# What has happened to the gaming community...



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 9, 2011)

So I've been strolling around a few gaming boards yesterday, checking out reviews for Rage and checking out peoples opinions and such. I saw more bad then good about the game and the ONLY thing people were crying and whining about and giving bad reviews was because of the apparent poor textures the game has. So I decided what the hell, why don't I give this game a try and see what all the fuss is about. I installed it, played it for about 4-5 hours, and...WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH EVERYBODY???? My god! The game looks amazing! I have NO problems with the graphics whatsoever! Holy christ! What the hell happened??? When did everybody turn into graphics whores? I just...I can't...I don't even! Since when did graphics even mean so much that it basically defines how entertaining the game is? I mean sure, not everybody is like this but if a majority of the bad proclaimed by people is because of the graphics (WHICH LOOK GREAT) then there is a problem here. If this is the way the gaming industry is going to be from now on I...I just don't wanna live on this planet anymore! 


Post your thoughts, do graphics really define how great a game will play/sell?


----------



## haflore (Oct 9, 2011)

Rage got serious hype for its supposedly godlike graphics, so I guess some people just had unrealistic expectations.

In my opinion, graphics don't mean much. It's nice to have a pretty game, but the gameplay, plot and other elements are far more important to making a game good or bad.


----------



## Slyakin (Oct 9, 2011)

People care about several things when it comes to a game: graphics, audio, gameplay, and other things.

Graphics has gone up on the list of important things a game should have.

Not to mention that RAGE really DOES have bad textures.

[yt]0FefSRFQj5o[/yt]


----------



## Lube_Skyballer (Oct 9, 2011)

Crappy textures or not, the game imho is just fun. I don't understand the people complaining about those issues the WHOLE time. ffs just enjoy the game.
Every game from varying from the Atari 2600 to the PS3 don't need graphics to be a good game, a game needs to be FUN.
The gaming community is losing their focus....

And it's in people's nature to complain. People are just never satisfied...

(Althought Rage technical issues (severe texture pop-in) were annoying. But they can be fixed so stop complaining)


----------



## HaniKazmi (Oct 9, 2011)

The problem with rage was that it was split over three DVDs simply because it was said to have amazing graphics: it's nothing special otherwise. When thoes graphics turned out to be good, but not amazing, people felt disappointed.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 9, 2011)

Slyakin said:


> People care about several things when it comes to a game: graphics, audio, gameplay, and other things.
> 
> Graphics has gone up on the list of important things a game should have.
> 
> ...



Sure there have been graphics problems for certain cards, and really sometimes you can't help that, but if you're basing your entire opinion on the graphics on this one video (or even the many videos out there like this) then there is a problem (Not sure if you are or not, just assuming) I have a lot less power than the PC described in the video (I3 dual core 3.1ghz, NVIDIA Geforce 440 512mb gddr5, 1tb hd, 4gb ram) and I have absolutely none of those problems, and my game doesn't look at all like that. Mine looks good.


----------



## jamesaa (Oct 9, 2011)

The only problem i've read regarding the textures in rage were they are "popping in" so if you turned around quickly you got really shoddy textures until the higher quality ones loaded - i'm no graphics whore but something like that would bug the hell out of me.

Haven't played it myself though so how bad that really is i have no idea.

Graphics are not high on my list of features a game needs, give me two identical games one with great graphics and one with outdated graphics then of course i would go for the one with better graphics, but if a game with poorer graphics but great gameplay is available then i'd get that.


----------



## Burton (Oct 9, 2011)

In this case is the people's expectations. If a game is known for having "x" factor then people expect too see the "x" factor at it's best. I think RAGE expectations were to have high graphics and that's why gamers are whining. Sometimes people whine because they like to criticize something (weather the critics are with a logical base or not) and when the opportunity comes they just strike.


----------



## machomuu (Oct 9, 2011)

It's for this reason that I go on a gaming forum rather than going to gaming sites like IGN or Gamespot to talk about games.


----------



## prowler (Oct 9, 2011)

_Graphics effect gameplay._ If a game has poor textures that take a noticeable time to load, the experience of that game as a whole isn't going to be too good.


----------



## s4mid4re (Oct 9, 2011)

I don't think it's ALL because of expectations. According to wikipedia, it's a graphics card compatibility problem:





> Many Windows version users have criticized the lack of any advanced graphics options within the game, as well as the console-focused game engine.[52] Several reports of the game not running properly have lowered the Metacritic's user score well below the journalist's scores. Both console[citation needed] and PC gamers,[52] *have been critical of the large amount texture pop-in which can occur, even on high-end graphics cards.[52] AMD[52] and Nvidia[citation needed] have both announced drivers that will attempt to fix the issues with Rage*.


So basically, you were on the lucky end while the others weren't; you can't blame them for having an incompatibility issue.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 9, 2011)

prowler_ said:


> _Graphics effect gameplay._ If a game has poor textures that take a noticeable time to load, the experience of that game as a whole isn't going to be too good.



Perhaps this may be a bit obvious, but Minecraft. I say that as I've played on a PC which took about 30 seconds to load most of the world as I turn or move. I loved and still love the shit out of it, despite the crappy/laggy load times for the textures. And again the load time _isn't even as bad as everyone makes it out to be_


----------



## prowler (Oct 9, 2011)

suprgamr232 said:


> Perhaps this may be a bit obvious, but Minecraft. I say that as I've played on a PC which took about 30 seconds to load most of the world as I turn or move. I loved and still love the shit out of it, despite the crappy/laggy load times for the textures. And again the load time _isn't even as bad as everyone makes it out to be_


Minecraft is Minecraft though, you can't really compare it to RAGE and other titles.


----------



## machomuu (Oct 9, 2011)

prowler_ said:


> _Graphics effect gameplay._ If a game has poor textures that take a noticeable time to load, the experience of that game as a whole isn't going to be too good.


Well then it'd be more accurate to say graphics affect the experience, not the gameplay; the two are separate entities.


----------



## Slyakin (Oct 9, 2011)

machomuu said:


> prowler_ said:
> 
> 
> > _Graphics effect gameplay._ If a game has poor textures that take a noticeable time to load, the experience of that game as a whole isn't going to be too good.
> ...


Not when the graphics literally affect gameplay. How will you shoot an enemy if it doesn't even load into the image until it's 5 feet away from you? (Maybe not RAGE, but other games do have problems like this)


----------



## machomuu (Oct 9, 2011)

Slyakin said:


> machomuu said:
> 
> 
> > prowler_ said:
> ...


That's true, I won't deny that graphics can affect the gameplay.  I was strictly referring to the quoted post rather than anything regarding the subject, though.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 9, 2011)

prowler_ said:


> suprgamr232 said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps this may be a bit obvious, but Minecraft. I say that as I've played on a PC which took about 30 seconds to load most of the world as I turn or move. I loved and still love the shit out of it, despite the crappy/laggy load times for the textures. And again the load time _isn't even as bad as everyone makes it out to be_
> ...



Well I suppose you're right there...but I stand by my statement that everyone is over exaggerating and it really isn't all that bad. Sometimes it does pop the textures in but it doesn't effect the gameplay whatsoever. It's just...well the textures popping in. So boohoo, the graphics look bad for literally half a second while it loads the texture! THIS GAME HAS THE WORST GRAPHICS EVER!


