Does anyone remember what gaming is about any more?

Does anyone remember what gaming is about any more?

This is what games are about.

Don't you feel games are becoming too realistic to be fun anymore.

True games

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfok9ch9SjQ&feature=related

vs.

Realistic games

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65rGdCPSw1w

Gaming aren't ment to be real! What happened to those awesome random fun place. Now they are based on real place. :cry: Why??! Imagine Hydro Thunder with today's graphics. Would be awesome.

Games are games, there not "meant" to be anything, if you dont enjoy realistic games, simply dont play them and leave them to the people who enjoy them.

the only reason that many older games arnt realistic is because it was impossible to be so, up until the ps2/xbox/gcish gen.

I always thought gaming was about having some fun. Simple as that.

I agree somewhat, a lot of gamers nowadays are way too obsessed with the idea that Realism = Good.boshlonavish

And who are you to say that realism isnt good? I for one enjoy realistic games, as i also enjoy completely non realistic games.

I think to many gamers seem to think that what they enjoy is teh only thing that other people should enjoy.

Gaming is all about fun. Nothing else matters.

for me, games arent meant to be enjoyable...plain and simple.

if im not having fun playing a game, it has failed my standards.

It seems to me that lots of us still know what gaming is about.

Gaming is all about fun, everything else is just extra. If you don't have fun when playing a video game, then why game?
A lot of games go for the realistic angle, but why do games need to be realistic? Gaming is a small escape from real life for a little while, a breather, so why must gaming be a case of escaping real life toplaya simulation of real life?

I started playing Onechanbara yesterday and it's the most crudest, most silliest game I've played since Saint's Row 2, the game doesn't look all that great, but there's something so fun about it, so appealing that the visuals mean nothing. It's just pure simple game that's a guilty pleasure, and come on, women wearing hardly anything hacking zombies to pieces, crude but it works.
Many gamers, especially younger gamers, regard graphics as the by all and end all of gaming, if the game doesn't have the kind of graphics where you can see a wrinkle on the character's skin and if the graphics aren't dark and gritty, then it's hated instantly despite the haters not actually playing the game.

Until the mindset with gamers change, developers will continue to do their realistic graphics thing and release the same old game time and time again because they know it will sell with the graphics hogs.
As gamers we should be letting developers know that we want more to games than just great looking visuals, not just demanding more visuals and less game.

R/T

Gaming is all about fun, everything else is just extra. If you don't have fun when playing a video game, then why game?
A lot of games go for the realistic angle, but why do games need to be realistic? Gaming is a small escape from real life for a little while, a breather, so why must gaming be a case of escaping real life toplaya simulation of real life?

I started playing Onechanbara yesterday and it's the most crudest, most silliest game I've played since Saint's Row 2, the game doesn't look all that great, but there's something so fun about it, so appealing that the visuals mean nothing. It's just pure simple game that's a guilty pleasure, and come on, women wearing hardly anything hacking zombies to pieces, crude but it works.
Many gamers, especially younger gamers, regard graphics as the by all and end all of gaming, if the game doesn't have the kind of graphics where you can see a wrinkle on the character's skin and if the graphics aren't dark and gritty, then it's hated instantly despite the haters not actually playing the game.

Until the mindset with gamers change, developers will continue to do their realistic graphics thing and release the same old game time and time again because they know it will sell with the graphics hogs.
As gamers we should be letting developers know that we want more to games than just great looking visuals, not just demanding more visuals and less game.

R/T

Smokescreened84

Right, now I'm aiming after the racing games. It's turning too realistic when it's not suppose to be. The arcade way is dying. FPS is fine for now. Unless they some how make it too realistic.

Dam Need for Speed. :x

Gaming is all about fun, everything else is just extra. If you don't have fun when playing a video game, then why game?
A lot of games go for the realistic angle, but why do games need to be realistic? Gaming is a small escape from real life for a little while, a breather, so why must gaming be a case of escaping real life toplaya simulation of real life?

