Developers! We want Games, not Graphics!
- Thread starter danbroad
- Start date
This is the problem with devs like EA, all show and no go. I just hope Crysis is all its cracked up to be. I think Valve are getting it spot on, really enjoyed playing Ep 2 and especially Portal recently and the gfx were good enough for me.
Just EA then?
I'd have said Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142, Company of Heroes, Half-Life 2 (retail) are some of the biggest games PC gamings had in the last 3 years.
Don't pick out EA for a lack of games or lack of quality, there are just as many other companies.
Well you should really be ranting on at the publishers rather than the developers for this, as they are the ones unwilling to take any risks on 'unusual' games. I don't have the link, but there's an interview with Chris Taylor where he says how much trouble he had finding a publisher willing to take on SupCom.
True there are many publishers who are like this, but EA stands out quite a lot for buying up then closing down many development companies deemed risky (e.g. Bullfrog) to concentrate on franchises with a much larger captive audience. With the budget needed for today's games their risk management strategy is obvious, but it leaves the minority who look for innovative games in the dark. Valve's business model is an excellent solution to this - despite it's issues they've been able to bring out some very interesting titles.
True there are many publishers who are like this, but EA stands out quite a lot for buying up then closing down many development companies deemed risky (e.g. Bullfrog) to concentrate on franchises with a much larger captive audience. With the budget needed for today's games their risk management strategy is obvious, but it leaves the minority who look for innovative games in the dark. Valve's business model is an excellent solution to this - despite it's issues they've been able to bring out some very interesting titles.
I think devs probably know, and publishers probably should know by now. But they use other hooks to sell games.
Look at Bioshock - it was hailed as a breakthrough game, and don't get me wrong, it was wonderful, but it was anything but original. It was System Shock 2 in a new outfit. In fact, looking back, SS2 probably had more features. The granddaddy SS1 actually had more features than SS2. So why are we getting less and less as time goes by? This is not a good trend.
And all the while, reviewers all over the world are claiming Bioshock is a novel game. It's a revivial or a reminder of better days to my mind. It doesn't bring anything particularly new to the genre, just a lot of polish.
Last edited:
It's the bloody consoles again imo. Take KOTOR as an example, I know a lot of people here think it's great but I really didn't like it - the control system was completely dumbed down on the PC to make it console friendly. When I think back to how much I enjoyed games like Baldur's Gate, I was really surprised at how much I didn't like KOTOR or any RPG since tbh.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
same gameplay style and graphics but crap story poorly told = crap game,
same gameplay style and graphics but greatly writen and told story = great game
most of the great graphical games that are out, few have bad "gameplay" but most that are considered bad simply have a terrible or boring story that doesn't draw you into the game at all.
half life 2 when released was considered a fantastically pretty engine, the gameplay isn't particularly different to most fps is it really? open doors, couple basic puzzels, and shooting? but the story was good. the reason i personally, and quite a lot of people didn't like ep 1 or 2 wasn't the lack of effort in the engine, it was that the story was dull and boring, slow and barely moved along, every little stop and call up the scientist from some random communication device was the same "alex, alex, is that you, how are you, we were worried blah blah blah, gordon, gordon, is that you ad nauseum for 5 mins + 8 seconds of telling you what to do next". i mean for hl2 that was ok, but it continued with no change through the other games, which had 1-2 extra enemies through each new episode, in exactly the same locations. the engine wasn't the issue, the gameplay wasn't the issue for most, the story followed the same generic path was boring.
Kotor for instance wasn't great or hugely unique at all gameplay wise, but the story was freaking well told, with some real puzzels and things to actually do.
The main difference between good and bad games isn't graphics, isn't really gameplay(very few games offer new gameplay) but down to the story. but this is simply, hire a really crap writer and crap actors, crap voices, bad direction. or hire great story writers, great directors and scripting. same way films with very similar action, shooting, visuals but one with a crap story line, and one with a gripping story line can be seen insanely differently.
same gameplay style and graphics but greatly writen and told story = great game
most of the great graphical games that are out, few have bad "gameplay" but most that are considered bad simply have a terrible or boring story that doesn't draw you into the game at all.
half life 2 when released was considered a fantastically pretty engine, the gameplay isn't particularly different to most fps is it really? open doors, couple basic puzzels, and shooting? but the story was good. the reason i personally, and quite a lot of people didn't like ep 1 or 2 wasn't the lack of effort in the engine, it was that the story was dull and boring, slow and barely moved along, every little stop and call up the scientist from some random communication device was the same "alex, alex, is that you, how are you, we were worried blah blah blah, gordon, gordon, is that you ad nauseum for 5 mins + 8 seconds of telling you what to do next". i mean for hl2 that was ok, but it continued with no change through the other games, which had 1-2 extra enemies through each new episode, in exactly the same locations. the engine wasn't the issue, the gameplay wasn't the issue for most, the story followed the same generic path was boring.