----------



## haflore (Oct 9, 2011)

suprgamr232 said:


> prowler_ said:
> 
> 
> > suprgamr232 said:
> ...


Worse than Grand Theft Auto, with its notorious texture pop-in!?


----------



## prowler (Oct 9, 2011)

machomuu said:


> Well then it'd be more accurate to say graphics affect the experience, not the gameplay; the two are separate entities.


No, it can mean both _and I meant both_.


----------



## machomuu (Oct 9, 2011)

suprgamr232 said:


> prowler_ said:
> 
> 
> > suprgamr232 said:
> ...


Well if people look for graphics in a game who's to argue with them?  For instance, I love great music in a game and it's something I look for.  If a game has bad music but amazing gameplay I'm less likely to play it than I am if it's a good game with good music.

Well, probably, but you get my point, it's the same scenario.





prowler_ said:


> machomuu said:
> 
> 
> > Well then it'd be more accurate to say graphics affect the experience, not the gameplay; the two are separate entities.
> ...


Okay, I never said you didn't mean both.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 9, 2011)

machomuu said:


> suprgamr232 said:
> 
> 
> > prowler_ said:
> ...




Right, but proclaiming a whole game is crap because of minuscule graphics problem is wrong. That's all I'm trying to profess here. I probably went off course with it though.


----------



## Matthew (Oct 9, 2011)

machomuu said:


> prowler_ said:
> 
> 
> > _Graphics effect gameplay._ If a game has poor textures that take a noticeable time to load, the experience of that game as a whole isn't going to be too good.
> ...



Also as well as the terrible graphics issue Ive seen a video of someone who cannot even play past a about a minute of gameplay due to it being completely broken.


----------



## Hells Malice (Oct 9, 2011)

Graphics mean very little.
if they don't get in the way, they're not a problem.


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Oct 9, 2011)

As long as the game can make up for graphics with great gameplay, and I can understand what's going on the screen. I don't care all too much about graphics. Obviously, better graphics would be great, and add to the atmosphere at points and can make a more enjoyable experience, they're not that important. Some people don't realise this and will rip on a game for having bad graphics.

As long as those 'bad graphics' don't get in the way of the gameplay, it's all good. Of course, once they do....


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 9, 2011)

I'm excited to play it personally...

But first I have to finish Dead Island, the latest New Vegas DLC, Crysis, RE:4 (for the 100th time), Tales of Vesperia, and CoD: World at War which I just started and am actually enjoying.

I also need to work on my attention span...


----------



## celeron53 (Oct 11, 2011)

I have a crappy computer and I wish that games did *come out with crappy graphics* so that I could play them.


----------



## Nah3DS (Oct 11, 2011)

you dont watch games... you PLAY them!

fuck graphics whores...
now excuse me, Im gonna play some pong


----------



## Jehuty25 (Oct 11, 2011)

NahuelDS said:


> fuck graphics whores...


Too many games come out these days with nice graphics but shitty gameplay.


----------



## Nimbus (Oct 13, 2011)

I can explain this in relatively short way.

Gamers of todays generation have lost their ability to focus on game-play and storyline, and instead care about only one thing. Graphics and cost, or the lack thereof from time to time

Granted, when someone can take both and make them something wonderful, then we get something that's little short of a miracle. Graphics are a good thing, they have evolved quite a bit over since when I was a young lad, but they are not the only thing that determines how good a game is.

Most of the people I speak of have never played an 8-bit console, let alone a 16 or 32-bit one like most of us growing up since the 80's have, and as such they don't understand the concept of "Good Storyline" or "Character Background" or even "Replay Value". Unfortunately to add company to misery, the Gaming industry has caved into this mentality for the most part, and has ruined a once great kingdom so to say.

Also, alot of modern games require resources that are somewhat absurd for what most people settle with, in the PC market this is especially present. People are being screwd with their money and buying less powerful computers than what they would due to the economy, and I'll admit that isn't a bad idea. Unfortunately yet again, these games cannot sacrifice their playability for less resource heavy it seems, which isn't something that can easily be worked around.

We also got stabbed by the Casual market, which usually consists of people obsessing over the Wii as if it were an exercise machine, and stupid parents who think that some cheap 15 dollar game will provide the same replay value  and quality that a $40 will. Quality > Quantity, always! Again, the damn Gaming industry caved into this crowd as well.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 13, 2011)

Nimbus said:


> Gamers of todays generation have lost their ability to focus on game-play and storyline, and instead care about only one thing. Graphics and cost, or the lack thereof from time to time





Spoiler














> Granted, when someone can take both and make them something wonderful, then we get something that's little short of a miracle. Graphics are a good thing, they have evolved quite a bit over since when I was a young lad, but they are not the only thing that determines how good a game is.



A huge majority of games with good graphics are considered good in terms of, well, everything else.



> Most of the people I speak of have never played an 8-bit console, let alone a 16 or 32-bit one like most of us growing up since the 80's have, and as such they don't understand the concept of "Good Storyline" or "Character Background" or even "Replay Value". Unfortunately to add company to misery, the Gaming industry has caved into this mentality for the most part, and has ruined a once great kingdom so to say.





Spoiler













> Also, alot of modern games require resources that are somewhat absurd for what most people settle with, in the PC market this is especially present.
> 
> People are being screwd with their money and buying less powerful computers than what they would due to the economy, and I'll admit that isn't a bad idea. Unfortunately yet again, these games cannot sacrifice their playability for less resource heavy it seems, which isn't something that can easily be worked around.



Then buy consoles. Also, gaming is a hobby. People spend thousands of dollars on toy trains and Warhammer models. Why is gaming exempt from being an "expensive" hobby? How much money have you spent on video games?



> We also got stabbed by the Casual market, which usually consists of people obsessing over the Wii as if it were an exercise machine, and stupid parents who think that some cheap 15 dollar game will provide the same replay value  and quality that a $40 will. Quality > Quantity, always! Again, the damn Gaming industry caved into this crowd as well.



Except we still have a huge influx of hardcore games that have bigger budgets, higher quality, and better resources than ever before. Companies shovel out a few fluff games for casuals but end up spending most of their cash on hardcore games because hardcore games still sell and get bought.

Today's gaming age is the best I've ever seen. Gaming is constantly evolving, not devolving. To think we've lost something along the way outside of obsolete tech and outdated ideas is to be ignorant to how far gaming as come and what achievements it has made.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Oct 13, 2011)

Of course not.


Visuals effect nothing more than the mood, and even then simplistic graphics did it better. I feel like more impressive visuals have made developers lazy. We always see things like amazing graphics and effects, but extreme lack in gameplay and story.

Using an example, Duke Nukem Forever. Compared to the previous titles, it looked fucking amazing, but it couldn't hold a candle to the gameplay factor of the others. As for mood, you rarely felt like you could do anything, like you felt in the previous titles. Duke is supposed to be an amazing badass, but in this game you were lucky if you could control an RC truck for your life. You just never felt like you were always in control, everything just felt played out.

I know this is an extremely easy game to pick on, but come on... it's fucking awful.