I started playing Onechanbara yesterday and it's the most crudest, most silliest game I've played since Saint's Row 2, the game doesn't look all that great, but there's something so fun about it, so appealing that the visuals mean nothing. It's just pure simple game that's a guilty pleasure, and come on, women wearing hardly anything hacking zombies to pieces, crude but it works.
Many gamers, especially younger gamers, regard graphics as the by all and end all of gaming, if the game doesn't have the kind of graphics where you can see a wrinkle on the character's skin and if the graphics aren't dark and gritty, then it's hated instantly despite the haters not actually playing the game.

Until the mindset with gamers change, developers will continue to do their realistic graphics thing and release the same old game time and time again because they know it will sell with the graphics hogs.
As gamers we should be letting developers know that we want more to games than just great looking visuals, not just demanding more visuals and less game.

R/T

Smokescreened84

I agree with those.

Gaming is all about fun, everything else is just extra. If you don't have fun when playing a video game, then why game?
A lot of games go for the realistic angle, but why do games need to be realistic? Gaming is a small escape from real life for a little while, a breather, so why must gaming be a case of escaping real life toplaya simulation of real life?

I started playing Onechanbara yesterday and it's the most crudest, most silliest game I've played since Saint's Row 2, the game doesn't look all that great, but there's something so fun about it, so appealing that the visuals mean nothing. It's just pure simple game that's a guilty pleasure, and come on, women wearing hardly anything hacking zombies to pieces, crude but it works.
Many gamers, especially younger gamers, regard graphics as the by all and end all of gaming, if the game doesn't have the kind of graphics where you can see a wrinkle on the character's skin and if the graphics aren't dark and gritty, then it's hated instantly despite the haters not actually playing the game.

Until the mindset with gamers change, developers will continue to do their realistic graphics thing and release the same old game time and time again because they know it will sell with the graphics hogs.
As gamers we should be letting developers know that we want more to games than just great looking visuals, not just demanding more visuals and less game.

R/T

Smokescreened84

I agree with everything you're saying. This is the most sensible post I've seen in a long time.

You should see my blogs, this kind of topic is something I've already done in them.

Imagine that a game came out that looked so real that you could swear you feel the breeze from the game as you play it and hear the birds in the game really singing. The game would be praised and regarded as the greatest game ever by reviewers and the younger gamers, but when you get round to playing it, you find that underneath it's amazing exterior is a very drab, very shallow interior that has no redeeming quality at all.
Yet if you say anything about how shallow the game is, you're regarded as insane, as a non-gamer because you don't worship the game for it's visuals. You would be wanting more to the game, something that truly makes it stand out beyond it's visuals.

But sadly visuals are seen as the only thing important about video games, gameplay isn't regarded, the sheer fun of a game isn't regarded, only the visuals. And if it's got guns and violence, it's loved even more. Yet that game would be lacking everything that makes a video game.

The concept of games being fun is being replaced with the concept that games must only look good, not play good to go with those visuals. You could own a beautiful piece of art, but other than looking at it and admiring it, what else is there to it?
A video game is about having fun, entertainment, it's not about being a work of visual art, it's not about 'being mature and adult', it's just about having fun. And that's something that seems to be forgotten these days.

R/T

Gaming is all about fun, everything else is just extra. If you don't have fun when playing a video game, then why game?
A lot of games go for the realistic angle, but why do games need to be realistic? Gaming is a small escape from real life for a little while, a breather, so why must gaming be a case of escaping real life toplaya simulation of real life?

I started playing Onechanbara yesterday and it's the most crudest, most silliest game I've played since Saint's Row 2, the game doesn't look all that great, but there's something so fun about it, so appealing that the visuals mean nothing. It's just pure simple game that's a guilty pleasure, and come on, women wearing hardly anything hacking zombies to pieces, crude but it works.
Many gamers, especially younger gamers, regard graphics as the by all and end all of gaming, if the game doesn't have the kind of graphics where you can see a wrinkle on the character's skin and if the graphics aren't dark and gritty, then it's hated instantly despite the haters not actually playing the game.

