"Gaming graphics unsustainable"

[Genx87]

I think this rant was talked about nearly 10 years ago when we were flooded with a bunch of games that sucked but had pretty graphics.

Gameplay should always win over pretty graphics. And maybe this is part of the reason why PC gaming is on a decline?

My favorite game to date is Tribes. The graphics were pretty avg at best even for 1998 and silly looking by todays standard. But if that game was still played by more than a few dedicated people it would be #1 on my list today.

 

[Farmer]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Because CNN now does press coverage to explain what Metal Gear Solid is about. Oh and did I mention that the one black guy in the game is a horrible stereotype? And the enemy boss is a reincarnation of snake's clone? Oh and there's also a part involving a robot ninja who has no arms so he uses his feet to sword fight against soldiers who voluntarily put their guns away to sword fight him. Do I really need to draw a diagram of why this is retarded?

I'm pretty sure when they made MGS, they made some assumptions that the player would either already know about "PMC"s from the news, or would be willing to spend 5 seconds to wiki it if they didn't. It's pretty hard to have not heard of "PMC" or "Blackwater" in recent time. It's sort of like, EA making Need for Speed, and assuming their customers to not be like "Car?! WTF is that?! This game sucks", etc. I'd think that's a reasonable assumption.

Also, I can definitely see how a black man that rides around in an APC with a chimpanzee selling high-tech military equipment is totally stereotypical.

The other stuff I can't comment. I generally find MGS's story to be extremely confusing and filled with totally ridiculous sounding names.

Your choices have absolutely no effect on the gameplay. This isn't Chrono Trigger where you can either kill Magus or have him join you for the last quarter of the game. Fallout's choice system means the gameplay is the exact same and the only thing that changes is the end cut scene, but the end is so lame that it really doesn't matter. Bioshock had the same retarded "choice" system where your actions have absolutely no effect on anything. The other lame story thing about Fallout is that you can completely change the ending from the bad ending to the good ending by donating money to the cult. That means you can see 4 separate Fallout 3 endings without needing to redo any parts of the game.

I'm pretty sure I remember at least several places where your choices determined how you played the game. The end of the main story was somewhat disappointing, you're right, but the main story is only a fraction of the whole game.

Except for the story, the gameplay, the needless complexity, the way the weapons break, etc. I love how I get to play as a marine who doesn't know how to use a gun. Which military is this? France? There's a reason that game was a commercial failure. review

OK

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
He's just saying the same thing I have for the past 6 years.
Damn. I should get a blog. Or at the very least submit an article or two for that kind of website.

why?

you have the minority report on SS2

- compared to it, BioShock Blows
- except graphics

 

[BFG10K]

It's certainly possible to have a fun game despite mediocre graphics. But take any enjoyable game and improve nothing else except the graphics, and it'll automatically get more enjoyable.

I also couldn?t get into System Shock 2 or the original Jedi Knight because of the mediocre graphics. Gameplay or not, I simply couldn?t stomach what I was seeing.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: pontifex
uh...wow...MGS4 had an awesome story. anyone who watches more than MTV should know what those things are. some people just more easily wowed with mindless gameplay though, as evident by the post i'm quoted.

Because CNN now does press coverage to explain what Metal Gear Solid is about. Oh and did I mention that the one black guy in the game is a horrible stereotype? And the enemy boss is a reincarnation of snake's clone? Oh and there's also a part involving a robot ninja who has no arms so he uses his feet to sword fight against soldiers who voluntarily put their guns away to sword fight him. Do I really need to draw a diagram of why this is retarded?

Did you seem to forget the (fallout) story had CHOICES?!

