Gaming's Turn for the Worse

[FIF3]

Originally Posted by Llamaking

Even rustic mongoose said that he would look past bad gameplay if the graphics were good enough. Thats why there have been a huge increase in terrible games.

I have just skimmed through this thread, and I basically see "good graphics means bad gameplay".


I would like to ask you just what games are terrible, with great graphics? If you are referring to the three games in your post, then I seriously disagree. All those games you mention have at the least, great game mechanics. Not to mention CoD4, Halo 3, and GoW are all the top 3 games played on XBL. But I guess that just goes back to the "graphics means everything".(Although, IMO, Halo 3's graphics are not that great, it's not even in hi-def!)

To some extent, I agree with the whole graphics control sales, and the reason I believe that is, is because we are in the HD era. I also believe shadowrun had great graphics even when considering the competition(of it's release date) and I wouldn't consider it any more challenging than the games out now. I don't think gameplay has suffered because of the "era" we are in, it all seems just as challenging as it was back on the PC, PSX, PS2, Xbox, or even my GameCube.

If there has been a "loss" of gameplay due to graphics I sure as hell don't see it.

[CATER 4 Prezzz]

Originally Posted by FIFƷ

I have just skimmed through this thread, and I basically see "good graphics means bad gameplay".


I would like to ask you just what games are terrible, with great graphics? If you are referring to the three games in your post, then I seriously disagree. All those games you mention have at the least, great game mechanics. Not to mention CoD4, Halo 3, and GoW are all the top 3 games played on XBL. But I guess that just goes back to the "graphics means everything".(Although, IMO, Halo 3's graphics are not that great, it's not even in hi-def!)

To some extent, I agree with the whole graphics control sales, and the reason I believe that is, is because we are in the HD era. I also believe shadowrun had great graphics even when considering the competition(of it's release date) and I wouldn't consider it any more challenging than the games out now. I don't think gameplay has suffered because of the "era" we are in, it all seems just as challenging as it was back on the PC, PSX, PS2, Xbox, or even my GameCube.

If there has been a "loss" of gameplay due to graphics I sure as hell don't see it.

That is basically what I was trying to get at in my post.

The only reason games seem easier to you llama, is because when you first started gaming it was harder to master. Now you are better with the controller so games seem easier. If GoW, H3, and CoD4 don't have depth, then why are the top 2 MLG games, and the top gamebattles and/or XBL game...

The only terrible games with good graphics I have played on the 360/PC are Jericho and Blacksite. Just because games don't appeal to your senses doesn't mean they are bad games.

If you want a harder competitive experience, I very much am advising you to pick up an RTS game. They are very deep, and since bad graphics appeal to you, they fit the personality.

[Hitzel]

Shadowrun had clear graphics, not good graphics. There's a difference.

I personally feel that Halo 3 and CoD4 are garbage games, they do nothing but frustrate me. The community for Halo 3 in particular is coming around and admitting that the new H3 is boring, like here on a huge casual Halo site for example. I feel the same way about GoW, but there wasn't a very big negative backlash to that game.

[Dread]

Man I have to say that big wall of text was pretty fucking fail. You talk about competitive games like you know how everything works.

I'd also like to point out that GoW takes a tremendous amount of skill, with all the techniques and weapons to master. Wall bouncing accurately and quickly is a fucking art, it's not something you learn in a day or two it's something you learn throughout your whole playing GoW. In matches you are constantly forced to shift your game depending on the other players skill and what he does, it's not so much teamwork as it is individual skirmishes in GoW matches. Sure there are strats you run but the majority of the battles and due to GoW's pretty much main weapon the Gnasher shotgun it makes most battles 1v1's and 1v2's and so on. There is a reason their is a term known as "Clutch".

Teamwork is important and it's not so much a negative games are based on teamwork, having a good team is imperative to winning competitive games. You also come off as a little elitist games now are expected to have decent graphics.You also come off as a little elitist, complain about the Wii thats a whole console marketed toward casual gamers. It's nice to have a mixture of skill based games and casual fun games which the 360 has a nice mix currently.

"Lets face it, it’s not THAT difficult to 4-burst someone, or to kill someone in COD4 or fire a shotgun in GOW. I'm sure that if final boss decided to quit halo 3, and move to COD4, they would have almost identical success because it’s not like they're learning a whole new game. They already have the teamwork, and that’s what’s necessary to succeed in these games. Right now, players instead of trying to refine their skills and abilities are now just team switching to see if they can get the right mix of players that work well together, and to me, the ruins the point of playing the game."