Until the mindset with gamers change, developers will continue to do their realistic graphics thing and release the same old game time and time again because they know it will sell with the graphics hogs.
As gamers we should be letting developers know that we want more to games than just great looking visuals, not just demanding more visuals and less game.

R/T

Smokescreened84

Agreed. That's why I love Nintendo. Their franchises have that fantasy feel that give them all the more thrill. I'll take a futuristic bounty hunter killing energy-sucking aliens or a boy in green waving a magical blade at a giant boar over a realistic game any day. Those fictional aspects just add so much more to the story.

I know, there are so many gamers out there putting high quality graphics over gameplay and story. The thing that was so revolutionary about video games in the first place (in my opinion) was how you could interact with and control what's going on. I don't want to just stare at a screen and mindlessly watch events unfold without any effort on my part. That's what TV and movies are for. :lol:

Furthermore, it seems that(a lack of)graphics are killing Nintendo. Whenever I ask a PS3/Xbox 360 fan (who may or may not hate the Wii) why they prefer the PS3/Xbox 360, 2/3 answers are graphics. People just see HD slapped on to a console and become obssessed with it. It's true what they say about how video games make you dumber, but it's only because games are advancing in the wrong path. We're not primitives anymore; shiny objects shouldn't be our idols. Nintendo is getting a lot of hate that they don't deserve it.

You want realism? Maturity? Go outside. Toss around a ball. ride a bike. Join a club. Talk to people.

Okay, back to the original question. Yes, I remember what gaming's about: fun. Having a good time. Enjoyment. Happiness.

aming was supposed to be about having fun. But we seem to have strayed from that. Now it's about you meaningless gamerscore.

Since you only used racing games in your vids, i would say realism is better. though that doesnt seem too realistic with the jumping

You should see my blogs, this kind of topic is something I've already done in them.

Imagine that a game came out that looked so real that you could swear you feel the breeze from the game as you play it and hear the birds in the game really singing. The game would be praised and regarded as the greatest game ever by reviewers and the younger gamers, but when you get round to playing it, you find that underneath it's amazing exterior is a very drab, very shallow interior that has no redeeming quality at all.
Yet if you say anything about how shallow the game is, you're regarded as insane, as a non-gamer because you don't worship the game for it's visuals. You would be wanting more to the game, something that truly makes it stand out beyond it's visuals.

But sadly visuals are seen as the only thing important about video games, gameplay isn't regarded, the sheer fun of a game isn't regarded, only the visuals. And if it's got guns and violence, it's loved even more. Yet that game would be lacking everything that makes a video game.

The concept of games being fun is being replaced with the concept that games must only look good, not play good to go with those visuals. You could own a beautiful piece of art, but other than looking at it and admiring it, what else is there to it?
A video game is about having fun, entertainment, it's not about being a work of visual art, it's not about 'being mature and adult', it's just about having fun. And that's something that seems to be forgotten these days.

R/T

Smokescreened84

I disagree. There are plenty of examples of games with great graphics that are just not fun to play. Far Cry 2 is technically amazing, but is nothing special. Dark Sector, great graphics, mediocre game.

That's what I've been saying, we get a lot of games that look amazing, but are so empty, so shallow. But they're hyped and loved because they look good, the shallow gameplay is ignored.
Fun tends to be missing from games, and games are supposed to be fun, and is usually replaced with looking great, but being about as exciting as sitting through a day of Big Brother and it's endless 'up dates'. But if anyone says anything about how pretty looking graphics are taking over the real idea of gaming, you get fanboys and graphics hogs whining about those who still remember what games are supposed to be about.

Take Mario Kart Wii for example, it's a very fun game with a great challenge, but it's considered to be 'kiddy' because the graphics are cartoony, there's no violence, guns and gore. So the haters who haven't played the game do a whole hate thing without actually playing the game at all, they don't understand what video games are supposed to be, they just want the same thing time and time again - great graphics, no fun.
Realism is all well and good, but real life is more than real enough, do you really need video games to be turning into real life? Will we soon be seeing realistic games where you pay the bills and go insane, grab a gun and go on a killing spree before being shot by the police? If we did, it would probably be praised as the greatest game ever.

