*****Official Deus Ex 3: Human Revolution discussion thread*****

bhavv said:
I lieks VVVVVV, Worms Reloaded, and Magicka a lot and they came out within the last year.

As for DAO, I would have much preferred it if it was a 3D / HD version of Baldurs Gate :p

Graphics are nice, but hardly ever the deciding factor of whether or not I like the game.
Click to expand...

VVVVVV, Worms and Magicka are all titles that work with the graphics they have, are games that nobody expects anything more from and cannot be lumped into the same category as triple A titles that have millions spent on them.

Once again (for the 50th time), nobody is saying the graphics in DE3 are a determining factor. Simply that they, from whats shown so far, look sub-par.
 
Even if we ignore the compression those images at the top of the page aren't really HD as they are smaller than 720p (which is a 'low' resolution by PC gaming standards anyway).

The newer 720p screengrab sections look decent to me. The older ones, nothing special, I don't think the yellowy hue they've put in does the game any favours there.
 
RobRX-7 said:
That's the biggest croc of **** i've heard this year. It really does my head in when people say this because they are just talking out their arse and they know it.

Graphics is everything too. That's why so many want to upgrade their rigs to play BF3.
Click to expand...

Being able to play BF3 != graphics, it's simply being able to play it smoothly.
Oh and to me, yes, gameplay before graphics.

Proven to myself by the fact I play many, many old games repeatedly because they are so good. I still play an 10 year old MMO too.
 
I think some people are misunderstanding what is being said here. We are not saying graphics are not important at all. We are saying that they will always come second to gameplay.

Now over the years I have realised that there are people out there which actually go for graphics followed by gameplay. They just love graphics, and if the graphics look bad, they won't even play the game. They simply are unable to. I know some of these people in real life. lol. For example my brother would not play deus ex 1 because of the graphics. To me, that is stupid. But then that's me. Everyone is different. I don't think he is stupid, I just think we all have different preferences. This is why I get what both sides of the argument here.

My only problem of what is being said here is, I just don't understand how anyone thinks and gets annoyed or upset that those pictures will represent the final PC graphics quality. To me that's just :rolleyes:

Enjoying reading this thread by the way :)
 
All the talk about gfx vs. gameplay is funny because we simply don't know exactly why we like or dislike a game (or anything else for that matter). This is decided in our subconsciousness which our consciousness cannot access. We try to guess about this and we may even understand some of the reasons but we never get the complete picture.
This is something worth thinking about before slagging each other off.

A game is a package consisting of many different parts. If a game is really great in one department, people will be mor inclined to overlook weaknesses in other parts. And two of those parts are your memories (ie. in case of predecessors) and expectations about the game. Those with the firmest beliefs are the most likely to be disappointed.
 
Yeah one of the refreshing things in this thread is that people are starting to come round to the idea that good graphics do have a place in gaming. Traditionally you get a lot of snobbish/elitist comments saying "gameplay is king, who cares about the graphics" and treating anyone who wants good graphics from a game as some sort of shallow ignorant fool.

The fact is that graphics themselves can have an impact on gameplay and storytelling - think about how we interface with a game, primarily that is reacting to what we see on our monitors. So if a game has extremely good and immersive graphics, that can help build the atmosphere and enjoyment of a game. Currently I'm playing Metro2033 and if I'm honest the actual guts of the gameplay so far seem nothing special, but graphically it does set a nice scene, especially in settlements, which keeps me interested. Equally, very shoddy graphics can make a game somewhat painful to play.

For me the 'cut off point' beyond which the low quality graphics start to significantly lessen my enjoyment of a game is around the year 2000. So stuff like Deus Ex, Max Payne, GTA3 etc are all fine in terms of the graphics not significantly detracting from the gameplay. Games prior to that, with a few exceptions, sometimes look so bad that they don't seem as good as modern alternatives. System Shock 2 is probably a good personal example of an extremely highly rated game that I struggled to get to grips with due to the poor visuals.