Ever wonder why indie games that use simplistic visuals do so well now-a-days? It's because they're fun. They don't have to spend countless hours making sure the texture doesn't clip over the scope of the gun, and they can use that time to produce a truly great game. Granted a lot of them are platformers, but they're really fun and often challenging platformers.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 13, 2011)

_Chaz_ said:


> Visuals effect nothing more than the mood, and even then simplistic graphics did it better. I feel like more impressive visuals have made developers lazy. We always see things like amazing graphics and effects, but extreme lack in gameplay and story.
> 
> Using an example, Duke Nukem Forever. Compared to the previous titles, it looked fucking amazing, but it couldn't hold a candle to the gameplay factor of the others. As for mood, you rarely felt like you could do anything, like you felt in the previous titles. Duke is supposed to be an amazing badass, but in this game you were lucky if you could control an RC truck for your life. You just never felt like you were always in control, everything just felt played out.
> 
> I know this is an extremely easy game to pick on, but come on... it's fucking awful.



If you think Duke Nukem Forever is an accurate metaphor for modern gaming as a whole then you really need to get your understanding on modern gaming broadened.

Also, people saying gamers don't know about "story" or "characters" nowadays is a joke. Go play Mass Effect and tell me that. I know I jerk off on that game but it's easily the best RPG I've ever played and it easily has the best storyline and characters I've seen in gaming. Considering plots "back in the day" were either incredibly simplistic or incredibly cliched, I find it hypocritical for people to say that modern games know nothing about plot. If you're trying to focus on Call of Duty, then you're retarded. The point is for it to be incredibly plot skimp. It's like an action movie. Little plot, little characters, but a lot of adrenaline-pumping action, explosions, and burly men shooting anything that moves. It's not supposed to be some deep look into our world. You want a game with plot? Go play Mass Effect.

Also, anyone who thinks modern gaming is inferior to "retro" gaming doesn't know what a company called Valve makes. Half Life 2, Team Fortress 2 (haters gonna hate but Valve engineered an incredibly popular multiplayer FPS that's well made, constantly improving, and groundbreaking in terms of going F2P), Portal and Portal 2, L4D/L4D2, etc. It beats anything they did back in the day. And it all wouldn't be possible without modern tech and their Source engine.


----------



## Nimbus (Oct 13, 2011)

Well, somehow I knew Mass Effect would be used as an example of how I said "Great Graphics+Great Storyline+Great Characters=Awesome shit" but you did bring up a valid argument against my claims.

I still stand by them to an extent though. There are too many casual/crapware/shovelware/whatisthisIdonteven-ware coming out on an almost weekly basis. It does infuriate me as a person who grew up with almost nothing but great titles such as Chrono Trigger, Sonic 1,2,3,S&K, and the lock-on varients, Earthbound, Secret of Mana, Secret of Evermore, Super Mario World, Super Mario All Stars, Earthworm Jim (Seriously, bring this series back!), Zelda LTTP, and I could go on and on, upwards to the end of the Gamecube Era. It was at that point that I personally thought games started becoming lower and lower in standards, but after reading your argument, you have enlightened me a bit, and perhaps I was wrong in one way or another

Perhaps it's not the Gaming market devolving as I thought before, no.. Perhaps we've just picked up some "unnecessary baggage" along it's path of evolution, which we need to shed. It's not completely stopping us, but it is slowing us down.

Also, I admit, I have spent alot on Gaming, but as I am in college now, I rarely buy any games due to lack of time, and sometimes funds.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 13, 2011)

Nimbus said:


> Well, somehow I knew Mass Effect would be used as an example of how I said "Great Graphics+Great Storyline+Great Characters=Awesome shit" but you did bring up a valid argument against my claims.
> 
> I still stand by them to an extent though. There are too many casual/crapware/shovelware/whatisthisIdonteven-ware coming out on an almost weekly basis. It does infuriate me as a person who grew up with almost nothing but great titles such as Chrono Trigger, Sonic 1,2,3,S&K, and the lock-on varients, Earthbound, Secret of Mana, Secret of Evermore, Super Mario World, Super Mario All Stars, Earthworm Jim (Seriously, bring this series back!), Zelda LTTP, and I could go on and on, upwards to the end of the Gamecube Era. It was at that point that I personally thought games started becoming lower and lower in standards, but after reading your argument, you have enlightened me a bit, and perhaps I was wrong in one way or another
> 
> Perhaps it's not the Gaming market devolving as I thought before, no.. Perhaps we've just picked up some "unnecessary baggage" along it's path of evolution, which we need to shed. It's not completely stopping us, but it is slowing us down.



You don't have to buy all these crap games. There have always been bad games in video gaming, you've never been forced to buy them all. There's still a huge amount of great games this generation.

Also, those are just some 2D platformers with no plots and JRPGs that can be seen as cliched. Also, to say the video gaming has suddenly declined from the end of the last generation is pretty much just bullshit. Gaming doesn't suddenly decline like that, and with the tech and games we're getting nowadays, I certainly wouldn't say it's in decline at all.

What is this "unnecessary baggage"? Better graphics? We've always been getting those. Online play? Welcome to the future, where I'm not a hermit and can connect to my friends (if I want to). Motion controls? Most of today's "great games" either have no motion controls are little emphasis on them. Even Nintendo, the big motion control pusher, finds its "great games" for the system putting motion controls in the backseat (Super Mario Galaxy, DKCR, Kirby's Epic Yarn, Twilight Princess, which had a Gamecube version, etc).

Gaming is more complex and in depth than ever. I think people are too jaded in wanting to be "retro gamers" or thinking that being "retro" makes them so unique and knowledgeable that they're just unwilling to even glance upon the miracles of modern gaming. Pretty much all of my favorite games are current generation, minus a few for nostalgic reasons. I bet you next generation that my list of current games will shift to that generation, then the next generation, and the next, and so on. Gaming evolves and I evolve with it.


----------



## Forstride (Oct 13, 2011)

Developers are getting lazier and lazier.  Fact.

But on the subject at hand, when people are having widespread problems with a game, even with the best computers in the world, there's something wrong with the game, not the community.  Someone mentioned Minecraft before...

People with great PCs don't have a problem playing Minecraft, but people will crappy PCs may have framerate issues, lag, etc...That's not the developers problem.  That's just a problem with the player's hardware.

With RAGE, even people with the best PCs have problems, like in the video Slyakin posted.  Developers really need to step up their game (HURR HURR).


----------



## emigre (Oct 13, 2011)

Personally if a game doesn't look good, I'm not playing it.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 13, 2011)

TDWP FTW said:


> Developers are getting lazier and lazier.  Fact.
> 
> But on the subject at hand, when people are having widespread problems with a game, even with the best computers in the world, there's something wrong with the game, not the community.  Someone mentioned Minecraft before...
> 
> ...



That's two devs, one of them being an indie game and the other one being from Bethesda.

PCs are also highly relative. If you take ten PC gamers with custom built rigs, I bet there's plenty of diversity there.

Devs nowadays are putting more time, effort, and resources into making a game than ever before.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 14, 2011)

TDWP FTW said:


> Developers are getting lazier and lazier.  Fact.
> 
> But on the subject at hand, when people are having widespread problems with a game, even with the best computers in the world, there's something wrong with the game, not the community.  Someone mentioned Minecraft before...
> 
> ...