Your choices have absolutely no effect on the gameplay. This isn't Chrono Trigger where you can either kill Magus or have him join you for the last quarter of the game. Fallout's choice system means the gameplay is the exact same and the only thing that changes is the end cut scene, but the end is so lame that it really doesn't matter. Bioshock had the same retarded "choice" system where your actions have absolutely no effect on anything. The other lame story thing about Fallout is that you can completely change the ending from the bad ending to the good ending by donating money to the cult. That means you can see 4 separate Fallout 3 endings without needing to redo any parts of the game.

and yet SystemShock2 was a superior game in every respect to BioShock

Except for the story, the gameplay, the needless complexity, the way the weapons break, etc. I love how I get to play as a marine who doesn't know how to use a gun. Which military is this? France? There's a reason that game was a commercial failure. review

lol you seriously took that to mean that cnn is reporting on MGS4? wow, you must really love that MTV, huh? because you can't think very well. PMC and nanotechnology are not just things in MGS4 only. they are real world things and acronyms.

besides, if you've been playing video games for any amount of time, those should be things you already know about anyway.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Farmer
I'm pretty sure when they made MGS, they made some assumptions that the player would either already know about "PMC"s from the news, or would be willing to spend 5 seconds to wiki it if they didn't. It's pretty hard to have not heard of "PMC" or "Blackwater" in recent time. It's sort of like, EA making Need for Speed, and assuming their customers to not be like "Car?! WTF is that?! This game sucks", etc. I'd think that's a reasonable assumption.

Blackwater is basically mall cops with guns and they are paid by the US government. In MGS 4, PMCs are entire armies that don't seem associated to any goverment. Trying to draw some kind of correlation between blackwater and MGS 4 PMC is just silly.

Also, I can definitely see how a black man that rides around in an APC with a chimpanzee selling high-tech military equipment is totally stereotypical.

You really don't see anything wrong with Drebin?
He might as well be saying "yeah baby I gots what you need" and holding a bucket of fried chicken. Even then you'd probably argue that chicken isn't racist because white people eat chicken too. Of course there's nothing racist about selling guns or driving an APC, but the way Drebin acts is based on a stereotype.

I'm pretty sure I remember at least several places (in fallout 3) where your choices determined how you played the game. The end of the main story was somewhat disappointing, you're right, but the main story is only a fraction of the whole game.

In my game, I killed Lucas Sims and nothing happened. I blew up Megaton and all that happened was Moira sold guns from Underworld instead of Megaton, and that barely counts as a change since quick traveling to one town is just as easy as quick traveling to the other. You can save one of those prostitutes and escort her to Rivet City, but you never see her again anyway, so it's really no different from just killing her. You can get Jericho to follow you around if you're evil, but he dies within about 10 minutes and he never comes back so that's just a waste. When you go back to Vault 101, you can either save everyone or kill everyone and it doesn't matter because you're never allowed back in anyway.

The game has a lot of little choices but they don't affect the overall game. It's very well done and I like how the game can continue even after I've killed numerous brotherhood of steel and brotherhood outcasts. It's the complete opposite of Oblivion where stealing 1 piece of bread means you're suddenly banned from every city in the game because every guard in the entire world will attack you. If you happened to save after stealing something, you're fucked. You need to restart the whole game. Fallout 3 is infinitely better than Oblivion because of that.

PMC and nanotechnology are not just things in MGS4 only. they are real world things and acronyms.

Are you serious? You honest to god think that little tiny robots exist that can detect your brain waves and heart beat in order to activate a bomb, or that they store a person's memory, or that they can make a person invincible? Please tell me you're joking.
http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/Nanomachines

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

If a game has a worthwhile, engaging storyline and accessible controls, the graphics don't really matter to me. (my example is Earth Defense Force on the Xbox 360....I know, I'm in a huge minority probably)

If a game has little to no storyline and the controls are wonky, then yeah, it's a more appealing situation if the graphics catch my eye, like say Bionic Commando.

In an ideal world, every Triple A title would bring everything to the table, storyline, control, and graphics, but obviously budgets and expectations are set, and sacrifices are made as time goes on for any development team. It's the rare game like Bioshock or Modern Warfare that get it all right in the single player story, but it usually comes along often enough to make me happy.

 

[Farmer]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Farmer
I'm pretty sure when they made MGS, they made some assumptions that the player would either already know about "PMC"s from the news, or would be willing to spend 5 seconds to wiki it if they didn't. It's pretty hard to have not heard of "PMC" or "Blackwater" in recent time. It's sort of like, EA making Need for Speed, and assuming their customers to not be like "Car?! WTF is that?! This game sucks", etc. I'd think that's a reasonable assumption.

