Are Gamers Losing what's most Important?

[Golurk 468]

When I get a game, I look for 2 things: story and gameplay. It's nice if it looks nice, but I don't really need insanely high resolution to enjoy a game. Take Okami as an example; it manages to have one of the greatest storylines of anything I've ever seen, and plays well, fluidly, and very enjoyably, all while never exceeding 480p. We've got something that can be argued as a work of art, despite its graphical shortcomings.

 

Honestly, I don't understand why people obsess over having the best graphics. Sure, it looks nice, but that doesn't enhance what makes a game a game. Flesh out the story and make the game more enjoyable to play, then we'll talk.

[Stellafera 3,836]

Yeah, flashy stuff is nice, but I'm fine with a cartoony visual style like Team Fortress 2 or The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker too. 

 

Those two? Not flashy? Those games are lovely!

 

 

 

Cartoony ? ugly/unimpressive. I'm a big fan of cool visuals in game, because they absolutely do enhance the experience. Okami would never have quite the paintbrush aesthetic without, well, the aesthetic. Team Fortress 2 enhances its goofy mood with big goofy visuals. I consider it all a part of the experience. I know for one that ugly games tend to irritate me.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Stellafera

[Sn0wblind 78]

This. Drives. Me. NUTS. I have a pretty good gaming rig and to be honest, I still play some graphically ugly games from pre 08 because they are fun. 

 

Why does almost every single gamer play games? To be entertained! Entertainment lies at the core mechanics of the game itself, not in the visual display of the game. Sure, it's nice to have a pretty game with lifelike visuals, but if it's little more than a graphical benchmark/eyecandy, it's not really a game!

 

I think this is a bit easier for those of us who grew up playing games back in the days when Sega and Nintendo were the big game companies. I do think there are some kids nowadays who understand that good gameplay is not a function of graphical power, though. An example would be minecraft. A lot of kids play that game to death and I'm sure they wouldn't argue the great gameplay and graphics go hand-in-hand. 

[Megas 28,092]

I think this is a problem for the industry as a whole and not just the gaming community. Not just gamers, but developers and publishers seem to have this mindset that it's better to make movies with interactive experiences thrown in between rather than actual gameplay. So many companies prefer using resources for "UBER REALISM" and "cinematic experiences  *coughdavidcagecough* instead of using them for new innovative gameplay ideas. And even then realistic graphics won't look that good in the long run, I still think games like A Link To The Past, Symphony of the Night, and Okami still look fantastic while games around 2006 look uglier than they were then, not to mention that I find the uncanny valley developers have been pushing for disturbing

Edited January 6, 2014 by Megas75

[Stellafera 3,836]

An example would be minecraft. A lot of kids play that game to death and I'm sure they wouldn't argue the great gameplay and graphics go hand-in-hand. 

 

Minecraft still has an enjoyable and distinctive look to it, though. Simple colors, blocks, all very unified. The style adds to the lego feel of the game nicely. With mods, the game can look downright pretty. Sometimes I just like to fly over the landscape and look at the world.

 

 

On the other hand, you have games that are said to be absolutely excellent that... don't quite deliver on the visual front for me.

 

 

 

Sheer realisticness of graphics might be what people think of when they think of graphics in video games, but it's not. It includes the whole look and feel of a game, and that, to me, is an important part of the experience.

[Evil Nightmares 552]

i feel we are. Just look at the Xbox One, it's more of a family entertainment system then a gaming system.

[Geek0zoid 1,468]

I would say that a good story comes second in a game. A good story not only keeps me interested in the gameplay, but it could also make me feel for the characters. It helps them feel three-dimensional, and not flat empty vessels like we see nowadays

[Thrashy 2,800]

Graphics don't mean shit to me, and I honestly don't see why they're a selling point for anyone. If a game's got fun and involving mechanics, an immersive setting, a good story to tell, or any combination thereof, then the visual aesthetics of a game should never be a major issue. If a game has the aforementioned qualities of a good game AND happens to look nice, cool. But to let a game turn you off because you don't like the art style (*cough*WIND WAKER*cough*), or it's rendered with jagged 64-bit polygons, or blocky 8/16-bit sprites? To me, that's kind of like refusing to read a book because it's typed in a font you don't like...i.e., completely silly and a mite childish.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Lord Thrashicane

[long gone 8,929]

Those two? Not flashy? Those games are lovely!

 

 

 

Cartoony ? ugly/unimpressive. I'm a big fan of cool visuals in game, because they absolutely do enhance the experience. Okami would never have quite the paintbrush aesthetic without, well, the aesthetic. Team Fortress 2 enhances its goofy mood with big goofy visuals. I consider it all a part of the experience. I know for one that ugly games tend to irritate me.