Multiplayer games are a different kettle of fish of course; I still play Quakeworld with worse graphics settings (resolution aside) than it had on its release in 1996.
 
Last edited:
Chrisimo said:
All the talk about gfx vs. gameplay is funny because we simply don't know exactly why we like or dislike a game (or anything else for that matter). This is decided in our subconsciousness which our consciousness cannot access. We try to guess about this and we may even understand some of the reasons but we never get the complete picture.
This is something worth thinking about before slagging each other off.

A game is a package consisting of many different parts. If a game is really great in one department, people will be mor inclined to overlook weaknesses in other parts. And two of those parts are your memories (ie. in case of predecessors) and expectations about the game. Those with the firmest beliefs are the most likely to be disappointed.
Click to expand...

I was thinking something along the lines of this also. For example many people say Deus Ex 2 is a crap game, but Deus Ex 1 is the best. Makes me laugh. But it's like that with everything really. Just imagine, if 10 years ago someone was to show you a 38" wide screen crt tv that had new features like progressive scan and stuff like that. You would have been like that is the best!! Knowing it costs 2k also. But show that same tv to someone now 10 years later and they would not come pick it up from you for free. So it's all about expectations and what we are used to.

I liked both Deus Ex 1 and 2. Only thing that felt really annoying on 2 was the loading times. Apart from that Deus Ex 2 was a good game, just not a great one like Deus Ex 1.

With many people I notice, if a sequel is not as good or better than it's predecessor, it is automatically branded as crap :rolleyes:
 
HangTime said:
System Shock 2 is probably a good personal example of an extremely highly rated game that I struggled to get to grips with due to the poor visuals.
Click to expand...

Mod it, looks much better. It was a game I really wanted to try, once modded some of the textures looked good, more than good enough imo. From memory iirc it used the Thief 1 engine. :)
 
TNA said:
I was thinking something along the lines of this also. For example many people say Deus Ex 2 is a crap game, but Deus Ex 1 is the best. Makes me laugh. But it's like that with everything really. Just imagine, if 10 years ago someone was to show you a 38" wide screen crt tv that had new features like progressive scan and stuff like that. You would have been like that is the best!! Knowing it costs 2k also. But show that same tv to someone now 10 years later and they would not come pick it up from you for free. So it's all about expectations and what we are used to.

I liked both Deus Ex 1 and 2. Only thing that felt really annoying on 2 was the loading times. Apart from that Deus Ex 2 was a good game, just not a great one like Deus Ex 1.

With many people I notice, if a sequel is not as good or better than it's predecessor, it is automatically branded as crap :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, and again without really knowing why it is worse than the predecessor. If Crysis (as a game which many regard as a tech demo without good gameplay) for example had copied all the gameplay mechanics from Deus Ex 1 many people would have complained that Crysis was just a "carbon copy".

That is the same problem. Gameplay is part of the package and the package is what counts. You can copy the gameplay aspects from one game to another and you still dislike the game because of how the gameplay is tied to the rest of the game. And in many cases we cannot even seperate gameplay from other aspects. Gameplay, Graphics, Story, Character, etc. all work well together in a good game.A game is a good example of something being greater than the sum of it's parts.
 
Deific said:
because the graphics were acceptable for their time and they've never been anything better - and you know this. If Dragon Age (baldurs gate successor) was made with BG graphics you wouldn't be saying, "well I'm still playing BG so as long as the gameplay is fine". People are complaining about DA2 graphics as it is. You talk so much poop on these forums.

Why do people look at the witcher 2 screenshots and proclaim they're looking forward to it even more?

Why do people watch BF3 videos and say it looks amazing and they're going to upgrade their rig?


Obviously graphics are part of the package and do matter as they add to the overall experience for any game. You're wrong, accept it.
Click to expand...

That doesn't really make much sense because dragon age graphics are pretty poor the gameplay is ok the only reddeming feature really about dragon age is the storyline and lore. I wouldn't have played the game otherwise.
 