Blackwater is basically mall cops with guns and they are paid by the US government. In MGS 4, PMCs are entire armies that don't seem associated to any goverment. Trying to draw some kind of correlation between blackwater and MGS 4 PMC is just silly.

The vast majority of Blackwater contractors that were in Iraq were not "mall cops" but instead ex-military, in certain cases ex-special forces, and hence were not untrained idiots if that's what you're suggesting. They were fighting for whoever paid them and equipped by their employers with military equipment. I can't possibly see how a correlation between Blackwater and "MGS 4 PMC" is "silly."

Yes, obviously differences exist between Blackwater and the MGS4 PMC. Yes, obviously we don't have nanotechnology that allows the things depicted in MGS4. Obviously there aren't giant robot walkers capable of launching nuclear missiles. The point is MGS4 is fiction inspired by events, technologies and organizations that exist in the real world. I mean, jesus christ is that explanation even really needed?

And since you obviously know what a PMC is what were you talking about in your first post anyway? Just stop arguing about this, this is ridiculous. I liked a lot of the same games you liked, end of story.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

Gameplay comes first, because without it I can never become immersed in a story no matter how good it is. Graphics are important, but they do not make or break a game as long as they are current gen.

 

[Inspector Jihad]

i don't buy games if they have shitty graphics.

 

[Dumac]

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
i don't buy games if they have shitty graphics.

I feel bad for you then, as almost all of today's games are mindless snoozefests with boring gameplay

For great games, I usually try to look up an oldie.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Farmer
The vast majority of Blackwater contractors that were in Iraq were not "mall cops" but instead ex-military, in certain cases ex-special forces, and hence were not untrained idiots if that's what you're suggesting. They were fighting for whoever paid them and equipped by their employers with military equipment. I can't possibly see how a correlation between Blackwater and "MGS 4 PMC" is "silly."

They're just a goverment contracting company. There are thousands of companies that work almost exclusively for the goverment, and blackwater is one of them. When you say they work whoever pays them, yeah that's generally how a security company works. Some security companies are mall cops, some are body guards, and some of them are military. Kojima and his tin foil hat spin this like it's some kind of conspiracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...wide#Non-Iraq_services

Blackwater Worldwide was employed to assist the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts on the Gulf Coast. According to a company press release, it provided airlift, security, logistics, and transportation services, as well as humanitarian support. It was reported that the company also acted as law enforcement in the disaster-stricken areas, for example securing neighborhoods and confronting criminals.[136] Blackwater moved about 200 personnel into the area hit by Hurricane Katrina, most of whom (164 employees) were working under a contract with the Department of Homeland Security to protect government facilities,[71]

They're just a cheap substitute for things like the National Guard, similar to how security guys at a rock concert are a cheap substitute for actual police. They're not the exact same thing but they're used for the same purpose - basic security. The PMCs in MGS 4 are nothing like that.

The point is MGS4 is fiction inspired by events, technologies and organizations that exist in the real world. I mean, jesus christ is that explanation even really needed?

Kojima's problem is that he tries to explain things, and that spells disaster. The first three Star Wars movies were awesome because they never really explained anything. These jedis have magic powers and that's all the explaination we need. Then in episodes 1, 2, and 3, Lucas pulls a Kojima and brings up words like "midichlorians" which make Star Wars fans like myself want to punch George Lucas in the face. It seems George Lucas and Hideo Kojima both suffer from the same mental illness that causes horrible story telling.

And since you obviously know what a PMC is what were you talking about in your first post anyway? Just stop arguing about this, this is ridiculous. I liked a lot of the same games you liked, end of story.

I asked what a PMC is in hopes that someone would try to explain it. People only realize how stupid a story is when they put it into their own words.
"A nanomachine is like magic except that it's a robot and it can be suppresed by a drug that snake carries around. Snake injects hismelf to stop the nanomagic from causing premature old aging and in a later part of the game you use the drug to stop Vamp from being invincible"

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I could boot up an old Infocom text adventure and have fun. That's something I can't say about the vast majority of modern games that focus on graphics above all else.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BFG10K
It's certainly possible to have a fun game despite mediocre graphics. But take any enjoyable game and improve nothing else except the graphics, and it'll automatically get more enjoyable.