Real life is for real life, video games are for fun. If you don't have fun while playing video games, then maybe the person needs a past time where they will have fun.

R/T

Games are games, there not "meant" to be anything, if you dont enjoy realistic games, simply dont play them and leave them to the people who enjoy them.

the only reason that many older games arnt realistic is because it was impossible to be so, up until the ps2/xbox/gcish gen.

Its really for entertainment purposes and a good hobby. And games are way better than just wasting away in fron of TV. If you take out the fun factor, what do you have left?

I always thought it was about having fun while passing the time...

I always thought gaming was about having some fun. Simple as that.

Jackc8

Since you only used racing games in your vids, i would say realism is better. though that doesnt seem too realistic with the jumping

mibukin

Games are meant to be fun. Everyone has a different definition to fun in gaming which is why there are so many different kinds of games. Some people have fun with realism, some people with fantasy.

It's all about personal taste. Me, I LOVE realistic games because I can really get into them and identify with the main character. I always thought non-realistic games looked stupid. I mean, have you seen how goofy the characters look in that new Ghostbusters game? I wouldn't pay two cent to play that.

Gaming is all about fun, everything else is just extra. If you don't have fun when playing a video game, then why game?
A lot of games go for the realistic angle, but why do games need to be realistic? Gaming is a small escape from real life for a little while, a breather, so why must gaming be a case of escaping real life toplaya simulation of real life?

I started playing Onechanbara yesterday and it's the most crudest, most silliest game I've played since Saint's Row 2, the game doesn't look all that great, but there's something so fun about it, so appealing that the visuals mean nothing. It's just pure simple game that's a guilty pleasure, and come on, women wearing hardly anything hacking zombies to pieces, crude but it works.
Many gamers, especially younger gamers, regard graphics as the by all and end all of gaming, if the game doesn't have the kind of graphics where you can see a wrinkle on the character's skin and if the graphics aren't dark and gritty, then it's hated instantly despite the haters not actually playing the game.

Until the mindset with gamers change, developers will continue to do their realistic graphics thing and release the same old game time and time again because they know it will sell with the graphics hogs.
As gamers we should be letting developers know that we want more to games than just great looking visuals, not just demanding more visuals and less game.

R/T

Smokescreened84

There's a difference between a game being sloppy and poorly designed (Onechanbara and to a lesser extent, SR2) and a game being realistic. Realism can be just as out of the ordinary as fantasy. Unless one is a professional athlete (I just won the Superbowl yesterday, who needs Madden?) or race car driver (I race around in one million dollar cars in real life and drive in courses all over the world, don't bore me with stuff I've already done!)

There is no big trend towards realism outside of sports sims. In real life a soldier that gets shot dies or ends up in the hospital for a very long time, he doesn't crouch behind a wall for 10 seconds and magically heal.

There is a lot of me-tooism in game development, but that has always been the case because A) innovation and execution is tough and B) it is risky because obviously one doesn't know if there will be a market for a game unlike anything before it.

Your shots at graphics are just nonsensical. Whether or not one is rendering Mike Tyson or an anime samurai, being able to show stuff in more detail is a good thing.

The more visuals/less game argument is also baseless, since games within any given category haven't gotten any shorter.

[QUOTE="Smokescreened84"]

Gaming is all about fun, everything else is just extra. If you don't have fun when playing a video game, then why game?
A lot of games go for the realistic angle, but why do games need to be realistic? Gaming is a small escape from real life for a little while, a breather, so why must gaming be a case of escaping real life toplaya simulation of real life?

I started playing Onechanbara yesterday and it's the most crudest, most silliest game I've played since Saint's Row 2, the game doesn't look all that great, but there's something so fun about it, so appealing that the visuals mean nothing. It's just pure simple game that's a guilty pleasure, and come on, women wearing hardly anything hacking zombies to pieces, crude but it works.
Many gamers, especially younger gamers, regard graphics as the by all and end all of gaming, if the game doesn't have the kind of graphics where you can see a wrinkle on the character's skin and if the graphics aren't dark and gritty, then it's hated instantly despite the haters not actually playing the game.