I am not saying that cartoony graphics are unimpressive or denying that the aesthetics can help out the mood of a game. I feel that gamers these days care too much about things like particles, bloom lighting or how realistic it looks without giving a damn about how it actually plays. If I wanted "realistic graphics" I'd just look outside, not at a 15" screen.

 

I also feel like gamers are becoming lazy. You can usually tell which game is going to get GOTY based on how accessible it is and how simplistic the actual gameplay is rather than more important things like freedom of exploration, originality or story. Why do you think derogatory shit like Call of Duty or overrated shit like The Last of Us keep getting rewards they don't deserve? Because they're the most accessible games out there so therefore they must be good, right? And now developers are starting to add in "cheat packs" to their games, basically removing the challenge that is already not there by getting everything for you in one DLC pack. It's getting ridiculous if you ask me, but unfortunately this is how gaming is these days. "Gamers" want hyper-realistic graphics with over-simplistic gameplay that basically devolves into "Follow the leader"-type "action" with some gunplay here and there instead of a good game with a good story and actual gameplay with a degree of freedom of exploration.

 

It saddens me.

[Geek0zoid 1,468]

I am not saying that cartoony graphics are unimpressive or denying that the aesthetics can help out the mood of a game. I feel that gamers these days care too much about things like particles, bloom lighting or how realistic it looks without giving a damn about how it actually plays. If I wanted "realistic graphics" I'd just look outside, not at a 15" screen.

 

I also feel like gamers are becoming lazy. You can usually tell which game is going to get GOTY based on how accessible it is and how simplistic the actual gameplay is rather than more important things like freedom of exploration, originality or story. Why do you think derogatory shit like Call of Duty or overrated shit like The Last of Us keep getting rewards they don't deserve? Because they're the most accessible games out there so therefore they must be good, right? And now developers are starting to add in "cheat packs" to their games, basically removing the challenge that is already not there by getting everything for you in one DLC pack. It's getting ridiculous if you ask me, but unfortunately this is how gaming is these days. "Gamers" want hyper-realistic graphics with over-simplistic gameplay that basically devolves into "Follow the leader"-type "action" with some gunplay here and there instead of a good game with a good story and actual gameplay with a degree of freedom of exploration.

 

It saddens me.

I'm going to take a game that I think should be a contender for GOTY; Pikmin 3 for the Wii U. For those who don't know, Pikmin 3 is a strategy game, with a large focus on exploration. Your goal is to control three tiny explorers across a enlarged Earth. Using the five types of Pikmin, you must overcome challenges and puzzles, find treasures (And by that, I mean giant fruits) and save the explorers' home of Koppai.

 

I enjoy this game because of how interesting the gameplay is. I absolutely loved traveling across this enlarged Earth and getting immersed in the gameplay and the atmosphere. Yeah, the story isn't anything special, but that doesn't matter. The game is challenging and rewards you for being an explorer.

 

THIS is game design and gameplay I'm looking for.

[GrimCW 658]

@, 

This has actually been an issue for a long while TBH.

The Wii was slandered for its old GFX quality, and lack of power by the players, and its successor is suffering the same.
Both are actually excellent consoles IMO, but they lack(ed) good GAMES to support them.

 

People are way to heavily focused on the GFX these days to even bother noticing the game itself. And while I admit SOME things are high points (Such as the "Levelution" that BF4 totes actually affects gameplay) Most of it is just eye candy that goes unnoticed except in screenshots.

 

Only down side graphically TMK in CoD:G is that its still on the same 7yo engine with lighting tweaks and pushed beyond their limit textures It hasn't really evolved at all :/

 

I will consider GFX when looking at a game, if I think the company can do better. But mostly I like a good game with a good story and gameplay.

Sadly, good story is often hard to find IN game (most have comics or books you need to read just to get whats going on. Such as Halo) And gameplay is just repetitive these days with little attempt to be original.
Originality isn't being rewarded to much since the mass of newer players can't figure out how to swap between control sets for games like some of the older crowd. So changed controls = bad mojo for games

 

As such innovation is suffering and many games aren't even taking advantage of new features (such as SixAxis is woefully underutilized on the PS3, as is the touch screen on the DS/3DS outside of mini game packs. I've actually played a DS game, an RPG, that had you surf the menus with the directional pad... WHY?!?!?)

Even the Vita was slammed for its inclusion of front and back touch screens.. yet they can be utilized in so many possible ways... however, few ever will because its different and publishers fear that the consumers won't adapt...

[~Silver Essence~ 2,625]

This is why I hate most mainstream and shooter games these days....