I also couldn?t get into System Shock 2 or the original Jedi Knight because of the mediocre graphics. Gameplay or not, I simply couldn?t stomach what I was seeing.

mediocre?


SystemShock2's graphics are GawdAwful
:disgust:
- in Dark Engine, 10x7 is the max resolution and everything looks chunky even with texture packs. It is 16-bit washed out colour and the shadows suck.

However the audio is good and BioShock blows chunks of rotten sheep cheese in contrast

 

[pmv]

My stab at it is that there are two routes to greatness - either awesome gameplay, or great immersivity. Having both would be nice but probably overkill. Graphics are just an added bonus with the first, but really help the second.

Serious Sam and Painkiller both had ridiculous/pathetic joke stories, but had, in different ways, great gameplay. (Unlike say, the exasperating original Max Payne which seemed to rely entirely on die-reload-retry to get through each part, you actually felt some sense of gaining 'skill').

But the other thing that can make a game great is immersivity, i.e. the feeling of being in a believable and atmospheric world. And graphics aid that a lot (I think they did in Unreal, for example, or Clive Barker's Undying), but are by no means sufficient on their own. A good storyline is necessary but not sufficient. Half Life did everything right in that respect, despite having only average graphics, yes its gameplay was also good, but the emphasis was on giving you the sense you were in a believable world and on making you interested in how the story developed. Whereas who reallty cared how the story developed in Serious Sam?

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Farmer
I'm pretty sure when they made MGS, they made some assumptions that the player would either already know about "PMC"s from the news, or would be willing to spend 5 seconds to wiki it if they didn't. It's pretty hard to have not heard of "PMC" or "Blackwater" in recent time. It's sort of like, EA making Need for Speed, and assuming their customers to not be like "Car?! WTF is that?! This game sucks", etc. I'd think that's a reasonable assumption.

Blackwater is basically mall cops with guns and they are paid by the US government. In MGS 4, PMCs are entire armies that don't seem associated to any goverment. Trying to draw some kind of correlation between blackwater and MGS 4 PMC is just silly.

Also, I can definitely see how a black man that rides around in an APC with a chimpanzee selling high-tech military equipment is totally stereotypical.

You really don't see anything wrong with Drebin?
He might as well be saying "yeah baby I gots what you need" and holding a bucket of fried chicken. Even then you'd probably argue that chicken isn't racist because white people eat chicken too. Of course there's nothing racist about selling guns or driving an APC, but the way Drebin acts is based on a stereotype.

I'm pretty sure I remember at least several places (in fallout 3) where your choices determined how you played the game. The end of the main story was somewhat disappointing, you're right, but the main story is only a fraction of the whole game.

In my game, I killed Lucas Sims and nothing happened. I blew up Megaton and all that happened was Moira sold guns from Underworld instead of Megaton, and that barely counts as a change since quick traveling to one town is just as easy as quick traveling to the other. You can save one of those prostitutes and escort her to Rivet City, but you never see her again anyway, so it's really no different from just killing her. You can get Jericho to follow you around if you're evil, but he dies within about 10 minutes and he never comes back so that's just a waste. When you go back to Vault 101, you can either save everyone or kill everyone and it doesn't matter because you're never allowed back in anyway.

The game has a lot of little choices but they don't affect the overall game. It's very well done and I like how the game can continue even after I've killed numerous brotherhood of steel and brotherhood outcasts. It's the complete opposite of Oblivion where stealing 1 piece of bread means you're suddenly banned from every city in the game because every guard in the entire world will attack you. If you happened to save after stealing something, you're fucked. You need to restart the whole game. Fallout 3 is infinitely better than Oblivion because of that.

PMC and nanotechnology are not just things in MGS4 only. they are real world things and acronyms.