Until the mindset with gamers change, developers will continue to do their realistic graphics thing and release the same old game time and time again because they know it will sell with the graphics hogs.
As gamers we should be letting developers know that we want more to games than just great looking visuals, not just demanding more visuals and less game.

R/T

Mogotoo

Agreed. That's why I love Nintendo. Their franchises have that fantasy feel that give them all the more thrill. I'll take a futuristic bounty hunter killing energy-sucking aliens or a boy in green waving a magical blade at a giant boar over a realistic game any day. Those fictional aspects just add so much more to the story.

I know, there are so many gamers out there putting high quality graphics over gameplay and story. The thing that was so revolutionary about video games in the first place (in my opinion) was how you could interactwith and control what's going on. I don't want to just stare at a screen and mindlessly watch events unfold without any effort on my part. That's what TV and movies are for. :lol:

Furthermore, it seems that(a lack of)graphics are killing Nintendo. Whenever I ask a PS3/Xbox 360 fan (who may or may not hate the Wii) why they prefer the PS3/Xbox 360, 2/3 answers are graphics. People just see HD slapped on to a console and become obssessed with it. It's true what they say about how video games make you dumber, but it's only because games are advancing in the wrong path. We're not primitives anymore; shiny objects shouldn't be our idols.Nintendo is getting a lot of hate that they don't deserve it.

You want realism? Maturity? Go outside. Toss around a ball. ride a bike. Join a club. Talk to people.

Okay, back to the original question. Yes, I remember what gaming's about: fun. Having a good time. Enjoyment. Happiness.

Delusions of superiority are always hilarious to read, but don't kid yourself. Nintendo's reluctance to release original hardcore games, the casual nature of most Wii fans, the Wii's lack of developer support, lack of processing power (which impacts not only graphics, but level design, AI and physics), the simplified controller (fewer buttons is more casual friendly, but it takes freedom away from developers) and friend codes all mitigate against the types of games most hardcore gamers enjoy.

If you like rpgs, strategy games, racers (of the arcade or sim variety, though Nintendo does have some nice kart racers), fighting games, survival horror games, sports games, free roaming games, DMC ****games, then one has little reason to have much interest in the Wii. In terms of hardcore games, the Wii is literally the GC2 (sequels and wagglefied remakes of GC games are predominant), something leaves the overwhelming majority of hardcore gamers (who were gaming on the PS2 or Xbox last gen) unimpressed.

But Carnage, one can't deny that there has been so much focus on graphics that developersn are starting to forget what's important about games today. For example, when you have a bland, empty game with nothing to do, why bother making characters' cloth damp after swimming when there's barely anything to do in the game? FPS hasn't evolved since ages apart from upgrading graphics and the same thing could be said about multi player RPGs and Action games. At least the main focus in non-realistic looking games is the game-play and not the graphics.

But Carnage, one can't deny that there has been so much focus on graphics that developersn are starting to forget what's important about games today. For example, when you have a bland, empty game with nothing to do, why bother making characters' cloth damp after swimming when there's barely anything to do in the game? FPS hasn't evolved since ages apart from upgrading graphics and the same thing could be said about multi player RPGs and Action games. At least the main focus in non-realistic looking games is the game-play and not the graphics.

gamingqueen

I'm as opposed to 'bland' and 'nothing to do' as the next guy, but there is no correlation between those things and graphics.Also, crippling a system'sprocessing power just restricts the options of developers, it doesn't result in better games. Hardcore games on the Wii tend to be bad jokes made by third rate developers because developers with genuine vision and talent tend to work on the PS3 or X360, which offers them more freedom/design possibilities.

