FA+
Shop
[Games] Big Issue #1: Graphics vs Gameplay
17 years ago
Alright. Inspired by something I just read, and general thoughts people seem to have... let's talk about a pressing issue in modern games. Graphics vs Gameplay. I'll possibly later cover other big issues in gaming, or things I see to be big issues... DRM, and Console vs PC (focusing not on what's better, but current trends in what games and features go where).
So let's talk about it. Here are the things I want people to ponder over:
1) GRAPHICS: People commonly say offhand or directly that modern games are just graphical pissing contests, with developers pouring money into eye candy.
a) Is this a good or bad thing?
b) How is this different from gaming 5+ years ago, meaning, is it even true? Do you have concrete examples of modern and older games which did or didn't have impressive visuals at the time of release?
2) GAMEPLAY: People also tend to say that gameplay is really suffering these days, with companies just rehashing the same old thing.
a) Do you think this is the case? Examples of new and old games where the gameplay was noteworthy or bland, and how it impacted sales, enjoyment, etc.
b) If this is the case, is it good or bad? Would you rather have games which are more consistent but less original, or more varied and creative but potentially hit-or-miss?
3) GRAPHICS VS GAMEPLAY: People combine these two notions and commonly believe that enhanced graphics are made instead of more original gameplay.
a) What recent games do you think have made this trade-off with bad results?
b) To quote the great Tony Stark, "is it too much to ask for both?" In other words, why should we buy a game that doesn't excel in both fronts?
I'll give my own thoughts in a comment on the journal.
So let's talk about it. Here are the things I want people to ponder over:
1) GRAPHICS: People commonly say offhand or directly that modern games are just graphical pissing contests, with developers pouring money into eye candy.
a) Is this a good or bad thing?
b) How is this different from gaming 5+ years ago, meaning, is it even true? Do you have concrete examples of modern and older games which did or didn't have impressive visuals at the time of release?
2) GAMEPLAY: People also tend to say that gameplay is really suffering these days, with companies just rehashing the same old thing.
a) Do you think this is the case? Examples of new and old games where the gameplay was noteworthy or bland, and how it impacted sales, enjoyment, etc.
b) If this is the case, is it good or bad? Would you rather have games which are more consistent but less original, or more varied and creative but potentially hit-or-miss?
3) GRAPHICS VS GAMEPLAY: People combine these two notions and commonly believe that enhanced graphics are made instead of more original gameplay.
a) What recent games do you think have made this trade-off with bad results?
b) To quote the great Tony Stark, "is it too much to ask for both?" In other words, why should we buy a game that doesn't excel in both fronts?
I'll give my own thoughts in a comment on the journal.
I believe a lot of games have suburb visuals while still having a solid story or solid gameplay, or even both. It's not that rare at all and there's a game coming out this month, actually a few that might achieve just that.
A few examples of great gameplay and visuals are the Halo series. Oh no halo fanboi run. Actually the storyline is brilliant, I love it and read all of the books, the gameplay is exactly what it's meant to be, if you don't like it, well you should of known it was like that anyway. Visually it's stunning form 1-3.
Another example is Oblivion and soon to come Fallout 3.
Far Cry, Far cry 2 (will be amazing, best FPS for 2008 and more than likely all of 2009), crysis (believe it or not the game is actually fun if you have a rig powerful enough to play it properly it's a damn blast)
The source engine games such as Half Life 2 and yea counter-strike (it is what it was meant to be and people love it)
Mass Effect, i liked it.
Then you got games that are graphically stunning but people bitch about them because it isn't what -they- want such as crysis, again people couldn't run it and bitched about that, then people could run it and decided that not being able to run it on max was 'bad gameplay'. Then they focused on bugs, that were later patched... People are just very, very hard to p[lease and they want it perfect.
Though Perfect dark zero is a great example of graphics overtaking gameplay during design.
Halo was good for gameplay and graphics. I can only speak for the first one personally, though.
Oblivion... ehhh... graphics were good at the time, but there were some "wtf were they thinking" moments with the game where stupid decisions they made just drove me crazy. I shouldn't have to add user-made mods just to take care of one of a hundred silly gameplay quirks they had. Overall it follows a good gameplay model though, free environment, non-linear gameplay, more sidequests than primary content, and skill development through (almost exclusively) usage.
Far Cry was a blast. Completely unrelated, Far Cry 2 looks like it will also be awesome. It looks pretty, and it will have some nice gameplay features to boot. And I know that Crysis is awesome, despite what some people say. Its physics and suit abilities make for some very unique engagements, at least while you're in the first ~half of the game.
HL2, also a great example of a game engine which balances gameplay and graphics.
Mass Effect as well. You're just on the ball tonight.
But I'm glad you agree, unlike some that rant about how piss-poor farcry and crysis are, rather than actually playing it and going by that original moron who couldn't even run the games idea.
I'm looking forward to Far Cry 2 very much so, as well as fallout 3, but not as much as FC2. The game looks honestly to me to be one of the best, if not -the- best fps out, ever. (FC2)
Most games coming out for consoles though are trying to fight the hardware for graphics while also giving something to the gamer in storyline, games such as halo are a example of how it can work perfectly. Games such as Solder of Fortune Payback are the opposite...
I'm also hoping to see what halo wars will be like, though it doesn't look to be the best RTS, it does look interesting enough to play.
Saints Row 2 kinda looks 'meh' to me but it might be a decent balance unlike their last one...witch was fun for a day and a little bit...
I'm also looking forward to another portal and episode 3 of Half Life 2. Ah portal, the best example of having amazing gameplay, a great story, and Source-Orange Box engine graphics.
There are a lot of great, fun, interesting games with amazing visuals, but there are also great games with less visuals. Sadly I've come to the point that if it plays well and looks bad, I most likely won't like it...It's just a new trend I guess for me, I want it to look amazing, with a amazing story. Then if the gameplay is decent i will like it, if it's great, then...great!
Call me a graphic whore, I like getting raped by stunning visuals almost just as much as I like gameplay.
I wouldn't say FC2 will be THE BEST FPS evar. Haven't played it of course, but while it looks interesting, I dunno if it could actually fit into that genre. I mean, I love open-ended games, and that's what it looks like it will be... but I think a good FPS usually has to have more direction to it. My favorite is No One Lives Forever 2, which combines comedy, skill points, action, stealth, and atmosphere in a way which is just brilliant.
And yea older games that are rock solid such as...Jedi Academy or max Payne, great gameplay and/or storyline while tolerable graphics are fine. But games like diddy kong racing though nostalgic in it's own way I could never play again, ever.