I must respectfully disagree with about 90% of what you said. Devs aren't getting lazier, people nowadays expect every game ever to have all the best things and if it's one ounce less than what they expect they bitch and moan about it. I was using Minecraft as an example of a game with great gameplay, not comparing it to the graphics problems RAGE has. With Rage, people bitch and moan because textures load about a few milliseconds to slow, literally causing the game to look bad for a fraction of a second. That's the peoples problems. The driver problems people have aren't related to the Devs either, as if when, at the time, the game worked fine and dandy for them on a range of hardware then they (obviously) saw no problems to releaseit. Not only that but considering it's Bethesda they would have obviously delayed the game if the problem were present at the time. Because a fraction of the players can't play a game with graphics up all the way is also another reason people are bitching and calling the game bad. Absolutely retarded reasons and obviously much of the gaming community has gone bad.



Guild McCommunist said:


> TDWP FTW said:
> 
> 
> > Developers are getting lazier and lazier.  Fact.
> ...



I would agree with everything you say, but sometimes devs don't necessarily put enough effort into games. But I agree that some do and it's just a select few that don't.


----------



## Chikaku-chan (Oct 14, 2011)

In my opinion the graphics must match the game,
like for instant Minecraft is a "simple" game and has simple graphics
and Fallout New Vegas is a more intense game so needs a more intense graphics design.
But I honestly dont care what the graphics are as long as its suited to the game itself.


----------



## kevan (Oct 14, 2011)

Whoever mentioned people having problems with RAGE according to that spec-checker site or whatever it is.
I'm way above the requirements. So if it lags out on good machines that is due to extremely poor optimization!


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 14, 2011)

emigre said:


> Personally if a game doesn't look good, I'm not playing it.


What do you mean by look good?

I think vvvvvv looks good.


You would think people would get tired of realism at some point.

I do understand the want for you graphics and frame rate to be consistent.

Imagine if one of the walls disappear, flicker, or something in vvvvvv.


----------



## darkreaperofdrea (Oct 14, 2011)

what happened to it?they stop living in the past,they all grow up,hence why they make too many crappy games nowadays


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Oct 14, 2011)

Slyakin said:


> People care *too much *about several things when it comes to a game: graphics, audio, gameplay, and other things.
> 
> Graphics has gone up on the list of important things a game should have.
> 
> ...



A little addition in bold...

It's sad... People judging a game on graphics. Forget the hype for a second, people. Was the game fun? ...or were you too busy pissin an moanin about how the game LOOKS? This is just pathetic..


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 14, 2011)

KingVamp said:


> emigre said:
> 
> 
> > Personally if a game doesn't look good, I'm not playing it.
> ...



5V (that's my abbreviation) doesn't have bad graphics. It's how it's designed. That's like saying Cave Story has bad graphics (the original one, not this piece of shit 3DS one) or that Terraria has bad graphics. It's the art style.

Want a game with bad graphics? Play Deadly Premonition.

And it's not about fucking realism, when will you ever get that? I can play a game like Darksiders (something that I've recently been playing) and it's certainly not realistic. Gorey, for sure, but it's not realistic. I can play a game like Alice: Madness Returns, which isn't realistic at all, but has good graphics (despite some muddy textures now and then).

I think you really don't understand the concept of how graphics work in games. Last generation I'm sure people would be sticklers for graphics since every system produced relatively equal graphics (except the Dreamcast but that's sorta an "in between" generations console). But nowadays since Nintendo underpowered their console, people are trying to act like they're taking the high road and being such core gamers that graphics don't matter to them. They should. If they don't, it shows you've really lost your concept of "quality control" and you're easily fed whatever low res piece of garbage goes across your plate. If there's one group of gamers that the Wii created that I hate the most, it's these "graphics and features don't matter to me since I'm such a true gamer!" retards. Casuals can have their fun, I'd take them over these snobs any day.


----------



## Hop2089 (Oct 14, 2011)

Do what I did and abandon the Western gaming market altogether, there is no hope for it, there's always at least 1-4 Japanese games that pique my interest every quarter.


----------



## emigre (Oct 14, 2011)

Hop2089 said:


> Do what I did and abandon the Western gaming market altogether, there is no hope for it, there's always at least 1-4 Japanese games that pique my interest every quarter.



So much wrong in that statement. Western developers have produced some excellent stuff this generation like Uncharted, GoW III and Assassin's Creed. On a whole I would say Western games are in a bloody good shape.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 14, 2011)

emigre said:


> Hop2089 said:
> 
> 
> > Do what I did and abandon the Western gaming market altogether, there is no hope for it, there's always at least 1-4 Japanese games that pique my interest every quarter.
> ...



Besides, how does game quality even fit into the entire topic anyways? It was started to talk about bitchy gamers who are graphics whores not quality of games.


----------



## emigre (Oct 14, 2011)

Stereotypical graphic whores tend to care just about graphics rather than game quality.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 14, 2011)

I would definitely put the western gaming market over the Japanese gaming market.


----------



## bialy_gibson (Oct 14, 2011)

Hop2089 said:


> Do what I did and abandon the Western gaming market altogether, there is no hope for it, there's always at least 1-4 Japanese games that pique my interest every quarter.



I also did that, but after some time i checked out western games. It felt good, just like returning home from long journey . All in all, it's good to have variety of genres, styles etc.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 14, 2011)

suprgamr232 said:


> So I've been strolling around a few gaming boards yesterday, checking out reviews for Rage and checking out peoples opinions and such. I saw more bad then good about the game and the ONLY thing people were crying and whining about and giving bad reviews was because of the apparent poor textures the game has. So I decided what the hell, why don't I give this game a try and see what all the fuss is about. I installed it, played it for about 4-5 hours, and...WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH EVERYBODY???? My god! The game looks amazing! I have NO problems with the graphics whatsoever! Holy christ! What the hell happened??? When did everybody turn into graphics whores? I just...I can't...I don't even! Since when did graphics even mean so much that it basically defines how entertaining the game is? I mean sure, not everybody is like this but if a majority of the bad proclaimed by people is because of the graphics (WHICH LOOK GREAT) then there is a problem here. If this is the way the gaming industry is going to be from now on I...I just don't wanna live on this planet anymore!
> 
> 
> Post your thoughts, do graphics really define how great a game will play/sell?



Graphics do define, but it shouldn't.

Also, people started becoming graphics whores around the time the PS1 was released "lol u pleh zelda? ffvii is bettar!1"


----------



## air2004 (Oct 14, 2011)

haflore said:


> Rage got serious hype for its supposedly godlike graphics, so I guess some people just had unrealistic expectations.
> 
> In my opinion, graphics don't mean much. It's nice to have a pretty game, but the gameplay, plot and other elements are far more important to making a game good or bad.


without a doubt , Story and play will always beat graphics any day ...... xenoblade chronicles fucking rocked


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 14, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> And it's not about fucking realism, when will you ever get that? I can play a game like Darksiders (something that I've recently been playing) and it's certainly not realistic. Gorey, for sure, but it's not realistic. I can play a game like Alice: Madness Returns, which isn't realistic at all, but has good graphics *(despite some muddy textures now and then).*
> 
> I think you really don't understand the concept of how graphics work in games. Last generation I'm sure people would be sticklers for graphics since every system produced relatively equal graphics (except the Dreamcast but that's sorta an "in between" generations console). But nowadays since Nintendo underpowered their console, people are trying to act like they're taking the high road and being such core gamers that graphics don't matter to them. They should. If they don't, it shows you've really lost your concept of "quality control" and you're easily fed whatever low res piece of garbage goes across your plate. If there's one group of gamers that the Wii created that I hate the most, it's these "graphics and features don't matter to me since I'm such a true gamer!" retards. Casuals can have their fun, I'd take them over these snobs any day.


