ZFGC
General => Entertainment => Topic started by: AoDC on April 30, 2008, 03:28:40 am
-
http://www.cracked.com/article_16196_7-commandments-all-video-games-should-obey.html
sooo true and I lol'd a lot.
-
That was pretty good until I got to number one. Screw the Wii and the DS. Just because they have shitty graphics doesn't mean their games are better.
-
That was pretty good until I got to number one. Screw the Wii and the DS. Just because they have shitty graphics doesn't mean their games are better.
And just because the 360 and PS3 have amazing graphics doesn't mean their games are better.
-
That article pisses me off.
GRAPHICS MATTER. Get over it guys, it is a GRAPHICAL MEDIUM. Videogames are not art, and never will be art until you guys get past the "LOL GAMEPLAAY ONLY! I HAT UR BROWN GAME" stage. Photographs, paintings, movies-- they use complex lighting and color palletes, which give these peices of art atmosphere and contribute to their meaning/purpose/etc. The games that are brown and grey are brown and grey for a reason-- its contributing to the feeling and atmosphere of the game that was intended by the creator. They didn't want to make some silly happy game about a plumber-- they wanted to create a dark, threatening wasteland, DEAL WITH IT. JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE PUT EFFORT INTO THE ART AND GRAPHICS OF A GAME DOES NOT MEAN TAHT THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT "REALISTIC"
Sorry for the mini-rant, I'm just tired of the silly argument that graphics don't matter <_<
-
I never said they didn't matter. Hell, do you think I play any game I come across? First impressions count, and that's where graphics reign supreme. Delicious eye candy is one of the things I look for in a game, but it's not the only thing.
but yeah, for the most part, I'm with Limey.
-
#7.
Thou shalt let us play your game with real-life friends.
But I don't have any friends...
;_;
-
That article pisses me off.
GRAPHICS MATTER. Get over it guys, it is a GRAPHICAL MEDIUM. Videogames are not art, and never will be art until you guys get past the "LOL GAMEPLAAY ONLY! I HAT UR BROWN GAME" stage. Photographs, paintings, movies-- they use complex lighting and color palletes, which give these peices of art atmosphere and contribute to their meaning/purpose/etc. The games that are brown and grey are brown and grey for a reason-- its contributing to the feeling and atmosphere of the game that was intended by the creator. They didn't want to make some silly happy game about a plumber-- they wanted to create a dark, threatening wasteland, DEAL WITH IT. JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE PUT EFFORT INTO THE ART AND GRAPHICS OF A GAME DOES NOT MEAN TAHT THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT "REALISTIC"
Sorry for the mini-rant, I'm just tired of the silly argument that graphics don't matter <_<
You're better off watching a movie than playing video games if graphics matter so much to you. I wonder if the graphic whores would still be playing games today if they looked like they did back on the Atari or the NES.
-
That article pisses me off.
GRAPHICS MATTER. Get over it guys, it is a GRAPHICAL MEDIUM. Videogames are not art, and never will be art until you guys get past the "LOL GAMEPLAAY ONLY! I HAT UR BROWN GAME" stage. Photographs, paintings, movies-- they use complex lighting and color palletes, which give these peices of art atmosphere and contribute to their meaning/purpose/etc. The games that are brown and grey are brown and grey for a reason-- its contributing to the feeling and atmosphere of the game that was intended by the creator. They didn't want to make some silly happy game about a plumber-- they wanted to create a dark, threatening wasteland, DEAL WITH IT. JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE PUT EFFORT INTO THE ART AND GRAPHICS OF A GAME DOES NOT MEAN TAHT THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT "REALISTIC"
Sorry for the mini-rant, I'm just tired of the silly argument that graphics don't matter <_<
You're better off watching a movie than playing video games if graphics matter so much to you. I wonder if the graphic whores would still be playing games today if they looked like they did back on the Atari or the NES.
So I guess atari is your main console then?
-
That article pisses me off.
GRAPHICS MATTER. Get over it guys, it is a GRAPHICAL MEDIUM. Videogames are not art, and never will be art until you guys get past the "LOL GAMEPLAAY ONLY! I HAT UR BROWN GAME" stage. Photographs, paintings, movies-- they use complex lighting and color palletes, which give these peices of art atmosphere and contribute to their meaning/purpose/etc. The games that are brown and grey are brown and grey for a reason-- its contributing to the feeling and atmosphere of the game that was intended by the creator. They didn't want to make some silly happy game about a plumber-- they wanted to create a dark, threatening wasteland, DEAL WITH IT. JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE PUT EFFORT INTO THE ART AND GRAPHICS OF A GAME DOES NOT MEAN TAHT THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT "REALISTIC"
Sorry for the mini-rant, I'm just tired of the silly argument that graphics don't matter <_<
You're better off watching a movie than playing video games if graphics matter so much to you. I wonder if the graphic whores would still be playing games today if they looked like they did back on the Atari or the NES.