 

It seems nowadays, others only seem to go with what looks best, as well as if it's cool to play and talk about.

 

And with that, is why I stick with underrated games and games that not many play.

[ReverseFaller 2,484]

Graphics are important, but they're not the most important part of a game. A game being good, and fun to play is what's the most important part. For example, the past week I've been playing a ton of Oblivion, and Fallout 3. The graphics aren't that good, but the games are enjoyable to play. I've also been playing Battlefield 4 on PS4, and the graphics are beautiful, however I find that I have more fun with Oblivion/Fallout 3 than I do with BF4.

 

Also, a game doesn't need boatloads of cash spent on it for it to be good. There are a lot of indie games out there that I find more fun that your Triple A shooters.

[Geek0zoid 1,468]

@, 

This has actually been an issue for a long while TBH.

The Wii was slandered for its old GFX quality, and lack of power by the players, and its successor is suffering the same.

Both are actually excellent consoles IMO, but they lack(ed) good GAMES to support them.

 

People are way to heavily focused on the GFX these days to even bother noticing the game itself. And while I admit SOME things are high points (Such as the "Levelution" that BF4 totes actually affects gameplay) Most of it is just eye candy that goes unnoticed except in screenshots.

 

Only down side graphically TMK in CoD:G is that its still on the same 7yo engine with lighting tweaks and pushed beyond their limit textures It hasn't really evolved at all :/

 

I will consider GFX when looking at a game, if I think the company can do better. But mostly I like a good game with a good story and gameplay.

Sadly, good story is often hard to find IN game (most have comics or books you need to read just to get whats going on. Such as Halo) And gameplay is just repetitive these days with little attempt to be original.

Originality isn't being rewarded to much since the mass of newer players can't figure out how to swap between control sets for games like some of the older crowd. So changed controls = bad mojo for games

 

As such innovation is suffering and many games aren't even taking advantage of new features (such as SixAxis is woefully underutilized on the PS3, as is the touch screen on the DS/3DS outside of mini game packs. I've actually played a DS game, an RPG, that had you surf the menus with the directional pad... WHY?!?!?)

Even the Vita was slammed for its inclusion of front and back touch screens.. yet they can be utilized in so many possible ways... however, few ever will because its different and publishers fear that the consumers won't adapt...

I can easily get used to the gamepad on the Wii U, at least from what I've already experienced. The Wii U literally holds the door open for game developers. They could make great, innovative gameplay that could change the face of gaming for the better. However, like you said, they're afraid to do so. I mean, seriously, there is a touch screen on a controller! Why no use it??

[Guest]

fdfdsa fd d asd adf  23r2r r2

Edited December 22, 2016 by plzremoveaccountfdfd

[Side Bird 566]

I doubt this. Games are sold based on many things, though visual is a big one. Some just care about it and that's it.

I like free roaming games, with good story, good characters. Probably why I'm a big fan of Bethesda.

COD and BF4 are both fun games with good storyline. Some people don't even care about that just wanting good graphics.

I'd rather have an amazing story line ((Like Zelda)) then a realistic game.

Don't get me wrong realistic games are great.

[GrauWitz 1,010]

As George Lucas said (when he was actually a filmmaker) "The special effects are just a tool. All special effects and no story would just be boring". Well, the same thing applies to videogames. Graphics are just a tool. All graphics and no story/gameplay would just be boring. And no, I did not buy BF4 for the visuals, I bought it because it's fun as hell

[GrimCW 658]

I don't really mind if a game has shit graphics as long as it's a fun game to play and I like it

 

 

oh oh.. someone needs to do it, so I will.. 

shameless advertising of an awesome site with GREAT old titles.. bad GFX yeah, but sooo much awesome!

 

Good Old Games

 

there, plug done.

 

this thread actually just reminded me of that because I also just finished of Grim Fandango for the first time in YEARS last night! (not on gog.. I have the discs  still!  )

As well as I've been replaying Morrowind (granted with the overhaul mod. Still dated, and fun, but its almost like wondering through a new game) among other oldies I still love

 

A good game will always be fun though, regardless of gfx and how old it is.

I still love playing around in Zork (classic text based game) and Wing Commander.... /drool... wing commander.....

Edited January 6, 2014 by GrimCW

[Magpie 624]

This is part of the reason I don't own consoles except for my 3ds. (Who can resist animal crossing,fire emblem, and pokemon?) Generally any titles I want are indie games for the PC, with the exception of dark souls II

Edited January 6, 2014 by Brosparkles

[Fubz 300]

then the gameplay/controls and then the graphics. That's why Pokemon Mystery Dungeon Blue Rescue Team is my favorite game.