As for first person shooters, they've improved in a couple respects. There are better physics (though the best example of physics is the third person Red Faction, whose fully destructible buildings are awesome), better AI (KZ2's AI is amazing because Guerilla understands that good AI isn't about omniscient sharpshooters it about guys who have imperfect knowledge of what's going on in the field and who react intelligently but differently to the same stimuli) and Gears (which creates some really nice big battlefields and setpieces though I'd say the big thing it brought to the genre was online co-op). If first person shooters merely relied on sharper textures and put players against infinitely respawning, stupid enemies in narrow corridors (spits at Doom 3) then I'd say the genre hadn't improved.

there are so many types of games out there that I think your argument fails.

and even though I hate the series Gran Turismo is a massively popular game that is all about realism and that's part of the draw.

But Carnage, one can't deny that there has been so much focus on graphics that developersn are starting to forget what's important about games today. For example, when you have a bland, empty game with nothing to do, why bother making characters' cloth damp after swimming when there's barely anything to do in the game? FPS hasn't evolved since ages apart from upgrading graphics and the same thing could be said about multi player RPGs and Action games. At least the main focus in non-realistic looking games is the game-play and not the graphics.

gamingqueen

Heh, I could still remember back then. Games didn't have to be realistic to be fun-like Need For Speed and Command and Conquer. The graphics in them were crude, but so what? The gameplay was fun.

But now...look what they've become. Command and Conquer is now a 17+ film featuring women with oveersized breasts (I'm looking at you, RA3) and NFS basically got the same treatment.

*facepalm*

Heh, I could still remember back then. Games didn't have to be realistic to be fun-like Need For Speed and Command and Conquer. The graphics in them were crude, but so what? The gameplay was fun.

But now...look what they've become. Command and Conquer is now a 17+ film featuring women with oveersized breasts (I'm looking at you, RA3) and NFS basically got the same treatment.

*facepalm*

Desulated

Carnage nailed the retributal points excellently so I will try not to repeat what he has said.

Most great games have always attempted to push the visual evelope in someway. Arguing that games 'back in the day' didn't care about graphics is nonsense, because it was simply a result of technical limitations that we got what we did in terms of visuals and even some of the truly classic games (Mario, Final Fantasy series, etc) always pushed for better graphics. When those games came out they looked stunning, so trying to argue that graphics meant nothing in the past is a deluded view of the evolution of the industry.

Even recently we have had some truly fantastic games released and not all of them have gone for hyper realistic graphics. Sure there are the Gears and the Killzones, but look at what other developers are doing with the options provided by the system whether its beautiful HD graphics in King of Fighters XII, highly stylized anime visuals such as Valkyria Chronicles or even stylized games such as Infamous. The increased raw horsepower has allowed for some truly stunning advances in games from AI, design (larger levels, draw distances, etc), physics and so much more.

All this looking back with rose tinted glasses means perhaps you are more burnt out on gaming in general rather than there being any decline in 'what games are about'

Um yeah it's about having fun

[QUOTE="Mogotoo"]

[QUOTE="Smokescreened84"]

Gaming is all about fun, everything else is just extra. If you don't have fun when playing a video game, then why game?
A lot of games go for the realistic angle, but why do games need to be realistic? Gaming is a small escape from real life for a little while, a breather, so why must gaming be a case of escaping real life toplaya simulation of real life?

I started playing Onechanbara yesterday and it's the most crudest, most silliest game I've played since Saint's Row 2, the game doesn't look all that great, but there's something so fun about it, so appealing that the visuals mean nothing. It's just pure simple game that's a guilty pleasure, and come on, women wearing hardly anything hacking zombies to pieces, crude but it works.
Many gamers, especially younger gamers, regard graphics as the by all and end all of gaming, if the game doesn't have the kind of graphics where you can see a wrinkle on the character's skin and if the graphics aren't dark and gritty, then it's hated instantly despite the haters not actually playing the game.

Until the mindset with gamers change, developers will continue to do their realistic graphics thing and release the same old game time and time again because they know it will sell with the graphics hogs.
As gamers we should be letting developers know that we want more to games than just great looking visuals, not just demanding more visuals and less game.