So I guess atari is your main console then?
Haven't had a chance to play any games on it. "Bad" graphics never stopped me from playing any games before. If graphics were a problem, there wouldn't be any Virtual Console on the Wii.
-
That article pisses me off.
GRAPHICS MATTER. Get over it guys, it is a GRAPHICAL MEDIUM. Videogames are not art, and never will be art until you guys get past the "LOL GAMEPLAAY ONLY! I HAT UR BROWN GAME" stage. Photographs, paintings, movies-- they use complex lighting and color palletes, which give these peices of art atmosphere and contribute to their meaning/purpose/etc. The games that are brown and grey are brown and grey for a reason-- its contributing to the feeling and atmosphere of the game that was intended by the creator. They didn't want to make some silly happy game about a plumber-- they wanted to create a dark, threatening wasteland, DEAL WITH IT. JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE PUT EFFORT INTO THE ART AND GRAPHICS OF A GAME DOES NOT MEAN TAHT THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT "REALISTIC"
Sorry for the mini-rant, I'm just tired of the silly argument that graphics don't matter <_<
You're better off watching a movie than playing video games if graphics matter so much to you. I wonder if the graphic whores would still be playing games today if they looked like they did back on the Atari or the NES.
Perhaps you're just better off playing outside?
I HERD THE GRAPHIX ARE L33T.
-
they wanted to create a dark, threatening wasteland, DEAL WITH IT. JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE PUT EFFORT INTO THE ART AND GRAPHICS OF A GAME DOES NOT MEAN TAHT THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT "REALISTIC"
Honestly though we don't freaking need 300 dark threatening wastelands, I for one am I tired of dark threatening wastelands.
That was pretty good until I got to number one. Screw the Wii and the DS. Just because they have shitty graphics doesn't mean their games are better.
Obviously somethings better if they've got millions more sales then the other consoles :P
-
Obviously somethings better if they've got millions more sales then the other consoles
They're better at appealing to the casual gaming market.
-
I agree with Limey.
If games are a visual medium, and they have graphic artists, then technically games should be an art-form, like photography, traditional art, digital art, film and painting. So, therefore, graphics should matter as much as gameplay.
But, games aren't widely considered an art form. To some gamers, yeah, games are an art form. To others, and especially those who don't play games, they aren't. They're still a leisure activity, as much as board games and sports. And therefore, at this point in time, to most people, only the gameplay matters.
When the world (and even some developers) can accept games for more than what they are, a worthy medium rather than a silly pastime, the world will take graphics - and games - more seriously. On the hand, this view is improving as we speak.
-
I'm sick and tired of graphics being the reason people buy games. Not saying that I don't really care about graphics, but I've had a lot more fun with games like portal and the like than I have with some of my friends' cutting edge graphics games on the 360.
Look at us though. Half the community are 2d game developers, and our graphics aren't top notch. Obviously a lot of us don't care a whole lot.
-
That was pretty good until I got to number one. Screw the Wii and the DS. Just because they have shitty graphics doesn't mean their games are better.
Obviously somethings better if they've got millions more sales then the other consoles :P
You can't judge a system by the the number of sales. The only thing that matters is personal taste, and I'd much rather have a PS3 than a Wii. In my opinion, the Wii only has one game that might be worth playing (Brawl) while PS3 and 360 have more games that I'd actually play.
-
That was pretty good until I got to number one. Screw the Wii and the DS. Just because they have shitty graphics doesn't mean their games are better.
Obviously somethings better if they've got millions more sales then the other consoles :P
You can't judge a system by the the number of sales.
So how do you suggest console popularity is measured? If not by sales then how?
-
That was pretty good until I got to number one. Screw the Wii and the DS. Just because they have shitty graphics doesn't mean their games are better.
Obviously somethings better if they've got millions more sales then the other consoles :P
You can't judge a system by the the number of sales.
So how do you suggest console popularity is measured? If not by sales then how?
She wasn't talking about popularity, she was talking about worth. Context clues, man.