Gameplay/controls was the main downside of that game. You were probably more attracted by the charm and atmosphere of the game which covers up these faults to you, which isn't a bad thing mind you.

 

My answer to OP, no. I don't really care about the rest of the gaming community, as because it's so large I can just stay with those who have a sense in gaming. Gaming is really normal now so there isn't a gaming community as a whole.

 

This thread reminds me of Diablo III. The second most important thing that this game lost was its atmosphere/charm, the importance of this I explained above- briefly.

 

EDIT: Nobody reads OP properly as usual. Story in a game isn't a critical quality in any way at all, it's just a really great extra.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Fubz

[GrimCW 658]

EDIT: Nopony reads OP properly as usual. Story in a game isn't a critical quality, take Mario for example.

 

Actually story can be a VERY important part of a game. Maybe not for shooters, but it is an extremely important item when playing a game.

If not the reason to play it.

 

Adventure games without story have no meaning or purpose in existing.

 

The "Last of Us" would've been just another random survival/action game without its story.

Resident Evil

Alan Wake

Bioshock

Half Life

Dragon Age

The Elder Scrolls

 

Without stories these games have nothing left to them except that they're games. (and not even a fraction of the list I could throw out)

But few people would've played, or cared about them in any way.

 

 

Story is definitely a key point. Gameplay + story.  Lose one of these and you either have a pure MP only (or totally random) game old console style title (but those still have some. and only lacked due to inability to follow), or a badly written book. 

Even Mario has a back story. Granted its not heavily fleshed out, but its also still playing on a nostalgia factor that most games won't touch for consoles. And Nintendo is one of the few companies capable of getting away with it.

People have actually begun to rag on nintendo for not giving a better story or purpose to Mario in his games. Down to the point its being used as a forefront to throw up feminist propaganda against all video games in that it boils easily down to the "damsel in distress" trope.

Edited January 6, 2014 by GrimCW

[long gone 8,929]

 

 

EDIT: Nobody reads OP properly as usual. Story in a game isn't a critical quality in any way at all, it's just a really great extra.

 Half-Life, Bioshock, the entire The Elder Scrolls series, The Stanley Parable, Trine, Tomb Raider, Ys, every other RPG ever, Portal and about a thousand other games say hi.

[Irish Mist 119]

I've been a gamer since I was five and I just can't associate myself with gamers these days. Most seem to be either purchase games around graphics like you said, or just this general hype that comes out of one CGI trailer. But in all, I don't think we've lost it, we've just grown to such a large fanbase that now you have subsections, like Indie, Hardcore, Casual to name a few and each one is represented differently, though sadly, Mainstream seems to be the most profitable and what they want are graphics and pretty explosions and less originality. This is why I'm so happy that there is a very active Indie community and that there are still games begin released that support mods.  

[Fubz 300]

Actually story can be a VERY important part of a game. Maybe not for shooters, but it is an extremely important item when playing a game.

If not the reason to play it.

 

Adventure games without story have no meaning or purpose in existing.

 

The "Last of Us" would've been just another random survival/action game without its story.

Resident Evil

Alan Wake

Bioshock

Half Life

Dragon Age

The Elder Scrolls

 

Without stories these games have nothing left to them. (and not even a fraction of the list I could throw out)

 

 

Story is definitely a key point. Gameplay + story. Lose one of these and you either have a pure MP only game, or a badly written book.

Super Mario Galaxy has (nearly) zero story, yet is one of the greatest adventure games. Along with most other classic Mario adventures.

Banjo Kazooie which I'm playing for the first time right now has very little story (it's a great example of pure charm in a game).

Sonic games used to fail a lot for a while compromising story for gameplay.

[GhostPony750 959]

Gameplay/controls was the main downside of that game. You were probably more attracted by the charm and atmosphere of the game which covers up these faults to you, which isn't a bad thing mind you.

Well, I think the controls were really good, easily adaptable and everything. The screen is actually too small to use the DS controls, take the GBA controls instead. It's not like the Resident Evil games, where the controls are awful and are actually the only difficulty lol.

 

And for me, the gameplay was epic - It's the only pokemon game where I felt like collecting all the pokemons, and there is plenty of sidequests to do, and the game is actually pretty hard. Kecleon for exemple; recruiting him is very hard, the only pokemon game I found which offers a good intertaining challenge. But I guess the atmosphere have a huge impact here too; I prefered this game over Explorer of Sky, even if this one offer even more.

 

Sadly, Gates to Infinity was an astronomical disappoitment. It not only lost its charm, but also everything. From the graphics to the storyline.