No one lives forever was awesome, but I don't see myself playing it ever again, FC2 looks like it has massive replay value, some of the best visuals, open and massive with a decent storyline. Just my kind of game, like I said, sniping on rocks *drool* not being pinned into a area and forced to move towards a goal where sniping is boring and rare. Even just watching weather patterns and the landscape and animals etc could be entertaining. Especially that map creator that seems to outdo the Crysis one.
Jedi Knight II and Jedi Academy deserve special mention. JKII, I've gone back and played so many times (probably less than 6, but whatever). Aside from the faces of the main characters, which NEVER looked good, the game is still gorgeous and fun. I haven't tried Max Payne, I'm kinda afraid to x'D
Meh, I loved NOLF2. Played it way too many times. The subtle humor sprinkled everywhere, the great interface, and the charming story all just keep bringing me back. And the game still holds up well, mostly because they had the foresight to use some degree of specular mapping on certain objects, usually things that you're holding.
I am disappointed that they didn't put predatory animals in FC2. They could've made it something you enable with a checkbox. Would've made things a lot more interesting.
a) Good thing. It's important that all elements of a game get better, and graphics are no exception. Although people are quick to write graphics improvements off as gimmicky eyecandy, they often ignore the subtle or not-so-subtle implications it can have. Team Fortress 2 and TRON 2 use very stylized graphics to convey the atmosphere of the game--a playful mid-20th century spy-spoof of sorts in the American midwest, and a neon digital realm inside of a computer, respectively. Even the fine details of graphics can be significant: things like footprints and ripples can let you track someone, volumetric shadows mean the difference between someone sneaking up on you and someone failing to sneak up on you, etc.
b) This isn't vastly different from what we've seen in the past. PCs have always had gradually improving graphics, and consoles tend to improve by leaps and bounds over longer periods of time. The past 3 generations of systems have notably improved their graphics hardware, with the mild exception of the Wii. Just because display technology has hit the point where HD graphics can be shown and systems are growing to take advantage of this, people are claiming that modern games are all about graphics. As far as examples go, Half Life 1 and 2 were both heralded as being good-looking, innovators in gameplay, and having increasingly sprawling and stunning environments (courtesy of: graphics engine).
2) GAMEPLAY
a) There's less variation to a degree, but new concepts are still emerging. Regenerating health from the Halo series has been more recently popularized in Gears of War, Crysis, and Call of Duty 4. Cooperative gameplay is likewise improving, mostly on the console front, but it's still there in PCs (Left 4 Dead). Physics-based gameplay is also becoming the enjoyable norm, where the environment itself can become unexpected weapons or tools. At the same time, destructable/large environments further allow people to forge their own paths, aided by more advanced AI. While all these concepts are becoming common features in games, occasional gems with their own perks and quirks emerge: Katamari Damacy, Trauma Center, and Spore come to mind.
b) Kinda neutral on this. I'd like to see more varied games, but at the same time, I don't want too much risk taken--it's nice to know that there will be at least one or two good shooters a year which mix things up enough to be interesting, but don't go so far from the beaten path that they risk being simply bad or confusing games.
3) GRAPHICS VS GAMEPLAY
a) None come to mind at 5:30 AM.
b) Leading question, of course. I think that a game should be great in most/all aspects. I wouldn't buy a car which got 7 miles to the gallon, or had a nasty habit of breaking down, or was simply ugly--so why should I let games get away with it?. Why shouldn't developers be able to do everything generally pretty well? Frankly it's not my problem if a developer is wasteful with resources or bad at advertising and so they can't put as much money into polishing everything as they perhaps should. That's their issue, and like a good consumer, I'll have high standards.
Overall I don't think it's a huge problem. Games are generally improving, people will always try new things and stick with what works. While some game developers are being too cautious and saying "Oh, let's make this appeal to a CASUAL market so we can sell more units", that's a separate (and real) problem contrasted with "Let's hire more graphics artists and not do any brainstorming about a good gameplay mechanic."
In other games such as GOW and COD4 the regeneration is simply magic, though it's fun in some scenarios, it's "wtf" in others, especially online with people simply running and sucking on their thumbs.
Crysis I can understand it a bit more due to it might be the suit taking damage. Also in games that are not meant to be realistic.
But I guess it doesn't really make a large difference it's just something that slightly annoys me when they are aiming for realism.
Graphics wise, I've seen some pretty amazing visuals, especially texture detail and lighting, some of the best in-game would be Crysis, assassins creed, and far cry 2 trailers/tech. The z Brush technology used in Assassins creed also push it over the edge on amazing, I think more games need that sort of thing.
Actually, Assassins Creed was a all around amazing game other than replayablity and repetitiveness, it was unique, fun, stunning, and smooth. I especially loved the climbing and combo system. What did you think of it?
1b. Most the games with good graphics but bad game play have been forgotten due to that very fact, if something isn't fun to play, your not going to play it enough to remember it, but there are quite a bit of good games from the PS2 area that didn't excel graphically such as any of the Nippon Ichi Tactical RPG's.
2a. Well there are always the Movies tie-in games which often look pretty but are just paint by number game play. Wall-E is hideously bad, Iron Man (in all it'[s different forms) wasn't much better. There are so many bad shooters released lately as well that look pretty but don't play well.
2b. I prefer more varied creative games, if they are all just paint by number affairs where will the next original title come from. Katamari Damacy, Wario Ware, Flow, Everyday Shooter and more are all games that when released were very original and very enjoyable to play, and I'd hate to of had no one take the chance on those games.
3a. Once again, Iron Man, Wall-E, movie tie-in games, bad shooters, etc.
3b. At times it is, companies can only work on games for so long before they start to have finacial problems and need to sell games to recoup costs, and I'll take good game play over graphics any day. There is a reason the DS is the most popular video game system of all time, and a reason the Wii is the highest selling system of the current systems. But sometimes it does happen, MLB 09: The Show is the best playing and looking baseball game ever, NHL 09 is the same way for hockey, I feel GrID is the same way as far as racing games go.Other examples of recent games doing both: Soul Calibur 4, GTA 4, Lost Odyssey, Mass Effect, Bio Shock, Rock Band Series. One thing these games share in common though are developers and publishers with a lot of money who can take the time to allow there games to be created without having to rush them out to stay in business.