R/T

CarnageHeart

Agreed. That's why I love Nintendo. Their franchises have that fantasy feel that give them all the more thrill. I'll take a futuristic bounty hunter killing energy-sucking aliens or a boy in green waving a magical blade at a giant boar over a realistic game any day. Those fictional aspects just add so much more to the story.

I know, there are so many gamers out there putting high quality graphics over gameplay and story. The thing that was so revolutionary about video games in the first place (in my opinion) was how you could interactwith and control what's going on. I don't want to just stare at a screen and mindlessly watch events unfold without any effort on my part. That's what TV and movies are for. :lol:

Furthermore, it seems that(a lack of)graphics are killing Nintendo. Whenever I ask a PS3/Xbox 360 fan (who may or may not hate the Wii) why they prefer the PS3/Xbox 360, 2/3 answers are graphics. People just see HD slapped on to a console and become obssessed with it. It's true what they say about how video games make you dumber, but it's only because games are advancing in the wrong path. We're not primitives anymore; shiny objects shouldn't be our idols.Nintendo is getting a lot of hate that they don't deserve it.

You want realism? Maturity? Go outside. Toss around a ball. ride a bike. Join a club. Talk to people.

Okay, back to the original question. Yes, I remember what gaming's about: fun. Having a good time. Enjoyment. Happiness.

Delusions of superiority are always hilarious to read, but don't kid yourself. Nintendo's reluctance to release original hardcore games, the casual nature of most Wii fans, the Wii's lack of developer support, lack of processing power (which impacts not only graphics, but level design, AI and physics), the simplified controller (fewer buttons is more casual friendly, but it takes freedom away from developers) and friend codes all mitigate against the types of games most hardcore gamers enjoy.

If you like rpgs, strategy games, racers (of the arcade or sim variety, though Nintendo does have some nice kart racers), fighting games, survival horror games, sports games, free roaming games, DMC ****games, then one has little reason to have much interest in the Wii. In terms of hardcore games, the Wii is literally the GC2 (sequels and wagglefied remakes of GC games are predominant), something leaves the overwhelming majority of hardcore gamers (who were gaming on the PS2 or Xbox last gen) unimpressed.

...I'm not saying that Nintendo's perfect. I was just referring to my own personal experiences with hearing people constantly praising graphics. I was just explaining how peers I've talked to give graphics as a major reason for their preference. I was telling a story. That was all.

I probably didn't explaining myself right. My apologies. I have a problem sometimes with that.:oops:

Yes, Nintendo has been releasing an overload of casual games. I understand andaccept that. Howerver, that brings up an interesting question: Are casual games a bad thing? I have never heard someone specifically state that casual games are not fun. I myself have played Wii sports. Some of the sports are actually really fun. People keep on saying that Nintendo is not catering to "hardcore" gamers. What's the difference between a hardcore game and a casual game? I really want to know. No one seems to have ever drawn the line yet.

Yes, Nintendo has been releasing an overload of casual games. I understand andaccept that. Howerver, that brings up an interesting question: Are casual games a bad thing? I have never heard someone specifically state that casual games are not fun. I myself have played Wii sports. Some of the sports are actually really fun. People keep on saying that Nintendo is not catering to "hardcore" gamers. What's the difference between a hardcore game and a casual game? I really want to know. No one seems to have ever drawn the line yet.

Mogotoo

If you'll allow me to jump in here. To be fair I don't think its an issue so much as whether a casual title is fun, more as to the quality of the experience. The problem a lot of people (like me for example) would have with casual titles is that they very much neglect a deeper more rewarding experience in lue of instant quick and dare I say cheap gratification. Like McDonalds versus a real grilled beef steak (or other big meal) no doubt they both taste good and are both food one is undeniably better than the other.

Casual games are very accesible to the player, but fail in offering any substantial depth to explore for somebody who wants to sit down for an experience. These titles offer little more than instant gratification which has no real value beyond the initial gameplay experience. The problem with casual games is they have become synonymous with low quality products that offer very little value for somebody who wants a great experience. Sure Wii Sports is kinda fun for a laugh but it doesn't give me the kind of indepth fun and long lasting appeal that a game like Burnout might.

