Is it me or does graphics and realism take place over fun and good gameplay?

Being a gamer who's been gaming since he was 3, I'm 27 now. My first game was arcade Pacman. First console was the NES. So now you get the picture of my gaming background. So nowadays any game that isn't violent and bloody is overlooked by the masses, a game being fun doesn't matter anymore. A game being good doesn't matter anymore. Today what matters to most gamers, are graphics, realism, violence, and multiplayer. A good example of this is GTA4 vs Saints Row 2. Rockstar made GTA 4 really realistic and took a lot of the fun from San Andreas out, on the other hand Saint's Row 2 just concentrated on a lot of activities to do, and making sure the gamer had a blast. Am I the only one noticing this?

Boarderland was a fun games but some complain about it not looking real.

Am I the only one noticing this?

blackgamer1213

must be. TF2, SMG 1/2, L4D, WoW, Borderlands, Portal, LBP, Guitar Hero(s), Street Fighter 4, Spore, The Sims 3, Star Wrs: TFU, Batman AA, Bioshock, etc should've all sold poorly by your logic.

[QUOTE="blackgamer1213"]

Am I the only one noticing this?

XaosII

must be. TF2, SMG 1/2, L4D, WoW, Borderlands, Portal, LBP, Guitar Hero(s), Street Fighter 4, Spore, The Sims 3, Star Wrs: TFU, Batman AA, Bioshock, etc should've all sold poorly by your logic.

Lol, srsly? I think you're missing the point.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

[QUOTE="blackgamer1213"]

Am I the only one noticing this?

VauxhalI

must be. TF2, SMG 1/2, L4D, WoW, Borderlands, Portal, LBP, Guitar Hero(s), Street Fighter 4, Spore, The Sims 3, Star Wrs: TFU, Batman AA, Bioshock, etc should've all sold poorly by your logic.

Lol, srsly? I think you're missing the point.

Or maybe you're just looking at a small selection of games and deeming it as the standard?

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

[QUOTE="blackgamer1213"]

Am I the only one noticing this?

VauxhalI

must be. TF2, SMG 1/2, L4D, WoW, Borderlands, Portal, LBP, Guitar Hero(s), Street Fighter 4, Spore, The Sims 3, Star Wrs: TFU, Batman AA, Bioshock, etc should've all sold poorly by your logic.

Lol, srsly? I think you're missing the point.

I see this more often on the PS3 and 360 (exceptions exist, of course), but I see it even more in terms of their fanbases. People will debunk games just because they're "childish" or "unrealistic". Games, IMO, should not be realistic unless it serves a very definite narrative point, and the only example I've seen of that so far this gen is Heavy Rain. I haven't, however, seen this much on the Wii or DS. Do you have those systems?

Thats why i play a lot of shooters have since the 90s and Quake 2 and 3 and i like goofy shooters i mean Cod and Medal of honor and battlefield i like Most of em but Modern military shooters are getting stale just like WW2 shooters Did. I like to play a fun shooter which is why i like Sci-Fi like halo you both of two worlds plus Im kindda a SCI FI nerd , but to me this generation of games in general has lost what it means to have fun games i also think it has to do with the economy Developers have money but cant afford to take risk like they used to look one generation Back and look at all the cool goofy games we had back then we don't get much that anymore . we don't get games that are good fun like Conker anymore or earth worm jim we just get those on our Arcade side what Im trying to say is Developers now need to take a little more risk and not worry about money but i don't see that happening anytime soon .

Some seam to think that more real means better. That is not just for games but movies. Look at Final Fantasy the spirt within.

Some seam to think that more real means better. That is not just for games but movies. Look at Final Fantasy the spirt within.

wiouds

well...developers dont give people enough time to make a good game that looks good as well...in most cases.....think about how long it takes to make a game look good....and even how much more time it would take to make a good game ontop of that....why do u think games like crysis and half life and diablo and starcraft are in development forever....and lets face it....for the most part....u cant make a game that doesnt look amazing(even if it plays well) cause the whole community will knock it for being ugly and alot of people wont buy it....