I'd like to see your figures about the DS being the most popular game system of all time... o_o; from where I'm standing, the PS2 has sold about twice as many units, and the Gameboy (classic through Color) sold many more as well. In all honestly, I've not personally played many games where the touch input was meaningful for gameplay. My favorite DS game is a game that doesn't have to be on the DS at all, Pokemon Diamond. Where's the rich use of the touch screen? What about USEFUL online matchmaking with friends? Anything? Hell, the secondary screen ends up just being a giant button pad most of the time.
The PS2 has been in the record books of selling most consoles, ever, since 2001. It is now 2008 almost '09. yea I think they win. xD
But yea the touch stuff is gimicky, but the DS still has a lot of great games. I've been playing Final Fantasy Tactics A-2 a ton since it's release and so love it regardless of it's graphics. I just am a gameplay over graphics person, and my main style of game is Tactical RPG's, turn-based rpg's, rts'es, racing games, and sports games. I really don't play much else other than the occasional fighter, simulation game, or platform game, and in these categories good control and gameplay is much more important than graphics.
I mean, why do you think nintendo is still in business? their graphics are shit, but the games are fun.
I mean, up to the Wii/DS era, Nintendo survived mostly because it was the dominant game platform provider, and it had some franchises that people really liked. Around the time of the PS2 things changed a bit. Why are they in the lead again? Because they're appealing to kids and parents/grandparents, of which there are a lot. Let's face it, Nintendo's just not in touch with traditional mainstream gaming. Their whole new approach is to target "non-gamers", which are quite numerous. Does your traditional gamer want to waggle a wand rather than push a button to swing a sword? No, both make sense, though the button is lazier, more responsive, and more reliable. Might such a gamer want to literally perform some actions with the Wiimote? Yeah, but that doesn't happen--it simplifies your gestures rather than gathering the rich information on what you're doing precisely. They're making an add-on to do just that, but that should indicate what they're doing: tackling non-picky non-gamers first, and trying to appeal to "us" once they've got a firm financial footing.
and the alternative provided by sony is the PSP, which rocks, but... doesn't appeal that much.
Although the Resident Evil titles on Gamecube were good. But I'm just a fanboy. :P
If you're satisfied with a game that lasts you 7 hours, stop gaming.
If that's the best game you've ever played graphically and gameplay wise, wow.
In contrast, if there's no challenge to the game, I don't care how good it looks, I ain't interested. I'm looking at you Assassin's Creed! That's right, hang your head in shame, you good-looking, empty-headed bimbo of a game.
So basically, I would like a game to have both, but great gameplay will always win out, for me at least.
http://www.gmixer.com/2008/09/video.....racefully.html
lets face it o.o without gameplay youd be watching a movie and gameplay without graphics is pacman
I don't think gameplay concepts are being as copied as much these days as in the past. In the early 90's it was all about the side scrolling platformers and side scrolling shooter whilst today its all Halo and GTA clones but the main difference is that the money spent on marketing over the past 5 years has been blown out of proportion and so we are given the illusion that those are the only options.
I would prefer game companies to spend more time and money coming up with great ideas than decent graphics, but that doesn't mean the graphics shouldn't be clear and slightly improved.
To actually answer the questions (in short):
1a) Bad
1b) Modern: Crysis
5 years ago: Far Cry
10 years ago: can't think of anything
2a) No
Modern bland: Halo 3, Gear of War, UT3 (Halo 3 be a fantastic example of saturating an average game into the media to make it do well)
Modern noteworthy: COD4, Braid, Darwinia
With old games, I could probably come up with the same ratio of examples.
2b) Bad. "more varied and creative but potentially hit-or-miss"
3a) Crysis to a certain extent. But there aren't many others since most game graphics are fairly on par with each other.
3b) Because such a game doesn't exist yet!
(I haven't really proof checked the above since I'm being lazy this morning so apologies for any errors or accidental flaming!)
It's sad that you thought Crysis traded off gameplay for graphics, because I thought it excelled in gameplay. Through the various technological advantages of the game engine they offered things like open spaces and advanced physics, which let you forge your own distinctly "you" path. The use of suit power and selectively choosing your suit mode was a brilliant gameplay feature too, letting you become a jack of all trades and a master of them too--though only one set at any given moment. It lets you turn the game into a sneaky stealth game, a wild physics sandbox, or a fast-paced action shooter at a moment's notice.
To me, graphics are a postage box, whilst the gameplay is the contents being sent. No matter how pretty you make the box, I'll only care about it's contents. When the postal services make it a shiny box that can withstand alot of tossing about, whilst crushing it's precious, fragile contents into a thousand pieces, I'm pissed each time. I WANT CONTENTS! NOT SHINY BOXES!
If people can make a decent shiny box that'll keep safe the contents within, I'll stop being so pissed, but it doesn't seem that won't happen if games keep being dumbed down to keep the casual gamer in mind. In my opinion the game companies aren't in a omg-eyecandy race with eachother, they're trying to attract the casual gamers whilst not trying to lose the actual gamer-gamers. So I think the casual gamers are the problem of it all more than anything. Graphics will always improve, but the sudden popularity of casual gaming is the real killer of gameplay here.
Interesting analogy. Let me use my personal one for comparison:
Graphics are like the words in a book, and gameplay is like the writing style and story. Words and graphics are all you've got to get a glimpse of the contents and gameplay. I just can't take a book seriously if it seems like it was written by a 10-year-old. That's not to say that the book has to be full of long and fancy words, but it should convey its contents well and be free of typographical errors.
But with all the IPs out, it is going to be hard for new companies (or even established ones) to come up with a truly unique experience.
Still, I think graphics are important to a degree. I still love Vampyr... An old DOS game :) And I also still love Bomb32, aka Tank Wars. The graphics are simple, as is the gameplay, but damn are they fun. Worms is a fun game too. Not the best graphics, but the gameplay is silly and entertaining. But graphics, if used wisely, can also add to gamplay.
IE: Splinter Cell, with it's realistic lighting effects. Those added to the stealth gameplay, which was spectacular and better than MGS, in my opinion. The story might have been trite, but the gameplay felt more like sneaking was well rewarded. Love stealthy shooters :D
Custers Revenge. Great game. Awesome Graphics. Fantastic Gameplay.
And you do make a good point about the large number of things out there. It's difficult to come up with an idea which people actually treat as new and original. Seriously, we've had games coming out for years, decades, and with every good game that comes out, another chunk of the original good game spectrum is eaten up.
Deus Ex was a great game. It was a FPS, but it had good qualities and a nice story and almost generic FPS gameplay. And at the time it had nice graphics.
That's why I said "almost" generic :P
But don't modernize it too much.