I didn't see 3DS version as bad.

Maybe I'm not using the right world or it may not just not cover everything. Even then(from what a seen), most games try to be realistic as possible.

Whoa whoa, you keep saying people didn't care about graphics,(who is saying that?) they saying graphics at a point is just eye candy and does nothing for the game. Like the racing games. I see people on you tube (which are the people you should be calling snobs) talk about lighten
or texture on cars. How does high graphics on cars change gameplay?

It is funny how you say a game graphics is good, then going back around with the small things. Does those small things effect your gameplay?
You keep throwing the word snobs around,yet "I wouldn't play a game with bad graphics" doesn't sound snobbish to you?

Yes, I want to be in a group created by hd where we compare how much polygons and details grass has between the same game on two different systems.


It not that some people are not caring about graphics, it is some people started to care way more about graphics to the point that it is graphics >
gameplay.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 14, 2011)

KingVamp said:


> Maybe I'm not using the right world or it may not just not cover everything. Even then(from what a seen), most games try to be realistic as possible.



If by "most games" you mean "I only think modern gaming is Call of Duty", then yes. How realistic is regenerating health? Not at all unless our entire armed forces became Deadpool.



> Whoa whoa, you keep saying people didn't care about graphics,(who is saying that?) they saying graphics at a point is just eye candy and does nothing for the game. Like the racing games. I see people on you tube (which are the people you should be calling snobs) talk about lighten
> or texture on cars. How does high graphics on cars change gameplay?



That's for racing games. You look at an open world game and you'll know what I mean. Silent Hill 2 had great graphics for the time and could only render a smaller area (if the fog is any indication). Nowadays you can render an entire world without lag.



> It is funny how you say a game graphics is good, then going back around with the small things. Does those small things effect your gameplay?
> You keep throwing the word snobs around,yet "I wouldn't play a game with bad graphics" doesn't sound snobbish to you?



Not at all, it's called something that should be expected nowadays. I just find it snobby for people to try and stand on a high horse, proclaiming how true gamers are, yet they'll see themselves fed a game with shit quality graphics and think "I'M OKAY WITH THIS."



> Yes, I want to be in a group created by hd where we compare how much polygons and details grass has between the same game on two different systems.



I like being a group that's actually modern. Where I can play online with my friends without being bogged down by "friend codes" and an utter lack of features. Where we can talk about games that only HD systems get because the can only be made for HD systems. Where games are constantly evolving instead of just staying static and getting some control tricks.



> It not that some people are not caring about graphics, it is some people started to care way more about graphics to the point that it is graphics >
> gameplay.



You do realize most games with good graphics are usually good games? Not because of the graphics, but because they're good. Most people who will spend the time putting the extra polygons into a game will also spend enough time tailoring the gameplay to perfection.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 14, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> _Chaz_ said:
> 
> 
> > Visuals effect nothing more than the mood, and even then simplistic graphics did it better. I feel like more impressive visuals have made developers lazy. We always see things like amazing graphics and effects, but extreme lack in gameplay and story.
> ...





Guild McCommunist said:


> KingVamp said:
> 
> 
> > emigre said:
> ...




Being a bit of a douche don't you think? No need to use that type of language all the time :/



> people are trying to act like they're taking the high road and being such core gamers that graphics don't matter to them. They should. If they don't, it shows you've really lost your concept of "quality control" and you're easily fed whatever low res piece of garbage goes across your plate



Graphics do matter, but it shouldn't be the thing that matters most. I don't know man, maybe your girlfriend broke up with you or something today, or you're just having a bad day, but feel free to tone it down.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 14, 2011)

seems like it went from a "graphics whores" thread to a "hate on nintendo" thread...

a strong title doesn't have to "push the envelope" graphics-wise.  if graphics are such a big deal, does that mean games from past generations are no longer "good"?  The graphics in Castlevania:SotN are dated...does that mean I'm standing on a high horse when I play it?



			
				GuildMcCommunist said:
			
		

> I like being a group that's actually modern. Where I can play online with my friends without being bogged down by "friend codes" and an utter lack of features. Where we can talk about games that only HD systems get because the can only be made for HD systems. Where games are constantly evolving instead of just staying static and getting some control tricks.



Modern =/= Good
HD =/= Good

Where exactly are games evolving?  There has been little innovation gameplay-wise over the past 10 years.  Devs seem to just focus on little tweaks to already established formulas.  The only thing that's "improving" are graphics.  But, graphics, a good game don't make.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 14, 2011)

Old8oy said:


> Modern =/= Good
> HD =/= Good
> 
> Where exactly are games evolving?  There has been little innovation gameplay-wise over the past 10 years.  Devs seem to just focus on little tweaks to already established formulas.  The only thing that's "improving" are graphics.  But, graphics, a good game don't make.



If you think there's been no evolution in gameplay over the past ten years, then you haven't played games that are under ten years old.

Even if it's not "evolution", it's "improvement".


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 15, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Old8oy said:
> 
> 
> > Modern =/= Good
> ...



Man what is up with you today? Holy shit. There really hasn't been a whole lot of evolution in the past 10 years. Past 15, I would say he's nuts, but past 10, no. Not by much, and as you and he said, it's improvements. But evolution =/= improvement.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 15, 2011)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Old8oy said:
> 
> 
> > Modern =/= Good
> ...



The way games are played and the actual gameplay of games today are basically the same thing as 10 years ago. Sure there have been some minor improvements, but generally the games are played the same. 

Graphics, Music, and Ideas...sort of...are things that have been heavily improved upon to the point where people today care more about these things than what really counts: The entertainment value of the game. 

I think you're taking this thread a bit far now, and, as much as I love arguing, I feel as if this whole thing will go no where. S if you could please tone it down a bit then that would be excellent.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 15, 2011)

suprgamr232 said:


> *stuff*



Because I'm sure everyone was playing CoD ten years ago. Ten years ago, we had Timesplitters and Perfect Dark. Nowadays, we can play a game like CoD. I'm not saying that's an improvement or a step back, but they're certainly different and certainly evolved.

Also, what are you gonna expect now that we have 3D (not the stupid visual effect, I mean 3D models and stuff)? Arguably you could say games haven't changed a lot since then. Zeldas (that aren't handheld) are basically the Ocarina of Time template, just repainted. You still jump around and slap people's shit in 3D Mario platformers (exception being Sunshine because it blew chunks). You're still driving in poorly drawn circles in any racing game, except you might be able to nudge someone and send them flying or throw shit at them. If you want another SNES-to-N64/PSX change, then please tell me how you see this happening. That was a huge shift in how games could physically be done. Things weren't restricted to 3D planes or tricks to make a game barely able to look 3D. Games now had 3D models and could be played on all planes. That's a huge shift.