-
some of his points are fine, even close to what i think when i see games nowadays, such as unplayable due to bugs and load times
the rest was just minor bickering imo... there are bigger problems than that, such as the writer himself who obviously isnt the sharpest knife in the toolbox
any of you played NWN2? ive never ever in my life played a so broken, unplayable game before... too bad the rest of the game is fun and even addicting
the engine is written by a weasel, something not human at the very least...
oblivion is by far the best game ive played this far, and seeing as its from 2004, which is a long long time ago... and it still has the best engine ive ever laid eyes upon
-
That was pretty good until I got to number one. Screw the Wii and the DS. Just because they have shitty graphics doesn't mean their games are better.
Obviously somethings better if they've got millions more sales then the other consoles :P
You can't judge a system by the the number of sales. The only thing that matters is personal taste, and I'd much rather have a PS3 than a Wii. In my opinion, the Wii only has one game that might be worth playing (Brawl) while PS3 and 360 have more games that I'd actually play.
Wii has a lot a childish games. Why can't some of these companys make their OWN system for these games instead of ruining Nintendo's name for Barbie games, or little kid movie games or something.
I think Wii should have some FPS's or some other types of great games on 360 or PS3. MP3 should of had multiplayer, I would play it again if it did.
Something else I thought of before was that if Wii, 360, or PS3 all have the same online game and not many people are online with PS3 or Wii on that game, there should be a mixed network thing where people playing the same game on each of those systems could play with eachother.
-
Wii has a lot a childish games. Why can't some of these companys make their OWN system for these games instead of ruining Nintendo's name for Barbie games, or little kid movie games or something.
They have. Never works out... I wonder why?
Also, I don't think the point the point the guy was making was that graphics don't matter... He means they do matter. The problem is some games are coming out with "awesome graphics" that just look like a blackout problem.
Graphics matter... but not all the time. Or rather, some graphics are better than others in certain circumstances. Like... I couldn't imagine a Mario game where you see each and every strand of hair, and his skin as wrinkly as a real person's is. But that's because its a game with a relatively light story. Look at Resident Evil 4. It has the realistic graphics thing going on and its doing it GOOD (well, except that some things look shinier than what they should...).
Even if the graphics aren't totally great, a game can still be made or broken by the gameplay (would be great if the graphics were good). Only when the graphics are mind-shatteringly insane (like red and green alternating every 2 seconds) can it truly break the game.
In short, graphics are essential because it is what you can see, how we interact with the game, but it is not the only thing that makes a game. I'm all for highly developed graphics, as long as the other parts of the game were worked on well enough too. So graphics matter, but it is not the only thing that matters.
-
Graphics do matter. They aren't there just so your eyes don't burn while playing. And the techniques they use like lighting and stuff is amazing. But just because a game has excellent graphics doesn't make it a great game. That only happens if the gameplay is equally excellent.
-
i think if you found a game with an insane story superb gameplay and orchestrated music you wouldnt give a flying rats ass !@#$% about the graphics...
i wonder why they even bother with the graphics if they cant make the game itself good, its a GAME not a graphical demo...
-
Heh, someone else reads Cracked.com here... ;)
Yes well, I just think that if the graphics fit...then it doesn't matter. Super Mario Galaxy may not have Hyper Realistic Graphics, but the art direction is amazing.
-
That article pisses me off.
GRAPHICS MATTER. Get over it guys, it is a GRAPHICAL MEDIUM. Videogames are not art, and never will be art until you guys get past the "LOL GAMEPLAAY ONLY! I HAT UR BROWN GAME" stage. Photographs, paintings, movies-- they use complex lighting and color palletes, which give these peices of art atmosphere and contribute to their meaning/purpose/etc. The games that are brown and grey are brown and grey for a reason-- its contributing to the feeling and atmosphere of the game that was intended by the creator. They didn't want to make some silly happy game about a plumber-- they wanted to create a dark, threatening wasteland, DEAL WITH IT. JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE PUT EFFORT INTO THE ART AND GRAPHICS OF A GAME DOES NOT MEAN TAHT THEY ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT "REALISTIC"
Sorry for the mini-rant, I'm just tired of the silly argument that graphics don't matter <_<
But graphics are in many cases, an addition to gameplay. It depends on the quality and design of the game. Nothing graphical can replace the creativity behind the game, and the article sums that up nicely. That's the point it's trying to make with that commandment, not that graphics have no intrinsic value entirely but that their value depends on the quality of the gameplay. Otherwise, they're not a game. Just like if you look at some POS hollywood big budget movie nowadays, you don't look for lots of explosions and sex and whatnot, you look for a damn plot. If you're even more of an avid movie fan, you look at the way the camera is handled and angles are used. This is all a facet of art. Games are the same way, I'm not gonna buy another racing game just because it's the same game with better graphics. On the flipside, good graphics can only improve the best games already there, like Shadow of the Colossus, which happens to be one of my favorites. The art direction is fantastic in the game but it took more steps than just that, it made the controls detailed and the enemies interesting and the plot unique/amazing. It even used a fictional language just to make the world more immersive. Same with the Jet Set Radio series, another of my favorites. You can't argue the art direction is great, but the controls and story just make it what it is- playable. Not good looking, not eye candy, but playable.