Kotor for instance wasn't great or hugely unique at all gameplay wise, but the story was freaking well told, with some real puzzels and things to actually do.
The main difference between good and bad games isn't graphics, isn't really gameplay(very few games offer new gameplay) but down to the story. but this is simply, hire a really crap writer and crap actors, crap voices, bad direction. or hire great story writers, great directors and scripting. same way films with very similar action, shooting, visuals but one with a crap story line, and one with a gripping story line can be seen insanely differently.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 15,788
- Location
- Outside in the bushes
These views It seems to me are generally held by old-skool hardcore gamers like myself we've seen the industry develop to the point at which storyline length and top of the range graphics were of equal importance however as the console market started to open up we've seen the storyline and length of games suffer immensly as all the new generation of gamers seem to want is somthing easy to finish and pretty to look at. Hence the downfall of the good storylines and the length of the game just so they can sell to the noobs out there who can't handle a challenge.
Simple test for that, if it's still rubbish online, then it has to be rubbish game play as well as story.
Many games have been rubbish game play IMO.
Take your rose tinted spectacles off people, I've been gaming since the late 70's (Binatone) and games have never been as good as they are today regardless of graphics.
I can't remember anything being as much fun to play as TF2, Bioshock, UT3 Beta, COD4 Beta and Motorstorm etc.
I can't remember anything being as much fun to play as TF2, Bioshock, UT3 Beta, COD4 Beta and Motorstorm etc.
In short, both gameplay and graphics go hand in hand. The gameplay is key in the active enjoyment of the player, keeps them hooked and really lies at the core of the game, however the graphics is there to add depth, realism and further enjoyment.
It's like meeting a woman/man for the first time. You make judgements based on how they look, how they're dressed as to whether they might be attractive, and then when you start talking to them, you get an idea of their personality. You'll go for the attractive one, not the unattractive one hoping that she'll have a nice personality. That in itself poses a problem, as each person will see 'attractiveness' as something different.
In reality, what should happen, is that developers should be more aware and geared towards creating games that are balanced between graphics and gameplay - both of which should complement each other.
Focusing on one over the other is baaaaad.
It's like meeting a woman/man for the first time. You make judgements based on how they look, how they're dressed as to whether they might be attractive, and then when you start talking to them, you get an idea of their personality. You'll go for the attractive one, not the unattractive one hoping that she'll have a nice personality. That in itself poses a problem, as each person will see 'attractiveness' as something different.
In reality, what should happen, is that developers should be more aware and geared towards creating games that are balanced between graphics and gameplay - both of which should complement each other.
Focusing on one over the other is baaaaad.
I think the gaming people who write *** games are getting it wrong 7/10 times. Graphics is one thing, but game play is another. Without the gameplay, the graphics lead to disapoinment to the players.
Sure, we have lots of games to pick from, but i cant be the only one seeing 4-5 games all looking the same, from differnent firms. Yes i was both, maybe asking for too much, but when was the last time you sat at a game and thought WOW!, then 5 weeks later your still saying wow, love this game? for me, WOW and eve, maybe BF2 and medievil2, the rest, not even worth installing after 1-2 days of playing..
IMO of course...
ColiN
Sure, we have lots of games to pick from, but i cant be the only one seeing 4-5 games all looking the same, from differnent firms. Yes i was both, maybe asking for too much, but when was the last time you sat at a game and thought WOW!, then 5 weeks later your still saying wow, love this game? for me, WOW and eve, maybe BF2 and medievil2, the rest, not even worth installing after 1-2 days of playing..
IMO of course...
ColiN
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Take your rose tinted spectacles off people, I've been gaming since the late 70's (Binatone) and games have never been as good as they are today regardless of graphics.
