first time in the canal, complete with floating debris and an upturned wooden boat. I never once thought "Great, this AI is amazing!" or "Amazing, the gravity gun was a great idea". My thoughts were always about the stunning graphics.
On to another example, Doom3. The game was pretty shallow and repetitive, but i loved every minute of it. The graphics were so amazing that i could not care less about the (sometimes major) gameplay flaws. The first time i saw a Pinky, i did not care about how easy he was to kill, or how boring it would be to play this part of the game again. I was absolutely hooked by the amazing attention to detail - all thanks to the great graphics in the game.
I always enjoyed the 2D games (I still consider Super Mario World to be one of the best games ever), but i much prefer games in 3D. I would much rather have an average game in superb, immersive graphics than an amazing game in crap 2D. Gameplay may be vital to a games fun factor, but once you hit a relatively low point, graphics are more important. Call me shallow, but i would much rather have an hour of awe-struck fun playing doom3 than an hour of monotone gametime on deus ex.
A game that has average gameplay can easily become great by having amazing graphics. A game that has amazing gameplay can very rarely become great if it has poor graphics.
As far as gameplay goes, i love a game that is challenging, has a good plot, has good charactors and is fun to play. As far as graphics go, i love a game that is immersive, good looking and has graphics that allow you to bond with the charactors or even better, feel and understand their emotions.
Here is where i get to my point. Almost every awe inspiring moment in a game has been due to a games graphics, not to a games gameplay. Half-Life 2 had great gameplay, but to me the best moments were the first time stepping off the train and following the swirling newspapers on the floor. Watching Alyx move and communicate with other charactors in brilliant fluid motion. Seeing water for the first time in the canal, complete with floating debris and an upturned wooden boat. I never once thought "Great, this AI is amazing!" or "Amazing, the gravity gun was a great idea". My thoughts were always about the stunning graphics.
On to another example, Doom3. The game was pretty shallow and repetitive, but i loved every minute of it. The graphics were so amazing that i could not care less about the (sometimes major) gameplay flaws. The first time i saw a Pinky, i did not care about how easy he was to kill, or how boring it would be to play this part of the game again. I was absolutely hooked by the amazing attention to detail - all thanks to the great graphics in the game.
I always enjoyed the 2D games (I still consider Super Mario World to be one of the best games ever), but i much prefer games in 3D. I would much rather have an average game in superb, immersive graphics than an amazing game in crap 2D. Gameplay may be vital to a games fun factor, but once you hit a relatively low point, graphics are more important. Call me shallow, but i would much rather have an hour of awe-struck fun playing doom3 than an hour of monotone gametime on deus ex.
A game that has average gameplay can easily become great by having amazing graphics. A game that has amazing gameplay can very rarely become great if it has poor graphics. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
God it's so... so true...
If only I could sig it all.
------------
THIS is why I want a game visor that puts the screen up to my face and gives me a complete field of vision. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
As far as gameplay goes, i love a game that is challenging, has a good plot, has good charactors and is fun to play. As far as graphics go, i love a game that is immersive, good looking and has graphics that allow you to bond with the charactors or even better, feel and understand their emotions.
Here is where i get to my point. Almost every awe inspiring moment in a game has been due to a games graphics, not to a games gameplay. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't think of any awe inspiring moments I've ever had that were due to a game's graphics. Physics engine maybe, but not the graphics themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Half-Life 2 had great gameplay, but to me the best moments were the first time stepping off the train and following the swirling newspapers on the floor. Watching Alyx move and communicate with other charactors in brilliant fluid motion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I haven't played HL2 (because I can't afford a system that will run it), but it seems to me that the gameplay must be extremely shallow if your fondest memories were of papers swirling on the floor. Great games are remembered for their gameplay long after their graphics have become lackluster.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Seeing water for the first time in the canal, complete with floating debris and an upturned wooden boat. I never once thought "Great, this AI is amazing!" or "Amazing, the gravity gun was a great idea". My thoughts were always about the stunning graphics. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See above. Either Valve didn't do a very good job with the gameplay, or you're just one of those people who prefer eyecandy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On to another example, Doom3. The game was pretty shallow and repetitive, but i loved every minute of it. The graphics were so amazing that i could not care less about the (sometimes major) gameplay flaws.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I see. The latter then.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The first time i saw a Pinky, i did not care about how easy he was to kill, or how boring it would be to play this part of the game again. I was absolutely hooked by the amazing attention to detail - all thanks to the great graphics in the game.