-
Yeah except uh... sorry but this line is stupid and untruthful-
Sorry, you know damned well that technical limitations aren't the reason everyone is dropping split screen.
They ARE the reason most games are dropping it >_<. The games that do have it cut graphics almost 10 fold, and to add insult to injury, theres load limitations to it. GTA:SA is a good example of technical limitations. It couldn't do it either, because the game had issues loading more chunks of the city then what's immediately on screen.
Older generation consoles could do it because they didn't have to load too terribly much to do it, and the consoles weren't pushed to their graphical limits.
<_< These aren't funny, they're kinda ignorant :\
-
I don't care about graphics they're the least important thing to me, when i buy a console i go for the one that's likely to have the most good games, regardless of graphics.
-
Yeah except uh... sorry but this line is stupid and untruthful-
Sorry, you know damned well that technical limitations aren't the reason everyone is dropping split screen.
They ARE the reason most games are dropping it >_<. The games that do have it cut graphics almost 10 fold, and to add insult to injury, theres load limitations to it. GTA:SA is a good example of technical limitations. It couldn't do it either, because the game had issues loading more chunks of the city then what's immediately on screen.
Older generation consoles could do it because they didn't have to load too terribly much to do it, and the consoles weren't pushed to their graphical limits.
<_< These aren't funny, they're kinda ignorant :\
Yeah, it's like your computer trying to play Crysis times four.
Sure, go ahead and have your splitscreen, if you enjoy playing games at 2 fps.
-
I don't care about graphics they're the least important thing to me, when i buy a console i go for the one that's likely to have the most good games, regardless of graphics.
Amen, brother. That's exactly my thoughts in regards to graphics. And Swiftu, splitscreen doesn't run a 2 fps, cuz as Mammy pointed out the systems weren't being pushed to the limit so there was still room for the splitscreen to run at a speed equal to the 1 player modes.
-
Couldn't developers just program it so it loads up one map, but the split screens are effectively just four cameras?
-
Couldn't developers just program it so it loads up one map, but the split screens are effectively just four cameras?
Not unless you want really small, undetailed maps. Lets put it this way. Lets say you have the PS2 version of Liberty City. Obviously the PS2 loads that in chunks, because if its loading all of it, it's trying to render every single polygon at all times, bogging the system down to a halt. Xbox 360, Liberty City is much much more detailed. Double the polygons, if not more. For the console to actively render that 4 times would just be ridiculous lol... It's not possible.
Now what they could do <_< is render the GTA3's liberty city 4 times on the 360 <_< that might work better... but again, you're losing detail. A lot of it. In most cases as well, your distancing goes short, and you lose bloom lighting when in split screen mode.
-
Hmm. Well why's bloom lighting so important? I don't even know what that is.
-
Bloom lighting is where colors just kind of bleed into each other a bit instead of having fixed and rigid edges. It generally just makes things look pretty.
-
Interesting, I actually agreed with quite a lot of that.
It's not about incredible graphics with awesome effects, and similarly, it's not about shitty graphics but good gameplay. It's not even about the compromise between them.
The problem is that technology increases, and everyone tries to make faster, more powerful machines, or machines that do things in new ways, or whatever. The outcome is that the companies create platforms which mean less effort for the developers. That's what it comes down to. The developers think, "oh, cool, we can create incredible graphics by just adding more polygons and higher res textures" and "they've given us such innovative technology, let's make sure to use it."
It's effortless, it's quick and no actual feeling goes into the game. Or movie. I hate just about every action film that came out after The Matrix. CGI got cheaper, so everything else in the film got cheaper too.
So they're given innovative technology, and instant amazing graphics. Right, so they should work on the gameplay to balance it out? That's not the way to go about making a game! You've missed out everything in between.
