Developers! We want Games, not Graphics!

[saguy]

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.

I know this is a PC discussion but yesterday I started playing Eternal Sonata on the 360. Wow talk about beautiful story, presentation, great characters and distinctive art style. I am playing it with the Japanese voice acting and it is like playing in an art-house anime movie.

You are so right about the story because if you start caring about the characters it can take a game to another level. There are only so many things you can do FPS regarding combat and game play and they probably have all be done already. There will always be the new so called next gen graphics engines that look impressive when they first come out. There is so much room for improvement in character development, storytelling and distinctive art and level design. Voice acting can also help to draw you in and a good example of this is the Chronicles of Riddick

 

[eekfek]

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.

Tribes 2
Deus Ex
Grand Prix 2
Quake
Doom
Aliens V Predator
Sim City
Sensible Soccer
Kick-Off
System Shock 2

to name a few, all better than the shallow gameplay found in most of todays new releases, ... TF2 is a breathe of fresh air whereas cod4 and UT3 are basically re-hashed games with shiny new gfx, they wont match the thrills in the originals, gameplay > gfx

 

[The Dread Pirate]

Tribes 2
Deus Ex
Grand Prix 2
Quake
Doom
Aliens V Predator
Sim City
Sensible Soccer
Kick-Off

to name a few, all better than the shallow gameplay found in most of todays new releases, ... TF2 is a breathe of fresh air whereas cod4 and UT3 are basically re-hashed games with shiny new gfx, they wont match the thrills in the originals, gameplay > gfx

Don't Forget SS 2 The game that set the bar for Bioshock

 

[eekfek]

Don't Forget SS 2 The game that set the bar for Bioshock

totally agree ... how did i miss that classic ..doh !!!!

 

[bfar]

You haven't defined 'features', and you haven't explained why you equate gameplay to originality

I'm not writing a disertation here, you know what i mean But yea, gameplay is directly related to originality, insofar as nothing is novel if you've done it all before in another game.

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.

Well obviously! And if you were to compare SS2 with Bioshock, SS2 had more of the above. You could lean, collect ingredients for research, maintain weapons, manage your personal stats etc. It had lots of different bad guys, etc etc. There was more to it, and that's the older game by a few years! Your claim that newer games have more features is not strictly true. Graphically? Well yes of course. But in almost every other area, newer games are simpler, dumbed down, or 'console friendly'.

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!

You will never understand what halflife was all about unless you realise that at the time, much of what it did had never been touched before. Narrative in an fps? That was pretty huge at the time. It's been rehashed over and over, so it's value has somewhat died off now, but there are a lot of things about halflife that some publishers still haven't pick up on.

 

[Spit]

I always keep going back to world of warcraft even though the graphics arnt 2007!

 

[SiriusB]

As with any form of entertainment the single most important part of a game is the storyline. If your story line is crap or non-existent, your game/movie/book is going to be crap.

I love games like Final Fantasy [7 and 8 especially], Half-Life, Freespace [1 & 2] and even Abe's Oddysey! They all have brilliant story lines that make you pick up the game for a "quick 5 mins" that turns into you wasting half a day before you know it.

None of the games I mentioned above come close to the graphics we have today, but I bet none of the games from the last year have come close in terms of story. Gameplay doesn't necessarily have to be innovative either. Take Final Fantasy for instance, they all have pretty much the same style of gameplay, with just a few minor changes. They are still great games because of their story. Freespace at first glance looks like any other space-sim, but its story line is amazing. I could go on and on.

Give me a game with a great story line and average graphics and I will likely enjoy it far more than some pretty FPS with the best ever graphics and no story.

I know graphics sells a game, but if games publishers can afford millions and millions for graphics, they can afford a bit of money for someone to write a good story.

 

[danbroad]

I'm sorry I hadn't time to reply to my posts earlier.

Yes, my mistake, I meant the Source engine, not the Havok physics. I guess what I'm trying to say was that for me, the latest gen graphics hold an allure, but the story and the immersion are what will keep me playing, and the desire to see what happens next.

I'd rather see a game which played well with my existing hardware, than a game that looked great but never reaaly grabbed me. HL2 is an excellent example of a story I can play again. Graphically, it's almost getting old school, but when I played it last week, I was really looking forward to slicing and chopping in Ravenholm, and pitched battles in City 17, and those spidery poison headcrabs...

In contrast, Stalker, which I'm playing now, may look better, but isn't really keeping me up that extra hour wanting to play on..

Of course, if the future releases combine [no pun intended] great gameplay, an interesting story, and wow-me graphics, then it's worth the money spent upgrading to the latest GPU. If not, then I'd rather play HL2 again...

 

[scorza]

You will never understand what halflife was all about unless you realise that at the time, much of what it did had never been touched before. Narrative in an fps? That was pretty huge at the time. It's been rehashed over and over, so it's value has somewhat died off now, but there are a lot of things about halflife that some publishers still haven't pick up on.

Agree with that - even Valve. While HL2 was a great shooter, I didn't enjoy playing it half as much as I did the original Half Life

 

[pumaz]

Tribes 2
Deus Ex
Grand Prix 2
Quake
Doom
Aliens V Predator
Sim City
Sensible Soccer
Kick-Off
System Shock 2

to name a few, all better than the shallow gameplay found in most of todays new releases, ... TF2 is a breathe of fresh air whereas cod4 and UT3 are basically re-hashed games with shiny new gfx, they wont match the thrills in the originals, gameplay > gfx

I stand by what i said. Those games are classics and fondly remembered but new games like TF2 and Bioshock are in my opinion just as good.

You will get people that would say Manic Miner, Sabre Wulf and School daze are the best example of gameplay. But it's just how people remember them.

At some point we all look back and say the old days, ones, games, movies, music etc. were the best. I'm just trying to be honest I've been arround since gaming first started (I'm 39) and have owned most consoles, computers and games that have been available and gameplay wise its never been better.

We can now expect a good single player experience as well as an online multiplayer game with great sound and graphics from a single game. We really have never had it so good

 

[bfar]

At some point we all look back and say the old days, ones, games, movies, music etc. were the best. I'm just trying to be honest I've been arround since gaming first started (I'm 39) and have owned most consoles, computers and games that have been available and gameplay wise its never been better.

If it's purely nostalgia, then I totally agree. But there are still a few cases where the oldies still stand up to scutiny in terms of pure gamplay value. Look at how big the emu scene still is.

 

[eekfek]

i have to say Bioshock isnt a fraction of the game Deus Ex(nor SS2), in fact in pales next to them ; tribes 1 & 2 havent been beaten for innovation , design and gameplay (ok it was the hardest game type to learn) ; take counterstrike, the most basic of online shooters , years old yet still has more players than any other mp shooter ... why because the gameplay keeps them coming back not the gfx

as for console's its a different kettle of fish and its gfx over gameplay ... i cant think of a better console game than Tempest 2000 on the atari jaguar ... pure gameplay, visuals and thumping soundtracks, but hey thats my opinion

 

[FoxEye]

With the kind of hardware on the market today theres no reason why games shouldn't have good graphics without sacraficing gameplay.

That comment would only be true if all dev studios had unlimited budgets, and time.

The simple fact is, the better you want your product to look, the more money and time must go into the graphics.

Leaving less money and time (which are typically finite commodities) for everything else.