[QUOTE="Mogotoo"]

Yes, Nintendo has been releasing an overload of casual games. I understand andaccept that. Howerver, that brings up an interesting question: Are casual games a bad thing? I have never heard someone specifically state that casual games are not fun. I myself have played Wii sports. Some of the sports are actually really fun. People keep on saying that Nintendo is not catering to "hardcore" gamers. What's the difference between a hardcore game and a casual game? I really want to know. No one seems to have ever drawn the line yet.

Arath_1

If you'll allow me to jump in here. To be fair I don't think its an issue so much as whether a casual title is fun, more as to the quality of the experience. The problem a lot of people (like me for example) would have with casual titles is that they very much neglect a deeper more rewarding experience in lue of instant quick and dare I say cheap gratification. Like McDonalds versus a real grilled beef steak (or other big meal) no doubt they both taste good and are both food one is undeniably better than the other.

Casual games are very accesible to the player, but fail in offering any substantial depth to explore for somebody who wants to sit down for an experience. These titles offer little more than instant gratification which has no real value beyond the initial gameplay experience. The problem with casual games is they have become synonymous with low quality products that offer very little value for somebody who wants a great experience. Sure Wii Sports is kinda fun for a laugh but it doesn't give me the kind of indepth fun and long lasting appeal that a game like Burnout might.

That actually makes a lot of sense. I do see a difference of depth between a game like Metroid Prime 3 and a game like Wii Sports. I guess that's where the line is drawn.

I think Nintendo's becoming aware of what's going on here (either that, or their timing is really, really, really good). They introduced a whole bunch of major future releases at E3 this year (Super Mario Galaxy 2, New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Metroid: Other M, and official development of new Zelda plus a bunch of otherpopular lower-party games like Red Steel 2). I think Nintendo is finally going toget back in the hardcore market now. Whatever happens, the nearby future is definently going to be prosperous for Nintendo.

That's it! I'm calling shenanigans on this whole thread!

Let's take racing games for example. People are throwing around the new Mario Kart as a bastion of old video game ideals. When I played it, it felt dumbed down and shallow. Rubber band difficulty has beena problem with the games since 64, but the Wii version brought it to an extreme that turned off many longtime fans. The game was crazy and unrealistic, but also not very interesting as a game.

On the other hand, you got Forza 2, a game designed with realism first and fun second. The presentation was fantastic, the custimization options were countless, and there was a ton of variety in tracks and cars. The best part was that all of this was super accessible. As you got better, you kept turning those assists off until you were actually good at it. Fantastic and totally realistic.

Also, since some of you brought up graphics, I just gotta point something out here- the best games usually look pretty good. Great developers are usually good at making a game play well AND look good. It's not like quality gameplay and graphics don't always happen in the same game, but they usually do.

Also, since some of you brought up graphics, I just gotta point something out here- the best games usually look pretty good. Great developers are usually good at making a game play well AND look good. It's not like quality gameplay and graphics don't always happen in the same game, but they usually do.AtomicTangerine

But Carnage, one can't deny that there has been so much focus on graphics that developers are starting to forget what's important about games today.gamingqueen

I just think gaming companies need to get better writers, especially in the RPG department. Some of the crap that comes through these days, well...I know of children's books that present more admireable characters and complex themes.

I've found that writing has going downhill.

And as the younger generation, I do see that graphics play a big role. I mean, if it looks like crap, I'm not going to want to stare at it for long right? And that's where all the vets, like said here, flame up.

Why?

Because a lot of those games that look crappy, ARE POORLY WRITTEN. I am, by no means, going to play a game with terrible voice acting, and terrible writing. No way.

For you see, in the olden days, games had poor graphics, but amazing writing. Like Planescape, or Diablo, or Baldur's Gate, or FFVIII. Now?

Now? We just get terrible writing that makes me want to vomit.

For you see, in the olden days, games had poor graphics, but amazing writing. Like Planescape, or Diablo, or Baldur's Gate, or FFVIII. Now?Baelath