Gameplay - Without this there's no game. The graphics could be extremely crappy but it's something that you're willing to play over and over again. Something that I will use to illustrate this point for me is a game called M.U.L.E. This game is a OLD game which takes place on a distant planet where you're trying to find minerals and earn money. The graphics suck, but the gameplay is SOLID heck I will even fire up an emulator to play this game.. that's how much it has stood up.
Graphics Vs. Gameplay - While there are some games that are coming out with unreal graphics such as Farcry 2 and Fallout 3 both of these games will mean nothing if the gameplay element is not there. I have a decent PC with good specs (8800 GTS 512 mb card , dual core processor and 4gb of ram) so I can run pretty much any game out there. What games have I been playing as of late? Last stand and Last Stand 2.. FLASH BASED BROWSER GAMES. The graphics are ok but the gameplay is GREAT especially in Last Stand 2 which is a game about trying to make it to a city in 30 days during a zombie apocalypse. During this time you'll need to find survivors (to help you fight) , find better weapons and traps (to assist you) and repair your barricade when it gets damaged. Yes it is a browser game and yes it is frighteningly addictive.. check it out
Gameplay: That sounds like this one flash game I sometimes play, where you're doing a 2D digging game on Mars, trying to get minerals to sell for better equipment so you can go deeper.
Graphics vs Gameplay: xD Want another 8800 GTS 512?
1) GRAPHICS: People commonly say offhand or directly that modern games are just graphical pissing contests, with developers pouring money into eye candy.
a) Despite my normal "extreme" standing on this topic, I personally feel it's relative to the game. Something like MGS4? HL2? Stuff that can greatly work with great graphics, stuff whose game play is agreed by many to be good? Sure, go ahead. Just don't overdo it.
b) Gaming 5 or more years ago... We didn't have the same capabilities, in terms of this next-gen crap. We had stuff like the PS2, Gamecube, Xbox and I THINK the 360.. I keep forgetting when it was released. Stuff could be done with it and not much seems to changed in this new "generation" of gaming, although detail, model count, complexety, etc are all boosted (although some games don't seem like they take advantage of that much, then again I don't play that much in terms of the other games).
2) GAMEPLAY: People also tend to say that gameplay is really suffering these days, with companies just rehashing the same old thing.
a) Yeah, I personally think it suffers. Between games with a good flowing art style that are equivalent to good graphics (IMO "good graphics" can be so much as a consistent yet really working art style or an OMG super detailed awesome) to games with a great amount of detail in their art, I've seen a couple suffer horribly. Example: Neopets: The Darkest Faerie. I got interested in it. I played it. Lost save game... Stuck in parts of the game.. Stuck in the last part of the game at a low level that it took a year and a day to beat the final boss, including many game overs. I had to RESTART the game from scratch a couple times cause of the bugs, as some kept me from doing anything. Lockups, etc.
b) Bad game play is an instant bad thing. Without a doubt. Unless it's intended in say, a parody, it's an instant-no-buy-no-play for me. "But it has good graphics" is a defense that can only hold so much ground before it's time to shove it up people's asses and accept that the game sucks. Sure, you might be able to cover up shitty game play with good graphics, but then what about those who play and suddenly have to restart their game, or gets stuck, etc.? It also shows that the people don't know shit about programming... Or they got lazy, or they need to learn the language again. Or, that they need to plan better.
3) GRAPHICS VS GAMEPLAY: People combine these two notions and commonly believe that enhanced graphics are made instead of more original gameplay.
a) The neopets game, Sonic: The Hedgehog (2006). Despite me liking both to a SMALL extent, there is some SERIOUS problems for both. Sonic is clunky and far harder to control as opposed to Sonic Adventure1/2, Sonic Heroes, Shadow the Hedgehog, etc. They have good graphics to an extent and WHAM. Can't really enjoy it unless you want to stroll through the game.. Of course you can't see it all cause you kind of have to play to get to other areas.
b) It's not too much to ask for both, but until the majority of game producers can once again overtake indie developers, or at the LEAST, make games to the point that only a VERY SMALL, near UNNOTICEABLE percentage suck and have bad game play/controls, then they should concentrate on game play. Of course, though - you should at LEAST make sure the graphics flow well and you can differentiate between things, as well as not look make it look like a 2 year old made the graphics.
2)b) I'm not talking about bad gameplay, which is always bad. I mean the sort of norms that we've settled into in the different genre. We can have developers stick to what's safe and fun, or get more creative in hopes of stumbling across new things which are even more fun--at the risk of making some bad games or taking a lot of time and money.
2 - Well, I'd stay experiment and get creative... But what sense do you mean? Like what Nintendo did with the Wii?
I of course want them to at least be good enough to tell what everything is though.
If the world never moved beyond Gamecube or PS2 graphics, I would be perfectly fine with that.
Story sucks - you don't get into it. Too much story, too much information, too much to concentrate on.
Gameplay sucks - you CAN'T get into it. Too many distractions.
There will come a time at which graphical technologies as they are being developed right now will plateau. You will be able to make a really detailed fake tree, but it still will not look like a real tree. I believe that once graphics plateau, developers will either start focusing more on gameplay, game length, and story or on ways of making graphics look more realistic.
My hope is that there will be a split in the gaming industry where some developers choose to focus on creating intensely real graphics while others focus on the other aspects that I listed above.
There is a huge issue with most gaming companies that game publishers like EA, Sony, Microsoft, etc. pressure developers to release a game by a specific date. The developers have to spend a specific amount of time on the graphics at this point because of the advanced tech and because of that, lose valuable time to program gameplay well or to come up with a halfway decent storyline.
Some examples:
Halo 2 and 3: Halo was a great game, but the continued story in the other two games sucks. I've heard people say that it's "high sci-fi storytelling" but it really isn't. The Master Chief is a wholly unlikeable character because you can't ever get under his armor and find out what he's really like. There are no "young chief" flashbacks that tell us more about him, no instances where you actually see what kind of person he is. All you get is a faceless marine who is ridiculously selfish. The only reason he goes to get Cortana in the third game is because she has the activation index for the first halo ring. I realize that devs probably wanted the player to feel like they could be the chief by making him faceless, but it really cuts in on how players are supposed to feel about the characters. I personally liked Johnson the best, but that's because I felt like I got to know him. Also, most people who buy Halo games buy it for the multi-player. My friend Scott hasn't even touched the campaign in the third game because he couldn't give two shits about how the chief "finishes the fight."