I've never played a game with fantastic graphics but very poor gameplay. Of course I would choose gameplay over graphics but if the devs are going to invest that much in graphics I think they would have the gameplay be at least decent.Pvt_r3d

This is not about graphics but it goes along with realism.

I did not like GTA4 because of how the roads are layout. It seam they want to copy a real city when making the streets layout and I found it the worst city to drive around in any game like that.

I wouldn't say that realism takes precedence over gameplay as for the types of games I like to play, realism is needed. I don't care about the graphics per se, but want them to look decent. Games like Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon (as created by RSE and not bastardized by Ubi) had a good blend of gameplay and realism even though the graphics weren't the greatest. Still, looking back at GR, they are still awesome when I load it up on my PC. The new versions of those games have lost the gameplay that actually won GOTY awards and are and play just like all the other shooters out there, the kill everything that moves type of gameplay. That gets boring honestly. These are games I expect the weapons to behave realistically and not have shotguns used like a sniper rifle or a sniper rifle used as an assault rifle (GRAW/2 suffered from these problems). If I wanted to play CoD with modern weapons, I would buy MW and not a GR game. I stioll think that R6 has great gameplay, even though each mission only lasted a couple of minutes, it was the planning stage that was what made R6 what it was.

In flying games, I expect the planes to fly realistically, that means, if it is a commercial airliner, I expect to not be able to do loops or rolls without stressing the aircraft and making it malfunction. I also expect it to get damaged if I accidentally run into a building or fly into the terrain. In a combat fligh sim, I expect to be able to do the aerobatics needed for combat and not turn on a dime while flying in the middle of a concrete canyon of some city (HAWX). I expect the plane to run out of ammo and the weapons to react as they would in real life. In naval RTS games, I expect torpedoes to have the range they had in real life without magically being able to extend their range (SH5). I want to learn the torpedo director and how to manually set the firing solution and not magically get it every time I look at a target with the periscope so I can press the fire button.

What is wrong with realism? Also, the Mass Effect series disagree with the assertion that games aren't "fun" nor have "good gameplay" anymore.

There is nothing wrong with realism but I have a problem when a person have the ideal that less real a game is the less the game is.

Look at Homefront, there are some already attacking it because they do not see it as being real enough.

I see this more often on the PS3 and 360 (exceptions exist, of course), but I see it even more in terms of their fanbases. People will debunk games just because they're "childish" or "unrealistic". Games, IMO, should not be realistic unless it serves a very definite narrative point, and the only example I've seen of that so far this gen is Heavy Rain. I haven't, however, seen this much on the Wii or DS. Do you have those systems?

calvinsora

What is wrong with realism? Also, the Mass Effect series disagree with the assertion that games aren't "fun" nor have "good gameplay" anymore.

foxhound_fox

I think many gamers mistake actual realism for what they see in movies. One of the devs for R6 Vegas even admitted that his weapons are realistic based on Hollywood's use of weapons hence the uber shotguns and the like seen in the latest R6 games from Lockdown on. Gamers can't stand being killed with one shot and complain about it and as such, weapons are less effective than they really are. If I shoot you in the right places with an M-16 in real life, one round will kill you and that can't be changed in real life, but people expect to take 4 and 5 hits from one in a game like GR nowadays not to mention seeing around corners and the character that they are playing. I didn't know I could see the back of my head as I walked down the street.:roll:

i completely agree, game designers need to start focusing on fun gameplay rather than graphics alone.

I don't think realism in graphics or setting has anything to do with the gameplay not being good. Realistic graphics mean to include objects, backgrounds and texturesthat look realistic. As for a realistic setting, it's the opposite of fantasy e.g. modern day and the location is NY. I would say it has more to do with level design and game concept.

I didn't say there weren't exceptions but for a lot of gamers if a game is fun but not realistic they will knock it, which is absolutely ludicrous to me. blackgamer1213

Having solid graphic is important to a game but I don't like it when someone thing that good graphic is realism graphic.z

There are those that say games are not good because they do not look real.

I first started gaming when I was about 5 years old, and in this day and age, I think that graphics/realism are being well balanced with fun and good gameplay.