I do not agree with "Right now, players instead of trying to refine their skills and abilities are now just team switching to see if they can get the right mix of players that work well together" there are levels of skill in CoD4 and Halo 3 and GoW, and it is not just team switching. Having team work is 1/2 the equation but you still need SKILLED PLAYERS. There is a certain level of skill to the above mentioned games and it varies and seeing as how you said yourself that you play (Insert W/e PC game you play) you wouldn't notice the levels of skill it takes in these certain games if you didn't play them, so coming from a outsiders view it may seem that way, but from a inside view (atleast on GoW and CoD4) I'd say hell no, people are taking the time to refine and gain individual skill. Have you played any of the games you sprayed bullshit about? Or did you just play Shadowrun and claim it was the best game evar?

[Zim]

Originally Posted by Hitzel

I personally feel that Halo 3 and CoD4 are garbage games, they do nothing but frustrate me. The community for Halo 3 in particular is coming around and admitting that the new H3 is boring, like here on a huge casual Halo site for example. I feel the same way about GoW, but there wasn't a very big negative backlash to that game.

I agree with you 100% on this. CoD4, Halo 3, and Gears were all too easy to pick up. I haven't been able to really get into a console game since PDZ. Shadowrun was alright, but I didn't play with a set group of skilled people, I just joined random games and I got bored. I do agree with the OP, games have been on a decline in skill over the past few years. Developers are all about cashing in on the larger, casual fan base, making games easier to pick up. I can't really get into a game if I can't completely dominate casual players. I haven't touched my 360 in forever, all I play now is Brawl and WoW and it'll probably stay this way since I haven't seen any promising 360 games that are being released. (I'm talking about FPS here. I play a fuck ton of WoW and I don't feel like arguing about skill in MMOs)

[Kholdstare]

I big post requires a big response. I try and stay away from the huge opinionated threads now a days but I'm bored and I have strong feelings when it comes to the current state of the game industry.

How important are graphics?

Not as important as I think you are making them out to be. More light is being shed on graphics and the technology behind games but that has nothing to do with the development process. It comes from the increased price of making a game and how much effort goes into the art and design. Developers (which is a very broad term) are not focusing less on gameplay (from a design standpoint), they are simply putting more work into showing off a games graphics.

To say that less effort is put into gameplay and more into graphics is foolish (no offense). It's not like those programmers and gameplay designers are being rerouted to art or laid off. More effort is being put into graphics then is was 5 years ago, but it's not taking away from the gameplay.


And I've never heard of a developer laugh at the slightly below graphics of another game. Sources? I also think the general population will settle for good-but-not-awesome graphics as long as the gameplay is good. Take a look at any of the GTA games ever, they have never been great (even in GTA IV apparently) yet they sell because the actual games are fun to play. How many copies did San Andras sell? That game was ugly as hell with horrible pop-in. If a game doesn't look bad, has good gameplay, decent marketing, and appeals to the general audience it will do well. Hell the Wii as a console is an example of how little graphics can matter in a good game.



The Media

The next point about the media and reviews I also don't agree with. First you're comparing different styles of reviews from different people. Halo 2's review came from Matt Leone and Halo 3's came from Dan Hsu (who recently left 1up... too bad too. He was great). This may not make a big difference in the game scheme of things, but it can make a big difference in how something is written.

I would also like to point out that before any mention of graphics Dan actually talks about the games story (if it's satisfying and enjoyable). And the first mention of graphics isn't really an attention grabber. It's three paragraphs down and only takes up half a sentence. CoD4 and GoW (besides both games offering the best console graphics on the market at the time by far) both have fairly minimal space dedicated to graphics and they most certainly are not the first thing they talk about.

The Future

This will be short, as what I have to say is simple. We are actually heading into a new era of casual and lower budget games. A lot of developer's do not like spending massive amounts of time and manpower making these triple-eh games and are now focusing more time making smaller more casual games. Most evident right now in famous developers like David Jaffe and in games like Battlefield Heroes. I'm not saying big games are going away, just that companies are finding out that they don't need to make a 20$ million dollar game to sell a lot of copies.


Competitive games

I don't think many of us here can really grasp competitive gaming to a true extent anyway. When it comes to pure aiming the controller is and always will be inferior to the mouse. The example you used about skill not being as big as teamwork really can ring true for pretty much any console shooter. Teamwork and having the first shot is very important in every console game... that includes Shadowrun (not saying Halo 1 as I never was able to play it competitively). If we are talking about pure skill being the one real factor then the console market may not be for you. I would also like to mention every game you used as an example for truly competitive games(except for halo ce... get to that in a minute) are all PC based games.

Halo CE and PDZ

Competative games do not have to be uber-complex like shadowrun. Halo: CE is in my opinion, the most competative game on console and it was highly excessable to casual and elite players. The game has to be easy to play, but hard to master. Now games are easy to play, easy to master and that just turns me off as a gamer. There is no challenge in playing games anymore, no incentive to get better anymore.