Too Human: So gameplay is a huge issue in this game. The right analog stick on the 360 controller is used to attack, not for camera controls. This makes fighting hordes of enemies insanely annoying when you accidentally move into the trigger on the floor that makes the camera zoom in at a spec of glowing light on the far wall. Also, the main character in the game moves incredibly slowly as if the devs wanted players to gander at the graphics as they trudge through the immense environments. With that said, the graphics aren't even that amazing. You basically travel from one dilapidated ruin after another that look exactly the same all the while moving ridiculously slowly until you get fed up with the game and throw it in the trash.
I actually do know of a few games that removed multiplayer in the early dev stages for one reason or another. Oblivion was originally supposed to have multiplayer in the arena, but it was scrapped because Bethesda apparently didn't think multiplayer was that important to gamers. Fable also was supposed to have multiplayer, but the release deadline came upon the devs too fast to implement it properly so they had to scrap it.
Do you remember Advent Rising for the Xbox? That game had a great story and graphics for the time, but the gameplay sucked ass and there was no multiplayer to speak of. In a case like that; without the proper mesh of gameplay, visuals, and story; there really isn't anything devs could remove to make it better. You can't just omit gameplay because that's what makes up a game. So what I'm trying to say is that it would work for certain scenarios and not for others.
TF2 is a lesser game than TFC. Despite all of its graphical flaws, TFC's gameplay still shines. It dosent try to force playstyles on players, nor screw with them to force outcomes. It gives you a lot of tools and leaves it up to each player to make use of them however they please.
Now TFC in the TF2 engine? That would rock.
TFC games never ended, I'm glad TF2 is so much faster paced. and so glad grenades aren't in it. just my views though
But TF2 uses some pretty big kludges to force 'balance'. The crit system, the respawn timers, the weighting of respawn timers (the way a winning team gets a shorter spawn timer). To me, things like that are distasteful. I'd much rather have individual skill deciding an outcome than the game itself deciding the outcome based on a few dicerolls and mechanics that may have looked good on paper. Hell, it dosent even work half of the time, they had to remove sudden death as a default setting because it was hated and far too common.
I'm fine with the respawn timers, it's ONE aspect of the team that's shared, where as everything else is individual-based. Sharing something between everyone gives a bit more "in the struggle together", same with the timer, and likewise when the team is doing well.
as for the crits, I love it. Much more action and mayhem than without it. everyone has the same % chance of getting a crit as anyone else, with the one exception being the % can go up (limit %20) based on the amount of damage done in the last 20 seconds.
to me, TF2 is just very objective based, and TFC was too frag-based. obj. help give me direction and motivation to play, other than a score.
I've played games with awful visuals, story, character, etc. even if they were fun (Jedi Knight II), and I've played the ones with amazing visuals, awful everything else (Crysis)
That being said, I've played JK2 tons more than Crysis
And you already know my opinion on Crysis. If you're playing it like a traditional shooter and being disappointed at how bland it is, UR DOIN IT WRONG. Crysis isn't about your standard combat tactics, it's truly about the situational approaches that you make up on the spot which mix invisibility, strength, speed, explosions/physics, and open environments.
JK2 has awful animation, voice acting, character design, story, and level design. graphics are decent at best, gameplay is great.
you can't "play a game wrong". It IS a traditional shooter. It's the same thing as FarCry, which also looked great, but gameplay sucked (probably why I stopped the moment those dumbass creatures started showing up). Trust me, I know how I want to tackle open-ended FPS situations. Being "about the situational approaches" means "x of the player" instead of "x of the game". Perhaps if Crysis had a deeper story, and deeper gameplay, it would have been great.
Games like HL2, which don't have that deeper stuff, more than make up for it with the characters, story, level design and direction, all of which I couldn't give a hootinnickle about in Crysis, especially the characters.
You can certainly play a game and not reveal its true depth. I'm betting that for most games I play through, I miss a great deal of the potential strategies and features and such. I tend to find a little niche I'm comfortable in and settle down there, sticking to a few weapons or tactics. Keeping this relevant to Crysis, you can easily play through running around with assault rifles blazing and grenades booming, like most shooters. Or you can cloak and sneak up, then take people out with melee or silenced pistols, more along the lines of Splinter Cell. Etc etc. Making Crysis awesome was that you could change your play style in an instant, vastly increasing the number of approaches you can take. Cloak to come up from behind and grab somebody, use him as a human shield, go to Strength mode and throw him into some people, go back to armor mode and move around to get into a good position so you can throw a grenade in a destructible building, then use Speed mode to flee or Cloak and hide in the bushes as things go splodey. If you're not branching out and doing things like that, I can understand how the game might seem simple, boring, dull. Frankly, though, I don't know what more you could want from the gameplay.
Not every game has to do -everything- brilliantly. Standard things like graphics, sound, and gameplay should be solid, but beyond that, it really depends on the game in question. Some games are strongly story-oriented. Some are strongly character-driven. Some are both. Some have neither. I have a friend who thought that 300 was a terrible movie because the plot was lacking and the characters were largely not memorable. So what? The movie wasn't about plot and characters, it was about patriotism and awesome fight scenes. Does that make it a bad movie? That's entirely subjective of course, but I enjoyed it for what it was.
Really, it's kinda funny to me that you use HL2 as an example of something which does well with characters and story, because to me, it... really doesn't impress in that sense. It sets a nice ENVIRONMENT, but beyond that, nothing. What is it about the characters that is so profound and moving? Alyx cares about her father? One character is a double-agent? Breen is... shit, we don't know anything about Breen. We're slapped into the game and we make our way through a dystopian world, occasionally getting little tidbits of talking from primary characters, who are all very simple and have limited interactions with each other and the player.
We can discuss this in IM though, to keep from spamming... my own journal o_o
It took me a little bit to get used to getting back to the good old 2d sprite loving recently since I don't have a gaming system to play high tier games on now. It was good to expose myself to the classic sprites and low res (128x128 & 256x128 mostly) textures again.
But a game like Zelda Ocarina of Time where the gameplay (which keep in mind is the reason we play games. if you only pay for graphics, might as well watch a tech demo) was the fous of development, they still hold up and have aged rather gracefully.
So in the end, graphics are a WOW of the moment thing. Crysis will look like SHIT in 10 years.
OoT was good, and I still love it, but as I said in an above comment, if it were released today people would rightly complain about its visuals. Twilight Princess got great reviews and a lot of love because it was fairly pretty and fun, so yeah, it's totally possible to mix the two of them.
The thing is though, GAMES tend to be a "WOW of the moment thing". Crysis might look like SHIT in 10 years, but people won't be playing Crysis, they'll be playing Crysis 3 or whatever. Now for games where you're playing for the unique story and characters, it's a bit sad that you might miss out on them 10 years down the line... but there is a remedy to this.