Are you serious? You honest to god think that little tiny robots exist that can detect your brain waves and heart beat in order to activate a bomb, or that they store a person's memory, or that they can make a person invincible? Please tell me you're joking.
http://metalgear.wikia.com/wiki/Nanomachines

I don't know why i'm still arguing with an obvious troll...


I didn't say that I believed "that little tiny robots exist that can detect your brain waves and heart beat in order to activate a bomb, or that they store a person's memory, or that they can make a person invincible".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology
nanotechnology is nothing new. Even if it wasn't an actual real world concept, it's been in scifi for many years, surely you've heard of it before MGS4? fuck, it was in the 1st MGS game on the PS1 how many years ago?

 

[calyco]

Gameplay and controls definitely most important, for replay value. Graphics probably second, story is a close second but really only matters the first time playing the game. The story might make a huge impression on me the first run through but after that I would just skip the cutscenes and go straight to carrying out the objectives.

 

[arkcom]

One of my favorite games ever was Lunar: Silver Star Story. It had some pretty bad graphics even back in the 90's when I played it on ps1.

 

[Xellos2099]

Well, LSSSC got decent 2d graphic, simple gameplay and a kick ass story line, as Galleon would say... "I like it."

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: Dumac

Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
i don't buy games if they have shitty graphics.

I feel bad for you then, as almost all of today's games are mindless snoozefests with boring gameplay

For great games, I usually try to look up an oldie.

nope. its not one or the other for me. and its cool to go around saying todays games are only graphics and no gameplay but that would be a stupid statement made by a stupid person.

 

[mwmorph]

While I respect his work at lucasarts, Dave Grossman is absolutely wrong. Graphics can just a well enhance a story like Mass Effect and Half Life 2, none of it has to be mutually exclusive in any way. You want to talk about games that try weaving story and graphics? Alan Wake, Dead Space, etc.

 

[Piuc2020]

I think people are mixing up some concepts; graphics don't add to story, they add to the artistic appeal, atmosphere and immersion which can make the presentation of a story more powerful and concise but not enhance the story itself.

Art direction is an integral part of presentation, what would Monkey Island games be without their artists, their writers (HOW you write it makes a big difference) and their voice actors? Technical direction can be equally important in a game that depends on atmosphere and immersion, games like Doom 3 and Dead Space would have never achieved their vision if it weren't for the graphics technology they put into their game.

Not every game has to be a culturally significant experience, sometimes fun is just alright and games like Crysis have ridiculous storylines but still manage to be pretty fun, some of the best series in gaming have lousy storylines, what I think is the best game of all time, Super Mario Bros., has virtually NO storyline.

Games have two clear advantages in terms of story-telling: presentation and interaction but sometimes more media like movies can develop story arcs in a more focused and streamlined fashion and more expansive media like books can have a much greater scope; they all have advantages and disadvantages when it comes to story-telling, that's why some IPs opt to spread to as many media as possible as in the case of Star Wars.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Elcs
As in most of life there is balance. When you look at the greatest games, they all struck a good balance of story, graphics and gameplay.

Most of my fav games have a very sloppy story.

Wolfeinstein - you're in jail, go kill stuff
Doom - something about teleporters, go kill stuff
Quake - the instruction manual makes no sense, so let's go kill stuff
Quake 2 - killing stuff on another planet
Half-Life - blatant copy of Doom's story but better graphics
Diablo - I don't know why I'm killing stuff
Fable - I just paid 800 gold for sex
GTA Vice City - me and my Jew lawyer take over the city
Fallout 3 - this game's story is absolutely pathetic

Adding to what Modelworks said, a good game is good even if it has no story. The Metal Gear Solid series is written by a schizophrenic but they're still fun to play. MGS 4 has such a horrible story that watching the cut scenes actually ruins the game. wtf are these Gecko things? What is a "pmc"? What are nanobots and why should I care? At the end, enemy soldiers put away their guns and pull out swords. When snake needs to get through a room filled with microwave radiation, for some reason he does not use the metal barrel to shield himself (microwaves are low frequency radiation and cannot penetrate most metals). This game is so retarded that if I had a gun I would kill myself. It would have been so much better if it didn't have any story or cut scenes and just said who I'm supposed to kill.

Half Life told a great story