I always enjoyed the 2D games (I still consider Super Mario World to be one of the best games ever), but i much prefer games in 3D. I would much rather have an average game in superb, immersive graphics than an amazing game in crap 2D.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In many cases 2D can actually be <i>more</i> immersive then 3D would be. 2D and 3D are abstractions of a game world, nothing more. Some game worlds are better abstracted by 2D graphics. (actually, all graphics are 2D, but we understand the difference in terminology so I won't press the issue).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Gameplay may be vital to a games fun factor, but once you hit a relatively low point, graphics are more important. Call me shallow, but i would much rather have an hour of awe-struck fun playing doom3 than an hour of monotone gametime on deus ex.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're shallow. No two ways about it. I didn't care for Deus Ex, but it is still a far superior game to Doom 3. Combining this with what you've said earlier, I have decided that you are not, by my definition, a gamer. Gamers enjoy games as games, not a as a collection of pretty pictures.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A game that has average gameplay can easily become great by having amazing graphics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it can't. Well, maybe it can, but only to an eyecandy obsessive like yourself.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A game that has amazing gameplay can very rarely become great if it has poor graphics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not true at all! Look at the Jumper series for crying out loud. They're some of the greatest games I've ever had the joy of playing, and they use (fairly poor) 2D graphics! But YMM (creater of Jumper) is a friggin' genious, 2D is the perfect abstraction for the game he created and the unimpressive artwork doesn't detract from the experience at all. You want to know what a true awe inspiring moment is? When you first beat 3-4 in Jumper 1 and not 2 stages later the tip for the level is: "Things get pretty insane from here on". This is probably the only game I've ever played that had the ability to make people cry, and still keep playing it. Thats the mark of a great game. Not pretty pictures, but gameplay that makes you part of the game, that draws you in and challenges you and makes you want to keep playing it, even though your fingers hurt and rage is building inside you to the point that you might put your fist through the monitor, even though it makes you cry when it tells you that your greatest accomplishment thus far isn't even one of the hard stages, and when its all over you want to keep playing! The game can beat you to a bloody pulp and leave you begging "please sir, may I have another?".
Not that all games have to be as brutal as Jumper. The point is that a great game will draw you back even when its graphics have long since been surpassed.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not at all, the gameplay in hl2 was pretty damned good. I just never really <i>got</i> anything out of it, while the paper swirling scene (along with the first scene in the lab) really left me in awe.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> many cases 2D can actually be more immersive then 3D would be. 2D and 3D are abstractions of a game world, nothing more. Some game worlds are better abstracted by 2D graphics. (actually, all graphics are 2D, but we understand the difference in terminology so I won't press the issue).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed it can. I, for instance, loved Super Mario World but hated Mario 64 with a passion. Some games are more suited to 3D graphics and some games are more suited to 2D graphics, i just think that a 3D game has the potential to look absolutely amazing (take doom3 or hl2 for example) while a 2D game has the potential to look <i>nice</i>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You're shallow. No two ways about it. I didn't care for Deus Ex, but it is still a far superior game to Doom 3. Combining this with what you've said earlier, I have decided that you are not, by my definition, a gamer. Gamers enjoy games as games, not a as a collection of pretty pictures.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, there is no doubt in my mind that Deus Ex is the better game out of the two. Given the choice, however, i would much rather play Doom3 because it looks so much better. I can generally only play games for an hour at a time or so, and i would much rather spend an hour immersed in the doom3 world than an hour trying to immerse myself in the Deus Ex world but failing whenever i catch a glimpse of a square head or a flat face. To me, a gamer is someone who plays and enjoys playing games, nothing more, nothing less. A game is nothing more than a collection of pretty pictures, and i would much rather look at the prettier pictures in general.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not true at all! Look at the Jumper series for crying out loud. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have, in detail. Any advise on how to get past 7-3 on jumper2? It is bloody impossible to make that jump onto the '1 use red squares' without hitting the spikes <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
All my memories of HL2 are much like my memories of any other good game; elements of story and elements of character.
Stuff like the chatter between all the cast, the moments with D.O.G. (he rocks XD ), running about fighting zombies and being somewhat scared, etc.
Like I said, nobody would really complain if a great game has great graphics, it's the fact that much of the industry has just decided that 3D graphics with as many flashy techno-catchphrases and technologies thrown at it is what they need to do to make 'games' rather than.... y'know... include gameplay :p
Sometimes 2D is better than 3D really but it entirely depends on the heart and atmosphere of the game. Ragnarok Online used 2D sprites on a 3D background for quite possibly one of my favourite looks I've seen in MMORPGs and a really colourful world filled with character :D
The style of the graphics and whatnot should be defined by the game and be 2nd to the powerful core components of gameplay, story and character rather than the driving factor.