Games need to try and look good, but to know their limits. Why does Half Life 1 look like ass today? They wanted 3D graphics but they couldn't take it far enough. Character models without enough polygons. Lighting without even reasonably realistic shadows. Things that have come out since then which have enough polygons and lighting effects that things look passably realistic at most distances, I feel, will age much better. There's a certain threshold of realism you have to achieve, otherwise the shortcomings will become glaringly obvious in less time.
My favourite game of all time is Homeworld, and Homeworld: Cataclysm. For their time, they had phenominal graphics that could be played on about any machine, and could match lots of games being released today. Why? Because it has an unmatched style that was easy on a graphics card, and many modern sci-fi games still attempt to copy.
That, and it had some truly astounding gameplay, story and atmosphere that leaves me breathless every time.
Now, as for modern-day developers, they tend to leave people like me in the dust when it comes to new games. My computer can handle TF2 at high graphical settings, just barely, so it's a shame to see them going ape over graphics without making them scaleable for lower-end machines. They're ignoring most of their userbase by doing this. (Just take Crysis as an example; it's sales are abysmal because it's so unfriendly to most computer rigs.)
I don't think that modern games are doing anything unreasonable. If you haven't bought new hardware in the past couple of years, you can't play them on high settings, that's really all there is to it. It's just like with consoles, if you didn't get the PS3 in 2006 or later, you're stuck with PS2 graphics. If you don't value games too much, get cheapo systems and used games, it's not like there aren't countless games from 2000-2005 which will run fine on a not-so-new machine and are also a blast.
A fantastic game has both.
But put eye popping graphics with broken or incredibly crappy/shallow gameplay, and see how long you stay entertained. Answer: Not very.
Just my $.02....
Graphics are nice, however if one has to detune the whole darn thing and run at the lowest or second lowest such pretty graphics tend not to be as pretty, and with some engines (say, the Guild Wars: Nightfall where there's an insane difference between low and medium quality graphics - yeah, it's not the best example but I haven't really bought any of the "new" games) seem geared and optimized for the highly beautiful graphics but seem to stagger with lower quality settings...
Hmmm, with gameplay, I don't quite see rehashing as something that's all too prevalent... Sure there are games out there that over time seem to just be the same thing between each rendition of them, however at the same time, some of those series (shooters) you can only expect "so much" from a line, yet at the same time, we get games like BioShock, Prey, HalfLife (and the sixteen versions of it), Unreal, etc etc...
Consistency with storyline is nice, however I tend to prefer the riskier ideas of "original" and creative concepts because they can offer something new...
a) Bad. Fine, the PS3 can show the bones of characters if a hard enough light is shown through them. 1) Such a light will never exist in a game, 2) if such a light exists, then you need to model the 3D skeleton of anything and everything that can be made to get between the light and the camera, 3) at some point users will see it for what it is: a pissing contest, and go elsewhere in search of what they want in a game (I have), 4) GET BETTER SOUND. It's shown that higher quality sound will increase the user's interpretation of the graphics more favorably (i.e. better sound and the user when asked about graphics will that that there were better graphics, despite them being the same graphics wise).
b) Every game has impressive visuals for the technology it's using, yes. However not all of them strive towards perfect realism or even using all of the graphical processing power they have. Example: Myst, Myst had amazing picture quality screens, but that's exactly what they were: static images and cutscenes. Instead of using user end power they used pre-rendered graphics. they got away with more by doing less. Could there have been a "better" way to do it? Possibly: nothing moved in that game unless it was a cutscene (i.e. no user interaction allowed). Small pre-rendered looped animations for backgrounds COULD have been done, and should have been able to run on "at the time modern" hardware. But it was unnecessary.
2) GAMEPLAY:
a) I unfortunately haven't played too many games (I lost faith in my genre of RPGs when I found that most of them aren't, such as a "yes or no" questing resulting in BARELY slightly different text to read (anywhere from 2 words to a sentence) before the same outcome. To quote Yahtzee, "I'd like it if my actions actually mattered outside of combat." OTOH I've seen some really interesting game play elements, what was it called....Ah! Perimeter. Perimeter had this neat mechanic that allowed you to transform your units into other units (an actual unit was a composite of several otherwise useless base components in different ratios) to give yourself an advantage. Was amazing gameplay in single player but I heard that taken to multiplayer it was terrible (I never tried because I had no friends to play with). Also, because all of your tech was nanite based you ate the land to get resources (IIRC, it may have just been the later part of the next statement). You also had to fill in gaping holes (and flatten mountains) to build because you could only build on perfectly flat surfaces at a certain elevation (and ruining the land under enemies buildings caused them to explode!).
b) I'd rather have varied games that were hit and miss. Even if the game wasn't balanced right or the mechanic wasn't well thought out I'd be more entertained, I think. With Perimeter I enjoyed the game so much that I finished it, even though my friend who'd played it sometime before didn't finish it because the mechanic was fundamentally flawed (the unit morphing when done right was ridiculously overpowered). Which reminds me, I need to go get the expansion.
3) GRAPHICS VS GAMEPLAY:
a) Spore. Spore, as shipped, is a series of shallow minigames with no room for thought and presents amazing graphics. They spent too much time on the user created content problem and not enough on the "is this intellectually fun?" problem. If I take a T3 planet and freeze it, polar bears in the T3 layer of animals DIE FIRST. Seriously, WTF.
b) It's not too much to ask, but I will not buy a shallow game with eye candy if I can buy a game with depth and shitty graphics (provided that the user interface doesn't make me rip my hair out; Dwarf Fortress does this to some people, yes, but it makes enough sense that once you get past the whole "push [b] to get buildings and [k] to look at things" it's pretty strait forward. Could it be better? Yes, but most of it arose from a mushroom patch of new features that were desperately wanted before a consistent control scheme was made to handle it all. But hey, that's alpha level software for ya).
If there's one good thing that came from the game, it's that it made EA rethink their hugely invasive anti-piracy actions in general.
Played Spore for 1 day. so glad I played on my friends' computer first, because I would've hated myself if I bought it
a) Is this a good or bad thing?
b) How is this different from gaming 5+ years ago, meaning, is it even true? Do you have concrete examples of modern and older games which did or didn't have impressive visuals at the time of release?