Of course, when there is evolution (CoD and its imposters), people cry about how they suck the life out of gaming and shit like that. When something is paying homage to the olden days, people praise the shit out of it and go "IT'S SO RETRO I LOVE IT". But now we're all complaining about how games are "not evolving", even though they're able to deliver us things we've never seen before. Online gaming for consoles is now a huge cornerstone. You're able to connect to your friends and play games with them from across the globe like never before. I can take scores in games and post them on Facebook or Twitter or anything. I can play a game with a huge open world and not be stuck with immense lag, loading times, or just shit loads of fog. We can build games based on physics engines that we've never seen before. Make puzzles based on it, challenges based on it, level designs based on it. Larger storage mediums and higher budgets let devs make gamers that are larger and more in depth than ever before. Digital distribution lets indie games exist, period. This constant online connectivity lets games be constantly updated or lets us add on to them with DLC (as much as people may hate DLC, it can easily be there to add to a game something that they couldn't fit). Perhaps these were all elements that were dreamed of "back in the day" but they've been able to come to  fruition and be a big part of gaming because of today's new tech and today's new ideas.


----------



## FireGrey (Oct 15, 2011)

The reason that older games are usually better than older games is because the older systems have already finished their library of games, whereas the newer ones have not.
A lot of people are still good in the gaming community, but there is a lot of bashing when people have different opinions.
eg.
Man A: CoD is so good look at the graphics.
Man B: Battlefield is better the graphics in CoD look terrible you can't even see anything.
Man A: You are a f*ing noob battle field is g* and i f*ed yo mamma.
Man A/B: [insert 10 pages of rage comments here]

The only bad thing about the community is that noone can get along with different opinions without getting mad at each other.
I watched a youtube video of this guy playing a game and said "Modern Warfare 3 is just like a big map pack of Modern Warfare 2" and you can expect what the comments are like, perfect for trolling people though.

Maybe we all just need to respect each others opinions.


----------



## BobTheJoeBob (Oct 15, 2011)

FireGrey said:


> The reason that older games are usually better than older games


Uhh.... What?


----------



## FireGrey (Oct 15, 2011)

BobTheJoeBob said:


> FireGrey said:
> 
> 
> > The reason that older games are usually better than older games
> ...


By that I mean that's why some people like old games more than newer ones.
I didn't word it correctly, sorry.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 15, 2011)

> Because I'm sure everyone was playing CoD ten years ago. Ten years ago, we had Timesplitters and Perfect Dark. Nowadays, we can play a game like CoD. I'm not saying that's an improvement or a step back, but they're certainly different and certainly evolved.



Medal of honor. 



> Also, what are you gonna expect now that we have 3D (not the stupid visual effect, I mean 3D models and stuff)? Arguably you could say games haven't changed a lot since then. Zeldas (that aren't handheld) are basically the Ocarina of Time template, just repainted. You still jump around and slap people's shit in 3D Mario platformers (exception being Sunshine because it blew chunks). You're still driving in poorly drawn circles in any racing game, except you might be able to nudge someone and send them flying or throw shit at them. If you want another SNES-to-N64/PSX change, then please tell me how you see this happening. That was a huge shift in how games could physically be done. Things weren't restricted to 3D planes or tricks to make a game barely able to look 3D. Games now had 3D models and could be played on all planes. That's a huge shift.



You mean the things we've had since N64/PSX days? 10 years ago? Sure back then they _looked_ bad, but they were still there. Therefore, no evolution in the gaming market in terms of entertainment value. Which does prove my point when I said "Graphics, Music, Ideas...sort of...are things that have been heavily improved upon" So you proved my point.

As for OoT comment, Twilight Princess, Wind Waker, soon to be Skyward Sword. 



> Of course, when there is evolution (CoD and its imposters), people cry about how they suck the life out of gaming and shit like that. When something is paying homage to the olden days, people praise the shit out of it and go "IT'S SO RETRO I LOVE IT". But now we're all complaining about how games are "not evolving", even though they're able to deliver us things we've never seen before. Online gaming for consoles is now a huge cornerstone. You're able to connect to your friends and play games with them from across the globe like never before. I can take scores in games and post them on Facebook or Twitter or anything. I can play a game with a huge open world and not be stuck with immense lag, loading times, or just shit loads of fog. We can build games based on physics engines that we've never seen before. Make puzzles based on it, challenges based on it, level designs based on it. Larger storage mediums and higher budgets let devs make gamers that are larger and more in depth than ever before. Digital distribution lets indie games exist, period. This constant online connectivity lets games be constantly updated or lets us add on to them with DLC (as much as people may hate DLC, it can easily be there to add to a game something that they couldn't fit). Perhaps these were all elements that were dreamed of "back in the day" but they've been able to come to  fruition and be a big part of gaming because of today's new tech and today's new ideas.



We're complaining how people nowadays believe graphics make the game, at least that is what this thread was supposed to be about. I haven't took the time to read all of the off topic posts in this thread so I wouldn't know if that's what people were saying before.

All of these things you mention and give examples of are things available 10 years ago (besides Facebook, Twitter, newer tech etc etc). Online play, for example, started with PC and even the Dreamcast had an online feature, despite having practically no games for it. Online play nowadays has been an *improvement* upon online play back then. Worlds that don't load like shit, obvious improvement. Physics engines, improved upon as they were there 10 years ago. Larger storage, higher budget, obviously improvements. And for that "more in depth" I'd like to argue with you on that. I won't say that there aren't any games like that today, but games 10 years ago IMO had more in depth game play than games today. IMO. DLC, expansion packs for PC games. Sure it was for PC only and you had to literally buy the games in a store but it's still extra content they couldn't fit into a game. Sure you can say that in the past 10 years there have been vast improvements, mostly because of the evolution of technology, but no evolution in gaming.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 15, 2011)

suprgamr232 said:


> You mean the things we've had since N64/PSX days? 10 years ago? Sure back then they _looked_ bad, but they were still there. Therefore, no evolution in the gaming market in terms of entertainment value. Which does prove my point when I said "Graphics, Music, Ideas...sort of...are things that have been heavily improved upon" So you proved my point.
> 
> As for OoT comment, Twilight Princess, Wind Waker, soon to be Skyward Sword.



Actually, ten years ago was the start of the last era (PS2, Gamecube, Xbox). Odd, I know. And no, they didn't look bad back then, they looked fantastic. Nowadays they looked bad because technology has evolved to outdo their graphical capabilities.

Twilight Princess, Wind Waker, and soon to be Skyward Sword are basically the OoT template with something added. Wind Waker you just got a talking boat and a new art style. Twilight Princess just let you become a wolf at times. Skyward Sword actually looks to change a bit by adding more RPG-esque elements.





> We're complaining how people nowadays believe graphics make the game, at least that is what this thread was supposed to be about. I haven't took the time to read all of the off topic posts in this thread so I wouldn't know if that's what people were saying before.



I'm rather sure the only people who think that "graphics make the game" are the people who think other people think that. I've never heard someone say "The game was good because of the graphics", unless the game is some type of interactive movie. I have a lot of gamer friends from different walks of gaming life, and I've never heard them say a game was good only because of the graphics. Only game that was almost an exception for me was Battlefield 3, just because how good it looked. But after playing the beta, I doubt I'll be giving it another try.