N64 Zeldas had ground breaking graphics not because they had lots of polygons, or good textures. What mattered was that the amount of effort put into creating, what was at the time, new technology - writing the 3D engine was a terrific feat, so accompanying it were huge amounts of effort into EVERYTHING else of the game.
Assassin's parkour has incredible graphics, sure, but into the actual animations, I think they could have tried harder. It still looks blocky, and digital. The textures don't cover that up. If you were to blur the screen a lot, it wouldn't be mistaken for real life - so if you were trying to make it realistic, you've failed. Don't tell me it's not meant to look real, course it is, that's the entire point of improving the graphics. And levels of detail, what's up with that? Crysis, yeah, great graphics, interaction with the world, zero out of ten. You can shoot the trees, impressive. Except you can only shoot certain trees. Great. You can pick up all kinds of objects, but if you actually want to do stuff with them, nothing. Most items and objects don't even have one destruction animation. If they put the same effort into interaction with the world as they did with the graphics, then, and only then, would the gameplay be satisfactory.
Every game on the PS2 I've ever played has looked blurred. I don't get what the deal is with that, I like the pixelated look of Ocarina of Time. It's not as pretty straight away, but the boldness of the colours and the symbolic detail it embodied was brilliant. Blurring everything into creams and greys is not.
If a game is too powerful or resource heavy for a console, its inefficiency is a disgrace. Make the resource-hog 'new technology' do what it can handle, and spend more time on the detail between the main areas.
I hate where Nintendo has taken itself recently. It's worked because they've appealed to a new audience, and just ignored the old one. Most of the old audience followed because they were too stupid to notice. Twilight princess is different to the others in a BAD way! "Retaining the Zelda feel" is what I hear all the time. What a !@#$% lie, it's lost every bit of it! You complain that there are long journeys between the missions, indeed. There used to be a reason for them. In Ocarina of Time, it was FUN to get lost in a field because there was so much to DO in that field. Now they give us more, more field, but much less to actually do in it. What the hell is up with corners with nothing in them? Zelda was about secrets and side missions everywhere you turn. TP was about a linear mission, all the way through. On my way through TP I encountered so many things like objects which are obviously useful in the future, but do nothing for now. That's a good tactic to use if you can make the player want to go to where it leads. TP didn't. It just threw too many at you at once without showing at all what would lie beyond once you got the item/object/whatever to get past the obstacle. Zelda was about tempting you to play on. About giving you a taster of an area ahead and making you think, "I really want to get to that bit, but can't, it looks so fun, I wonder how you do such-and-such, etc." I'm sorry, but looking at a FIELD almost identical to what you've just ridden in isn't enticing. The obstacles are so generic you forget them - originally, there would be just a few of these obstacles you couldn't get past and they annoyed you so much that when you finally got the item, you ran straight to whereever and used it. Not anymore. Think back to the old zeldas, say Link's Awakening, the very first thing you do is struggle through those spikey things on the beach with your shield, slowly pushing them out of the way. You get annoyed and think, surely there's a faster way to get through all this. Then you get the sword and, combined with the perfect music, you get a rush of power as you cut through them all, making them explode! Perfect release of the anger at them, perfect power, perfect lead into the very next thing. What is the next thing? Finding the feather, that lets you get over all the holes you've been annoyed at for the last ten minutes.
THAT was the Zelda feel.
Starfox Adventures: Dinosaur Planet was a good game. It wasn't trying to be epic, it wasn't trying to break new ground, it was just a pure and simple, good game. Most of the puzzles were copied. So what. It was the perfect length for you to not to get bored but not to be disappointed, it had a hugely diverse range of puzzles and methods of gameplay, it had brilliant music, and it wasn't trying to be something incredible - just a plain, simple, enjoyable game. I don't know why they don't make more games like that. All we get is new games, trying to break new ground, trying to be epic, trying to "wow" you from the first moment, or generic, completely copied games that are !@#$%. Apparently gamers today don't have patience, and if something annoys them they give up. And developers will listen to that because it's the general public that sells. The majority of gamers can't tell the difference between good, and epic. Most of the Sony market was it before, now Nintendo's changed its perspective and most of the proles are following them. Brilliant games aren't rewarded, and flawed games are over appreciated, all thanks to throwing in words like "innovation" and so on. Brainwashing.
The only people who care are being ignored, since what they want isn't what sells. Depressing thought, huh.
And that was a good waste of half an hour.