A bad thing. Developement costs of games are through the roof. You want to know the biggest reason you rarely see anything that isn't a sequal these days? Because games have to plunk down millions of dollars now on just 'basic' graphical necessities - which often prevent them from being played by a wide amount of the user base - before you can start on the 'meat' of the game. Publishers are very shy about putting that kind of investment into an unproven franchise. Before the 'modern' gaming era it was okay if your company put out a few games that didn't sell well enough to earn back their investment, because that investment was not back-breaking for a company. Nowadays a game costs close to the order of a feature film to make but many of the companies are a fraction of the size of filmmakers so a single misstep can kill them.
Many older games were not at the cutting edge of graphics at the time and still did well. Final Fantasy 6 (3) for example didn't exactly push the SNES hardware very hard compared to say, Donkey Kong Country or Killer Instinct. Heck, Starcraft was deliberately behind the hardware curve.
Blizzard understands something a lot of game developers have forgotten. If you make a game only the hardcore fraction of PC's can play, then you're limiting yourself to just the hardcore gamers. For the same reason, there's reasons why games like The Sims continues to utterly dominate game sales but a lot of it is people other than hardcore gamers can actually PLAY it.
2) GAMEPLAY: People also tend to say that gameplay is really suffering these days, with companies just rehashing the same old thing.
a) Do you think this is the case? Examples of new and old games where the gameplay was noteworthy or bland, and how it impacted sales, enjoyment, etc.
b) If this is the case, is it good or bad? Would you rather have games which are more consistent but less original, or more varied and creative but potentially hit-or-miss?
A sequel is not the bad thing some people make it out to be. If I like game A then in the future I'd probably like to play a slightly different but still much the same A2.
However, what is a bad thing is the closely derivative, take-no-chances knock-offs that are so omnipresent. This represents publishers going "We gotta plunk down a fat chunk of change, so we don't want to fail. Game X didn't fail, let's just copy that."
There's a lot of reasons why games pushed on us are buggy unfinished messes more often than not. The internet allows a 'patch it later' mentality - but people also still BUY the buggy unfinished messes, which gives companies no incentive to change their behavior.
3) GRAPHICS VS GAMEPLAY: People combine these two notions and commonly believe that enhanced graphics are made instead of more original gameplay.
a) What recent games do you think have made this trade-off with bad results?
b) To quote the great Tony Stark, "is it too much to ask for both?" In other words, why should we buy a game that doesn't excel in both fronts?
Having good graphics in a game does not equate to the game having bad gameplay. The graphics issue hasn't effected gameplay that much in the games that get released. Instead, it's just changed the 'landscape' of what games WILL get released and not for the better.
A game doesn't have to be bleeding edge to look good. That's something else people forget. Bleeding edge photorealistic games also age a LOT more poorly than more stylized games because we can directly compare what we see to real life and the most modern iteration. A game with a consistant ART style (Psychnonaughts for example) will continue to look 'playable' to most people long after the 'realistic' ones like Crysis start to make your eyes bleed. Go back to your old consoles and pop in 'realism/high graphics' games like Mortal Kombat and compare them to something that didn't try to mimick life but instead just tried to be itself graphically like Super Mario World. On the technical side Mortal Kombat's graphics are more advanced but they're sure a heck of a lot harder to look at now. 'Realism' ages poorly because we can so easily spot flaws in something the closer it approaches life-like.
To me, a game SHOULD look good. But a game doesn't have to break the bank on trying to do, like, photo-realistic reflections off water. Good ART looks good and is a lot cheaper to make, plus it can add more directly to the gameplay as opposed to photorealism which can take it away because the graphical needs conflict with gameplay needs. For example, a lot of old games had large graphical differences between enemies with different weapons so you could make quick threat assessments. In new shooters, it's often impossible to tell what an enemy is wielding because it all looks the same until you're too close for it to matter. Realistic perhaps, but not good for gameplay in a lot of cases.
I'm actually eager to see how newer games age. When you go back far enough and companies were making the jump to "realistic" 3D, there were just so many limitations. You could take off your glasses and step 10 feet back and their "humans" would only vaguely look like people, hardly better than pre-drawn sprites. Nowadays, polygon counts are high enough that even the details of people's ears can be added. While you might say "Man, the lighting on this game isn't that good, where's the subsurface scattering and the diffuse light reflecting off of his shirt onto his chin?" you won't say "Dear god. How did I ever play this. This character has NO NOSE and I can see the individual pixels in his clothing texture." Compare it to 2004's Half Life 2, which, when you squint, looks almost like a photo of real people.
But you are right that highly stylized games age better. TF2 should age quite nicely. But at the same time, it features bleeding-edge graphics technologies. It's all about applying the right things to the right places and in the right ways!
'Hardcore' games often qualify success at 100,000 copies moved, which is a lot, but not amazing financially. The lower-req games often move many millions of copies by comparison.
The problem is all the stupid fucking retards who think that you can't enjoy a game unless you have it on the maximum settings. You play it on the highest settings you can smoothly run, and if it's not good enough, unlike with consoles and games that don't support high-end graphics, you have the OPTION to fork out more money to make it look nicer. The OPTION.
Anyways, the following is mostly directed to question 3 in spirit:
Few companies implement experimental gameplay (sometimes even settings!) once their budgets hit the six figures and beyond. No business wants to risk their investment and therefore fall back on tried, tested and true gameplay that they know is palatable to the public. Even the original Halo comprimised with a hybrid system with the new rechargable shield coupled with the more conservative health points/bars found in conventional first person shooters. This was almost the case with Half-Life 2 with the gravity gun when it was originally supposed to be available much later in the game. Doom 3 and the expansion is an example of id playing it safe and going with what works. Check out the wikipedia article on the expansion and read between the lines when it mentions the original purpose of Doom 3's gravity gun. Bethesda's The Elder Scrolls series has been dumbed down during each iteration since Daggerfall. They even retconned Cyrodiil from being a jungle to rolling, grassy knolls as to better fit the stereotypical fantasy setting.
As consoles and computers become more powerful the bar for more realistic graphics will get higher. This will translate into higher development costs to produce a AAA title which, given the above, will mean few businesses will risk millions of dollars on innovative gameplay. Budget and indy titles *have become* the spearpoint in leading gameplay innovation in the industry and popular features will be copied by big time studio and repackaged in pretty eyecandy. Even though the video game industry is growing the number of new game releases has stalled and is even slowing down in absolute numbers. Compare 1800 titles released on the PS2 compared to the XBox 360's dainty 600. The PS2 has more titles released on it per year than the XBox 360 even though most development shifted to the latest generation of consoles two years ago.
I should qualify the above by saying that it is an average over the lifetime of the console and that there were more titles released for the PS2 this year than the XBox 360.
Feh.