> All of these things you mention and give examples of are things available 10 years ago (besides Facebook, Twitter, newer tech etc etc). Online play, for example, started with PC and even the Dreamcast had an online feature, despite having practically no games for it. Online play nowadays has been an *improvement* upon online play back then. Worlds that don't load like shit, obvious improvement. Physics engines, improved upon as they were there 10 years ago. Larger storage, higher budget, obviously improvements. And for that "more in depth" I'd like to argue with you on that. I won't say that there aren't any games like that today, but games 10 years ago IMO had more in depth game play than games today. IMO. DLC, expansion packs for PC games. Sure it was for PC only and you had to literally buy the games in a store but it's still extra content they couldn't fit into a game. Sure you can say that in the past 10 years there have been vast improvements, mostly because of the evolution of technology, but no evolution in gaming.



By this definition we can just say that everything is an improvement upon the very basics. What's to say that Half Life was revolutionary, or Goldeneye or Perfect Dark, or even CoD, when it was simply an "improvement" upon Doom? You can easily say that Final Fantasy hasn't evolved since the first Final Fantasy, just improved. They're pretty much similes at this point. Improved, evolved, same thing.

And games ten years ago had more depth? Really? People spend hundreds of hours on Fallout 3, Oblivion, New Vegas, and they probably will on Skyrim. Open world games like GTA, Saint's Row, RDR, etc, give you a large amount to do. BioWare games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age (Origins, not really II so much), etc, have revolutionized stories in games. Mass Effect is honestly my big argument on the whole "games have evolved" argument.

What would you consider a possible evolution? 3D (like the depth thing, not models)? Oh right, it's expensive for home consoles and imperfect for handhelds. Motion controls? Oh wait, those are too casual, we all hate them. Augmented reality? We all got bored of that after an hour.

tl;dr: Arguably you can say by your standards that gaming hasn't evolved since it was first conceived, just improved.

Oh, and please give me a game you say truly "evolved" gaming, for a reference.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 15, 2011)

I agree with Guild about 95% of the time.  Just not here.

A FPS is a FPS
A RPG is a RPG
A Platformer is a Platformer

There are plenty of good, established ideas out there.  My whole "past 10 years" comment was with regard to the fact that devs are looking at all of these different puzzles (read: games) and are simply taking the pieces they like from each one and building another puzzle with them.

"Hmmm...I'm tired of shooting nazis, how about we shoot Koreans now.  Oh, and lets put the character in a special suit that makes them like the Predator!  Oh, and let's have aliens show up!"

"Hmmm...  We've done WWII to death.  How about we do another war game, only this time, it takes place like 3 years in the future?  We can use updated guns and stuff and make them very nuanced so only the most attentive and dexterous players will truly notice a difference!"

"Hmmm...  Time to make another RPG.  Well, we have to have shops, gear, gear customization, towns, sidequests, etc... since those are standard now...  I guess we'll just change up the battle system a little bit and copy/paste a story we've basically done at least 4 times already with the names and the setting changed."

"Hmmm...  Platformers...  I know!  Let's have the player jump from here to there!  And they can shoot/jump on/eat the bad guys!"

That's not at all to say that I dislike FPS, RPGs, or Platformers.  I enjoy the same games everyone else does.  But great graphics do not equal a great game.  Great gameplay makes a great game.

Did anyone play Singularity?  Okay graphics.  Obvious ideas taken from other games.  Innovative?  No.  But as a whole, a satisfying experience.

How about Fallout: New Vegas?  Fantastic game.  Period.  How were the graphics in that game?

This topic was never about games being "worse" now.  It was about "graphics whores".  There is very little innovation in gaming right now.  Believe it or not...the Wii/Move/Kinect was positive innovation executed poorly.  Rather than take chances like the game companies did in releasing those items, devs seem like they're content slapping a shiny new coat of paint over the top of a game they've already made before, more than once, with small tweaks to the gameplay.  I can't hate on the devs for doing it.  They are in the business of making money.  Publishers and distributors are in the business of making money and put an immense amount of pressure on devs to "create" something that will sell.

The people I CAN hate on though, are the people who take these games for more than what they are.  I enjoy playing CoD, Final Fantasy, etc...  But I can also admit that every iteration is basically the same game with small tweaks and "improved" graphics.  Nothing truly innovative.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 15, 2011)

New Vegas had fine graphics, nothing exceptional but certainly nothing bad. It definitely looks better than Fallout 3.

I'd like you all to honestly think about how many graphic whores you've seen. People who buy games ONLY for graphics. I've seen approximately zero of them. People buy games because they like to play them. Even the "bro gamers" who play nothing but CoD and Halo buy the games because they think they're fun, not because they like the graphics. "Graphics whores" just originated from Nintendo producing an underpowered system and so the people who bought the underpowered system and tried to play a game of fisticuffs with the big, powerful, feature filled competitors can make themselves feel better.

"Oh, you like Game X? Well who gives a fuck if it's actually good, we wouldn't know, but you like it because it looks good!" I really don't see how wanting a game to live up to standards of this generation makes anyone a "graphics whore". Most games that are good have good graphics. Most good games have good graphics. It's truly hard to find a game with downright terrible graphics but have it also be fun.  I guess the exception is the Wii, but even then its good games have relatively good graphics for the system, just not in comparison to the competition.

Arguably video games since their inception have been nothing more than Frankenstein monsters of other games or just reanimated versions of other games, just with an extra arm and leg added to it. That's my zombie metaphor for today.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 15, 2011)

Read the OP.  I think this discussion went somewhere other than where it was meant to go and it got you a little too excited.

That is what a graphics whore is.  Someone who bitches about the graphics in an otherwise great game, and focuses so much on it that they let their silly gripes take away from their experience.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 15, 2011)

> Actually, ten years ago was the start of the last era (PS2, Gamecube, Xbox). Odd, I know. And no, they didn't look bad back then, they looked fantastic. Nowadays they looked bad because technology has evolved to outdo their graphical capabilities.
> 
> 
> Twilight Princess, Wind Waker, and soon to be Skyward Sword are basically the OoT template with something added. Wind Waker you just got a talking boat and a new art style. Twilight Princess just let you become a wolf at times. Skyward Sword actually looks to change a bit by adding more RPG-esque elements.



As to your first sentence, I agree fully.

You could say they are the very basic template of OoT, in the sense that they are a 3D model Zelda game with a sword and shield, but you can't tell me that the game mechanics for each game changed making each game individual and different.


> I'm rather sure the only people who think that "graphics make the game" are the people who think other people think that. I've never heard someone say "The game was good because of the graphics", unless the game is some type of interactive movie. I have a lot of gamer friends from different walks of gaming life, and I've never heard them say a game was good only because of the graphics. Only game that was almost an exception for me was Battlefield 3, just because how good it looked. But after playing the beta, I doubt I'll be giving it another try.


Perhaps it's because I know different people? Comparing what you hear and what I hear is completely irrelevant and has no base for facts. I myself hear people claim "Graphics make the game" all of the time. I am well aware of how stupid it sounds, and I am well aware I know some unintelligent gamers. I agree on the BF3 comment, but I know I'll be playing it after the beta. May I ask why you won't?




> By this definition we can just say that everything is an improvement upon the very basics. What's to say that Half Life was revolutionary, or Goldeneye or Perfect Dark, or even CoD, when it was simply an "improvement" upon Doom? You can easily say that Final Fantasy hasn't evolved since the first Final Fantasy, just improved. They're pretty much similes at this point. Improved, evolved, same thing.
> 
> And games ten years ago had more depth? Really? People spend hundreds of hours on Fallout 3, Oblivion, New Vegas, and they probably will on Skyrim. Open world games like GTA, Saint's Row, RDR, etc, give you a large amount to do. BioWare games like Mass Effect, Dragon Age (Origins, not really II so much), etc, have revolutionized stories in games. Mass Effect is honestly my big argument on the whole "games have evolved" argument.
> 
> ...