This right here shows exaclty why I don't consider you to be a gamer. You don't enjoy the games, you enjoy pretty pictures. You can't even proporly define what a game is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have, in detail. Any advise on how to get past 7-3 on jumper2? It is bloody impossible to make that jump onto the '1 use red squares' without hitting the spikes<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its hard, but it is possible, you just have to time it right with the wind.
Edit: Expanding on this, after I replayed it:
walljump from 1 through the spikes and double jump and land on 2 (this gets you back your double jump). the wind will start soon so jump almost immediately (single jump!) towards 3. The wind should be pushing you towards 3 so keep wall jumping off it to climb. Before the spikes wall jump and then double jump around the spikes. By the time you reach 4 the wind will have just about stopped. Wall jump between the red bricks and the wall, try to manuever so that you walljump off the very top part of the highest brick to ensure that you have enough hight to make it to the platform. Good luck.
Good gameplay is what keeps you playing the game in the first place.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Oh, there is no doubt in my mind that Deus Ex is the better game out of the two. Given the choice, however, i would much rather play Doom3 because it looks so much better. I can generally only play games for an hour at a time or so, and i would much rather spend an hour immersed in the doom3 world than an hour trying to immerse myself in the Deus Ex world but failing whenever i catch a glimpse of a square head or a flat face. To me, a gamer is someone who plays and enjoys playing games, nothing more, nothing less. A game is nothing more than a collection of pretty pictures, and i would much rather look at the prettier pictures in general.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do you play NS, then? Why do you even play games? Watch a movie.
I haven't played HL2 (because I can't afford a system that will run it), but it seems to me that the gameplay must be extremely shallow if your fondest memories were of papers swirling on the floor. Great games are remembered for their gameplay long after their graphics have become lackluster.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reason Half Life 2 is the best game I've ever played is simple:
1.) Amazing gameplay ideas.
3.) Stunning graphics and physics system.
I don't believe Half Life 2 could have rocked so many worlds without Source.
The physics, and... wait... Well, that's about it. The AI was nothing special, and to me the AI and level design are pretty much what make or break a first-person shooter. It doesn't matter how pretty it is, if you have retarded enemies that just stand there and occasionally strafe. Ooh! You can take cover and throw grenades! That's sooo 1998.
If an FPS came out that had the best FPS AI ever developed and quality level design and the graphics of Half-Life 1 it'd pretty much own HL2/Doom 3/Far Cry in everything except the "pretty screenshots on box" category.
Now, my question is, does anyone agree with this?
Good gameplay is what keeps you playing the game in the first place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the contrary. What kept me playing doom3 (and to a limited degree, hl2) was the consistently stunning graphics. The gameplay got quite boring in both games towards the end, but it hardly made a difference to me because I was having so much fun observing my surroundings.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why do you play NS, then? Why do you even play games? Watch a movie.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I play games for fun. I enjoy playing games immensely, actually. I do often watch movies, but I can play a game for an hour a day and stretch it out for two or three weeks (sometimes even more). A movie lasts two hours tops, and is hard to re-watch any time soon. I'm sorry if I have offended you, but I simply enjoy a good game for its graphics more so than its gameplay. If we both enjoy the game, does it matter that I prefer the graphics over the gameplay?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If an FPS came out that had the best FPS AI ever developed and quality level design and the graphics of Half-Life 1 it'd pretty much own HL2/Doom 3/Far Cry in everything except the "pretty screenshots on box" category. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would definitely enjoy playing a game like that, but I would probably prefer doom3/hl2 (I did not really enjoy the type of scenes in farcry), at least the first time around. It is the "pretty screenshots on box" that turn a game from <i>alright</i> to loads of fun for me, so I would rather play an average game on the source engine than a brilliant game on the half-life engine.
After some thought, while I don't agree with an average game with super-amazing graphics being better than a fabby game with 'average' graphics for enjoyment it's really just a personal choice. Putting you down for your tastes isn't exactly the best thing to do as the actual reason anyone plays games is for the simple reason of enjoyment.
I enjoy a game with a bit of depth and/or character, I like something with 'soul' but it doesn't excuse me being snobbish about anyone who takes pleasure in something I consider 'shallow'; the point is we're both having fun <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The problem is the industry is catering to the graphics side of things which leaves us 'gameplay' nutters a tad high and dry on the supply and demand scale :s