Really though I don't see any other way things could go with games. There are still small developers, like GSC (made STALKER), Crytek (makers of Crysis and Far Cry) and the people who came up with the concept behind Portal, who are bought up or have deals with publishers. But other than that... I just don't see how you can have low-budget mainstream games. Simple solution: experiment internally with a gameplay idea, and just don't release it if it's crap. You don't have to make a full version of a game, or even make the game period. You might say "Hey, what if we had an FPS where you couldn't yourself attack anyone, but you could mind-control someone by focusing on them them, and they would act as an ally for as long as you were both alive and connected?" and then you'd consider what about that would be good or not, do some testing, make a mock-up, run it by some users, see what they think.
Alternately, develop a game engine for your company (Source, Unreal, Doom 3) which you can use to do big releases on and smaller mock-ups. Hell, as long as your company owns the software, and you've got effects and controls already programmed in, there's no saying you can't release a cheap, unconventional game (Portal?) to see how it does. You don't have to reinvent the wheel for every single game.
Graphics all and all should fit the theme, as I do recall Konami did a shit job when they took Bomberman and tried to make him appeal to adults.
In some genres like fighters and multiplayer FPSs (Unreal III and Marvelvs.Capcom) you really don't pay too much attention to detail other then beating the shit out of your foes, Meanwhile in Adventure and RPG titles you should focus more heavily on the graphics (art as well), depth, and story.
It's really all about also what the gamer is looking for when they are playing a game, Like in God of War, Devil may cry, Too Human, and Dynasty Warriors it's mostly about the fast pace smooth fighting,
Then we even go into Arcade vs. Simulation in some things
like GT and Burnout...
if you want realism go for GT, if you want speed, destruction and smearing other racers play Burnout.
Game developers arn't selling gameplay anymore, they boast amazing graphics, and mention nothing of gameplay, save for the line "most immersive environment ever" but thats still graphics.
To me gameplay means the whole thing, style, story, control scheme, good characters, and decent graphics. Which do play a part in gameplay, but they shouldent be the main focus, EVER.
One of my favorite games came out when 3d graphics where just starting out, infact it came out the same time quake did if my memory serves. It's called Blood.
The developers of this game could have used a 3d engine, they had the option, but instead they focused on making the best game they could on the Build engine, because they could make it a work of art. Thats what I want to see from game developers today. I want to see works of art, something that makes me go "Wow, they put alot of time into this". I haven't seen one game since then that had that level of artwork put into it.
I do see things that come close, but it doesn't come from game developers, it comes from the mod communitys for the games I play. There are alot of mods that do things games have done, and do them better, with more style. I see weapons and items in games, and they look over detailed, with a million scratches and details that woulden't show up unless you abused the weapon or item for a LONG time. Then I see mod teams come and make the exact same weapon or item, and it looks amazing, like it belongs there.
It seems to have this artistic flair to it, but it doesn't look unrealistic.
In summary, I belive that games have become more standardized and less of an art then they where 10 years ago. They just don't have that artistic polish anymore, like the developers don't have the passion for it these days.
Simple enough reply for me:
Gameplay has suffered because of the endeavor of improving graphics. The first Halo was AWEEEESOME as a mix, really though, Halo 2 had stunning, and I mean, orgasmic to the eyes graphics, and really the gameplay upped a bit too. But come Halo 3, they somehow managed to improve the game further in the graphics, but it was very... Dull gameplay wise.
My favorite game of all time is a SNES game called Zombies Ate My Neighbors... I NEVER beat the game, I made it to level 29, off 100 or something, but the game was the most fun I ever had and I had a rockin good time with it, the graphics were horrible though and I never cared, you could see the pixels, but I definitely didn't care.
Really, better graphics = shorter games... I don't like how short some games are becoming, Halo 3 was NINE levels, that's pathetic...
Also... Underhyped games are the best XD : the Metroid Prime games... It was fresh, creative, and everything was there... The story just wasn't thrown right in front of you cuz that's how hte Metroid Games are, at least it was that way 'til Prime 3... And of course it's just shoot the bad guys and solve the puzzles, but that's fine to me as long as there's a reason. But all 3 of the Metroid Prime games were ahead of the graphical curve so to say, they were well lengthed games, each one a bit over 24 hours of gameplay just to fight the bosses and beat it, first time. That doesn't include the search for every expansion to acquire the 100% clear. However some people were too busy complaining it "Wasn't metroid" because Metroid is a side scrolling game and that's how they should all be... MOVING FORWARD PLEASE? Idiots that want more of the same -_-;
I want change and I want it to smack me in the face, especially in video games. If they ever manage to make Super Smash Bros 3 dimensions without reducing game play that'll be the coolest thing EVER to me.
So in reply to something someone said earlier about Nintendo's graphics being shitty... "Wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrongwrongwrong wrong, yer wrong, yer wrong, yer wroooooooooooong." Nintendo has a few people in there good at making a game look and feel good. Retro Studios is my prime example.
In 1 and 2 though the idea that you would have to expand your inventory to access nooks and crannies of a level you've already explored didn't bother me... It was kinda like the knowledge that you would have to come back nullified the aggrivation of it. (Especially in MP_01 with those god awfully annoying enemies the Chozo ghosts - which I started to ignore altogether)
I think game play can be different, not necessarily bad. FPS are fun, but I still enjoy a top down game like Baldur's Gate.
a) Is this a good or bad thing?
b) How is this different from gaming 5+ years ago, meaning, is it even true? Do you have concrete examples of modern and older games which did or didn't have impressive visuals at the time of release?
A: very VERY bad thing
B: I grew up during that time playing those games, never ONCE did I EVER hear anyone say ANYTHING about how a game looks, just how well it played
2) GAMEPLAY: People also tend to say that gameplay is really suffering these days, with companies just rehashing the same old thing.
a) Do you think this is the case? Examples of new and old games where the gameplay was noteworthy or bland, and how it impacted sales, enjoyment, etc.
b) If this is the case, is it good or bad? Would you rather have games which are more consistent but less original, or more varied and creative but potentially hit-or-miss?
A: Maybe in some cases, but then again the SNES or Sega never had Guitar Hero or Rockband
B: Doesn't really matter to me
3) GRAPHICS VS GAMEPLAY: People combine these two notions and commonly believe that enhanced graphics are made instead of more original gameplay.
a) What recent games do you think have made this trade-off with bad results?
b) To quote the great Tony Stark, "is it too much to ask for both?" In other words, why should we buy a game that doesn't excel in both fronts?
A: B reminds me of Iron Man, which is a good answer for A
B: As long as the game has good gameplay, I'm happy