Half Life was revolutionary, it spawned many of the great FPS's today. But it wasn't evolutionary. Goldeneye and Perfect Dark were both revolutionary, as they, in a sense, spawned the FPS's we see today, and sure they were extremely amazing, fun, and entertaining games but IMO they weren't "evolutionary". Perhaps my definition and your definition of evolution are different.

If you reread my paragraph there you'll see I said "I won't say that there aren't any games like that today" As of course there are. Saying there isn't would be absolutely insane. But I believe there have been more games with in depth stories 10 years ago (including the N64/PSX era, god I feel old when I say that...) than today. Yes, I am well aware of all of the games that DO have in depth stories today.

Possible evolutions today would be...oh drats, can't think of any.

Heres a couple of games I'l list before I have to leave for work. FF1, this one game has basically spawned the entire early console RPG era. Most RPGs today (NOT ALL) are often compared to the FF series in general (the recent FF's have kind of...you know, sucked).

I would say the first FPS as it defined the entire era but atm I can't remember the name...Maze something I think. So I'll go along with Wolfenstein 3D. It basically created the principles and rules of FPS games, if it weren't for W3D we probably wouldn't have the Doom we have today and all the other FPS to follow.

My definition of evolution is a change in an object, something that affects it's nature and classifies as something new. Something not done before, or not seen before. Could be improvement or flaw. A process of gradual, peaceful, and progressive change. 





Old8oy said:


> Read the OP.  I think this discussion went somewhere other than where it was meant to go and it got you a little too excited.
> 
> That is what a graphics whore is.  Someone who bitches about the graphics in an otherwise great game, and focuses so much on it that they let their silly gripes take away from their experience.



Thank you.


----------



## Zetta_x (Oct 15, 2011)

As technology increases (hardware advances) the majority of all the advantages you get from it are just better graphics. I'm not going to argue that all we got are just better graphics (as you can see some new engine features in many games), but this is what the gaming industry conditioned us to like.


The kicker is when people finally come to an epiphany that more detailed graphics is something more what we "want" and not "need" in games.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 15, 2011)

suprgamr232 said:


> You could say they are the very basic template of OoT, in the sense that they are a 3D model Zelda game with a sword and shield, but you can't tell me that the game mechanics for each game changed making each game individual and different.



But they're still using the same template. You rise from lowly beginnings, gain different gadgets as you go, and do a set number of dungeons before you face a final boss. It's basically the same game design, just swap out the textures and the dungeons.



> Perhaps it's because I know different people? Comparing what you hear and what I hear is completely irrelevant and has no base for facts. I myself hear people claim "Graphics make the game" all of the time. I am well aware of how stupid it sounds, and I am well aware I know some unintelligent gamers. I agree on the BF3 comment, but I know I'll be playing it after the beta. May I ask why you won't?



Then you really need to talk to better people. There's hardly a majority of "graphics makes games" people out there.

And I just didn't like the beta all that much. Maybe I sucked at it but it was just "Shot twice and your down". Everyone just camped in bushes and you were killed without a clue. I thought CoD had low health limits but BF3 just seems to be excessive.



> Half Life was revolutionary, it spawned many of the great FPS's today. But it wasn't evolutionary.




Evolutionary is basically just revolutionary minus the "r". Both of them mark change. Evolution is just gradual change. Revolutionary is sudden change. Both of them involve change.



> Heres a couple of games I'l list before I have to leave for work. FF1, this one game has basically spawned the entire early console RPG era. Most RPGs today (NOT ALL) are often compared to the FF series in general (the recent FF's have kind of...you know, sucked).
> 
> I would say the first FPS as it defined the entire era but atm I can't remember the name...Maze something I think. So I'll go along with Wolfenstein 3D. It basically created the principles and rules of FPS games, if it weren't for W3D we probably wouldn't have the Doom we have today and all the other FPS to follow.



By your definition, games haven't evolved in like the past 20-odd years. Every game is just an add-on of games from twenty years ago. We've pretty much thought of every possible genre and subgenre. Games have been able to deliver revolutionary (aka significant change) into gaming with different features. Games with low but regenerating health became so revolutionary that it became quite popular. Blind fire in third person shooters became so revolutionary and popular that most TPS games have it nowadays.


----------



## Taleweaver (Oct 17, 2011)

suprgamr232 said:


> Post your thoughts, do graphics really define how great a game will play/sell?


Yes.

I haven't read all the posts, but I haven't seen a mention that gamers tend to get pickier than they used to. Or perhaps the reverse is true: there are far more gaming magazines out there (mostly on the internet). than there used to. Maybe I'm the only one, but I mostly decide on buying games that I "KNOW" are good. And though everyone knows that gameplay > visuals,_ it is still the only thing you can actually estimate without playing it_. Yes, you could download the shareware version (if it's a PC game). But I noticed a trend where gaming companies tend to put the most work in the shareware version...and that is if a demo is even available. A demo also doesn't say much about replayability, which is an important part of gameplay.


I agree with whats been said before about gaming nowadays being pushed into a mold (it's either a FPS, RTS or RPG - it's more complex than that, but you get the idea). And if games can only differ by having better graphics, it's only logical it's the only commonground to judge a game by.

I'd blame gaming companies for not being creative enough to come up with different types of games, but alas: games today are too expensive to make to make a gamble. It's all fun to say that they should make new sorts of games, but if it were your money on the line, you'd play safe as well.


----------



## T3GZdev (Oct 17, 2011)

suprgamr232 said:


> So I've been strolling around a few gaming boards yesterday, checking out reviews for Rage and checking out peoples opinions and such. I saw more bad then good about the game and the ONLY thing people were crying and whining about and giving bad reviews was because of the apparent poor textures the game has. So I decided what the hell, why don't I give this game a try and see what all the fuss is about. I installed it, played it for about 4-5 hours, and...WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH EVERYBODY???? My god! The game looks amazing! I have NO problems with the graphics whatsoever! Holy christ! What the hell happened??? When did everybody turn into graphics whores? I just...I can't...I don't even! Since when did graphics even mean so much that it basically defines how entertaining the game is? I mean sure, not everybody is like this but if a majority of the bad proclaimed by people is because of the graphics (WHICH LOOK GREAT) then there is a problem here. If this is the way the gaming industry is going to be from now on I...I just don't wanna live on this planet anymore!
> 
> 
> Post your thoughts, do graphics really define how great a game will play/sell?



i now, it annoying me soo much, why make graphics such an important necessarily thing for a game to be good? or get a good review score?
i mean like what are we buying? video games? or texture packs & 3d engines?

i but video games to play, & enjoy the story, & gameplay with friends or solo, wither its no more heroes, zelda, metroid, call of duty, gears of war, or raceing games, even poekemon, ithink its good if the graphics get better & evolve but if they didn't or the graphics have small kinks, why make that a major falling point of thee game, the games not about graphics they all have stories, & sometimes that's far more important than graphics.


----------