It makes perfect sense in the fact that, if Dragon Age graphics were better, it would have added to the enjoyment factor for you - going on your statement, "the only redeeming feature really about dragon age is the storyline and lore". Surely this implies were the graphics better, the plot would not be "the only redeeming feature".
 
The Witcher 2 is a special case because its a PC only title, AND its being developed (so it sems) to also be a top tier RPG game.

I would however still be completely interested in the game even if the graphics werent so good.

Look at Arcania Gothic 4 on the other hand - Absolutely brilliant graphics, yet a completely rubbish game that won plenty of 'worst game of the year' awards because it is just a pile of steaming poop.

Hardly anyone could enjoy playing that game because of how bad it is regardless of the graphics, and I wouldnt ever buy it just for the graphics alone.

Poor graphics + great gameplay = great game.

Great graphics + great gameplay = great game that looks nice.

Great graphics + rubbish gameplay = rubbish game. No ones gonna like it just for the graphics alone.
 
The graphics are functional enough and that's all that truly matters when it comes to making a good game. For me, excellent graphics are simply a bonus. If the game is half as good as Deus Ex 1 it will still be one of the best games i've played in years.

Graphics only truly become an issue if they're so poorly optimized/so glitchy that they affect the game surely?
 
bhavv said:
Poor graphics + great gameplay = great game.

Great graphics + great gameplay = great game that looks nice.

Great graphics + rubbish gameplay = rubbish game. No ones gonna like it just for the graphics alone.
Click to expand...

What is gameplay? Can you make a definition that counts for all games? Where copying that gameplay would automatically make a good game?
 
Chrisimo said:
What is gameplay? Can you make a definition that counts for all games? Where copying that gameplay would automatically make a good game?
Click to expand...

Gameplay elements roughly summed up: Genre, controls, pacing, innovation, intuition (as in, knowing what the player will instinctively do in a certain situation in order to aid player navigation/success), storyline, character development. I'm sure i've missed loads. Any combination of those achieved to a high standard will generally result in good gameplay.

HOWEVER!

Your argument can be turned on it's head if you look at graphics, what makes good graphics?

Graphics elements roughly summed up: Modelling, lighting, animations, textures, artistic design, direction. Any combination of these done well will make for good graphics. Look at games like Braid that have excellent art design, it's all 2D, relatively low quality sprites, but it looks beautiful in its own way. Also there's a Xbox 360 exclusive game called Limbo which is purely in black and white, the textures are non existant (literally black and shades of grey) but the animation is sublime and the direction is fantastic, making it a beautiful game.

Then there's games like Ico, terrible textures, incredibly low res, but wonderful art direction, lighting and animations, making it a beautiful game.

Neither graphics or gameplay are simple things, neither can be defined or, particularly, judged with any certainty from single screenshots (I will admit you can get a better idea of graphics from a screenshot than you can gameplay though :p). I've kinda lost track of my point, but i guess what i'm trying to say is, who can really tell anything at this early stage? It could be an early build, or it could be that the character is about to enter an intricately designed steam-punk city with detail the gamer could only dream of, or the dialogue could be so utterly gripping at that point that he won't care about the many shades of brown on the screen.

It's something i've noticed in these forums, people are so quick to judge be it for good (The Witcher, can anyone really tell if it's going to be any good already!?) or the bad (Deus Ex 3 in this case)!
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
big name game ith naff graphics usual;ly means the game paly/story will be sub par because they havn't really invested in it.
Click to expand...

Dragon Age: Origins? That was looked forward to and spoken about for years, the graphics were pretty shoddy in comparison to other games when it was released. Didn't stop it from being amazing.

Devil May Cry 3? The graphics were a step down from 2 and even 1 which was released years before then. Was still awesome though.

[EDIT] on reflection though, you do have a point! I'm struggling to think of more big sequels with naff graphics that were great. Hmmm....

AHHA! Final Fantasy VII, one of the greatest games ever made, one of the longest running series of its time, the graphics were RUBBISH!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom