What has happened to the gaming community...

[FireGrey]

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]

The reason that older games are usually better than older games

Uhh.... What?

 

[FireGrey]

The reason that older games are usually better than older games

Uhh.... What?

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]

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]

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.

 

[retKHAAAN]

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]

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.

 

[retKHAAAN]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.