Really, the issue for me is that I like to play to win and have fun at the same time. I can't do that in a "casual" game. The only recent games I could do that in were Shadowrun and PDZ, whereas virtually every other title since the 360 came out leaves me blaming the game instead of other players/myself.

I'm probably going to envoke a lot of reactions from my comments, but they need to be said. I love and have loved both of these games and they will always have a place in my heart but I really don't think either are as good as people think.

Halo CE

Has been regarded by people in this thread and a lot of competitive gamers as the most competitive console game by far. I really don't think it is a fair comparison to say it's more competitive then "whatever online console shooter". Halo 1 had no real online play (xbox connect with it's limited player base and intense lag doesn't count) and really wasn't under the intense eye of gamers as the games you get now. Not to mention it was much better control and design wise then every other shooter out there (give players that rose tinted glasses feeling like what people have with GoldenEye) I'm not saying that the game isn't competitive, just that if it had Live out of the box with the current Live player base... opinions would be different.


PDZ

I think (just like Halo CE) is viewed under rose tinted glasses by a lot of gamers. This time though I feel it had more to do with the close knit community and lack of any other games or competition. I love PDZ and I had a ton of fun playing it, but I feel that the real enjoyment came from the community. It was great to visit a forum dedicated to the game... or to get on live and know as a fact that everyone on my list would be playing the same game. I've only had that feeling with Halo 2 and PDZ.

I could go into detail about all the bad parts of the game (dual wielding, picking up weapons, spawn points, lack of good weapons or levels) but there is no point. But I will say that the game really wasn't that hard to get good at or kill in. The biggest thing skill wise you had to learn was the controls and aiming speed... everything else was actually easy once you get the hand of it. With the slow pace of the game and lack of jumping made fights on the same level simply crouching up and down (with some rolls mixed in) and shooting at the default height. I don't like saying this about games but it was actually easy. If that game came out now (with improved AI, graphics, and single player) and had a huge player base more people would have seen this. The hard part was adapting to the controls, the actual shooting was easy.


In Conclusion

I don't really have one. Waaaay to tired after typing this all out to think of one. So instead let me say thanks for reading, and if something I've said doesn't make sense I'll correct it. Questions and comments are welcome.

Oh I remember what I wanted to say. I think if you want a the most competitive games you should stick with PC games as they are more designed for them and have the most hardcore and competitive community available. Counter Strike, UT, Quake, and Warcraft are where you find the real competitive games. Console shooters are more like the hybrid between casual and competitive games.

[FIF3]

Originally Posted by Hitzel

Shadowrun had clear graphics, not good graphics. There's a difference.

There is?

If the graphics are clear and visible, doesn't that fall under being "good".

I don't see how shadowrun's graphics are anything below good, and I play on a HDTV.

[Azeron]

Originally Posted by Kholdstare

Oh I remember what I wanted to say. I think if you want a the most competitive games you should stick with PC games as they are more designed for them and have the most hardcore and competitive community available. Counter Strike, UT, Quake, and Warcraft are where you find the real competitive games. Console shooters are more like the hybrid between casual and competitive games.

You know, some days I wish I had the money to get back into PC gaming because you're 100% right, console gamers don't appreciate deep high-skill games. Hell, even shadowrun is mostly teamwork. I miss the days of shock-comboing and rocket juggling people.

That said, just because it's harder to get competitive games released on consoles is no reason to stop asking for skill based mechanics, and hopefully some developers will listen.

I have no doubt competitive games are possible on a console, you just have to find the right mix of accessibility and a high skill cap.

Edit: One prime example of this is Unreal Tournament. It offers instagib so noobs can play a fun, fast paced game, while the people who are interested in becoming good play with regular weapons. A great sollution.

[Zim]

Originally Posted by FIFƷ

There is?

If the graphics are clear and visible, doesn't that fall under being "good".

I don't see how shadowrun's graphics are anything below good, and I play on a HDTV.

There's a huge difference. Shadowrun's graphics weren't "busy," they were simplistic and clear. Then take a game like Gears, there's a ton of unnecessary things added to make the game look prettier.

(I...can't really word things very well right now, haven't slept yet. I'll probably edit this when I wake up to make it make more sense.)

[rustic mongoose]

As roth said halo ce was not competitive with all it's different online issues and pdz was pretty much uncompetitive but we all loved its community. Llama said halo ce was accessible to casual gamers but I think you may forgetting the rigmarole of setting up the whole xbc thing. Not many casual gamers would do that.

Sorry for not contributing more g2g