I can't remember anything being as much fun to play as TF2, Bioshock, UT3 Beta, COD4 Beta and Motorstorm etc.
well you have to remember that's just your opinion. frankly i played tf2 for not long at all as i didn't like it. the cartoony feel didn't grab me, the weapons, the playing. bioshock was pretty as hell, but i found myself bored playing it, the story was silly, the enemies not hard and like so many games that claim to be rpg's but are fps's with basic changes, they simply go from stupidly hard for a few levels to almost invunerable for the rest. its biggest flaw was from a hour into the game its really hard to die, even if you do there is no draw back on consequences. because there was entirely no tactics needed and no difficulty i wasn't PLAYING through the rest of the game, i was simply trying to get to the end as quickly as possible for the sake of finishing the game, not really to enjoy it.
ut3 looks promising maybe, but then, i don't think i'll enjoy it for long because snipers are ridiculously overpowered, rockets seem to slow, it just seems it will become a long range hide from sniper fest. cod4 demo i really liked, because it felt like war should feel.
but these are games that don't have great storys, don't offer great replayability in that sense in the first place. i guess the truly great games we all remember, we think back to single player fps's and rpg's with fantastic storys. the halflifes, the deus ex's, the original C&C games, the morrowinds and i dunno, cod1, moh:AA, the thing they have in common, is STORY. they all had good storylines, good storys that pull you into a game create the atmosphere for you. while cod and moh kinda had their storys imposed simply because we all know about WW2, the others provided their own immense storys. C&C's, with kane, and all the other guys they had in, the storys were great.
IMHO almost all the truly "great" games we all remember had great storys, the physics, the graphics, the actual gameplay all vary massively across those we consider great, but the story/atmosphere are what made them. when you actually care who wins and why, you enjoy the game a lot more.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
length of play doesn't really come into it IMHO. the games you listed are all very long games but without much story. its like talking about soap's on tv and one off films. both can be good, but we all love a great film. a came, like cod1/2 doesn't offer too much replayability because once you've seen it and know the story you know whats coming, it won't be much different. bf2 has a different outcome everytime. but online and single player games are just worlds apart, you can't and don't want to watch the matrix every single day of the week for months, you can't really have intensive story and direction + replayability.
Although i respect your view and what you say, i still hold the view that games now go for graphics and that WOW factor and have lost the 'come back and play me again' feel the use to have.
Most companies seem reluctant to try new things or push the envolope to get people into the game. Even the lastest incarnation of hellgate is a merge of diablo with a 3d game, its a step in the right direction but the graphics in the demo seemed very samish where ever you went.
Last game that drew me in for 12+ hours of sit and play time , without being a online game was Homeworld. Thast how long ive been waiting for something to grab me for...
Colin
PS - forgot about farcry.....
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 8,436
- Location
- Kent
So multiplayer titles have no storyline and thus no 'gameplay'?
In my opinion EP2 is not a good exsample beacuse nothing has really changed from HL2 3 years ago. They have not improved the combat and AI so I would argue that a huge improvement to graphics was needed. Don't get me wrong I would choose gameplay over graphics, but I am greedy as I want both.This is the problem with devs like EA, all show and no go. I just hope Crysis is all its cracked up to be. I think Valve are getting it spot on, really enjoyed playing Ep 2 and especially Portal recently and the gfx were good enough for me
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 8,436
- Location
- Kent
You haven't defined 'features', and you haven't explained why you equate gameplay to originality
Are features things that you can do? The way you interact with the world around you? The amount of alt-fire modes your weapons have? The amount of moves you can perform? NPC interaction? If we're only looking at things like that, then it is clear the games of today have the instant advantage. Games are getting more and more advanced as each month goes by, feature wise, gameplay wise, and graphics wise.
The only reason we hail the games of old is because we had less expectations back then and we loved what we got. Tell any new gamer to go back to a game of old and they'll probably shun it as worthless. Hell I played HL1 the other day and wondered what the hell the fuss is about. It isn't about graphics, it isn't about 'gameplay', it is more about 'fun'. I like games like C&C3 because whilst they're about as original as the idea of sliced bread, you can pick them up and play them within five seconds and have a blast with your mates without reading a 600 page manual, without getting a character and levelling him up with dozens of items, without learning 25 controls and without spending an hour working around a brand new interface. That is my idea of fun, unfortunately everyone else's revolves around this 'gameplay', this word that they throw about and expect everyone to instantly understand and deliver. It used to be 3D landscapes, then non-linear storylines, and now we're onto something that we haven't even defined!