[QUOTE="Pvt_r3d"]I've never played a game with fantastic graphics but very poor gameplay. Of course I would choose gameplay over graphics but if the devs are going to invest that much in graphics I think they would have the gameplay be at least decent.KHAndAnime

I used to think that too early of my PS3 purchase, but now I find it getting better and better.

That's weird. I seem to remember video games like Pac-Man and most of the big NES games looking awesome when they came out. It is only now, 20 years after the fact, that you are having fun in spite of the graphics and not because of them. When stuff like Super Mario Bros. 3 came out, everybody was amazed at how detailed the graphics were. Something like Mortal Kombat was praised for looking realistic. This is nothing new, and it isn't bad either. That's the attitude that has made some of the best video games. Nostalgia is a strange thing.

Games are now designed around 12 year olds who play on xboxs. It's sad, shallow gameplay, and focus on "good" graphics. ( I think the graphics still look like **** on consoles, but whatever.)

Games are now designed around 12 year olds who play on xboxs. It's sad, shallow gameplay, and focus on "good" graphics. ( I think the graphics still look like **** on consoles, but whatever.)

morrowindnic

TC is right. Case in point? GTA IV.

All you need to do, IMO, to make a good game is make the graphics not a hindrance, i.e. don't make it so that it makes the game harder to play. Otherwise, I couldn't care less about the graphics. If you've got great gameplay, nothing else should matter. After all, these are games we're talking about, not movies.

Being a gamer who's been gaming since he was 3, I'm 27 now. My first game was arcade Pacman. First console was the NES. So now you get the picture of my gaming background. So nowadays any game that isn't violent and bloody is overlooked by the masses, a game being fun doesn't matter anymore. A game being good doesn't matter anymore. Today what matters to most gamers, are graphics, realism, violence, and multiplayer. A good example of this is GTA4 vs Saints Row 2. Rockstar made GTA 4 really realistic and took a lot of the fun from San Andreas out, on the other hand Saint's Row 2 just concentrated on a lot of activities to do, and making sure the gamer had a blast. Am I the only one noticing this?

blackgamer1213

Saint's Row 2 would have to radically improve to work its way up to the level of garbage. GTA4 is grittier than its predecessors, but gritty and realistic are two different things (Sin City isextremely gritty, but likewise, no person in contact with reality would argue its realistic). In GTA4 bullet wounds heal in seconds, failed missions can be repeated with a single phone call (all the dead come back to life) and the police have very short memories. If you're from some magicalworld where that happens, I tip my hat to you, otherwise, your claim its realistic is flat wrong. Also, its hilarious to argue that GTA4 is more violent than any of its predecessors.

Others have already pointed out the nonsensicalness of your claim that only certain types of games sell (the tastes of core gamers are at least as broad as ever).

*Shrugs* But you've clung to your ridiculous belief in the face of all evidence and logic, so you and those like you will probably continue to do so.

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

Some seam to think that more real means better. That is not just for games but movies. Look at Final Fantasy the spirt within.

Pvt_r3d

FF: The Spirts Within was nothing more but a graphical wankfest. I can't think of a better word to put it. The movie, when theaters played it, literally bombed at the box office.

That said, I get the feeling that's what some developers only care about - making the game look awesome visually and not making fun and gameplay a priority and is therefore given the backseat.

[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

Games are now designed around 12 year olds who play on xboxs. It's sad, shallow gameplay, and focus on "good" graphics. ( I think the graphics still look like **** on consoles, but whatever.)

Archangel3371

Don't expect to get into a reasoned debate with anyone who spouts such nonsense Archangel. Since their position isn't reality based, such people tend to be very vague (not a single one of the people claiming that cartoony games are unfairly ignored has named a game that was unfairly ignored).

[QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

Games are now designed around 12 year olds who play on xboxs. It's sad, shallow gameplay, and focus on "good" graphics. ( I think the graphics still look like **** on consoles, but whatever.)

Archangel3371

Developers design their games around what sells. It doesn't have to be a good game, just a game that will sell good. Look at games like MW2 and what not. Shallow games, design to milk money from kid's parents.

Kids can't really judge if a game is good or not. Hell they probabley don't even care. They just play what is "cool" at the time. Games that have cool effects, but have just basic repetative gameplay. They will beg their parents to buy these games. They have no sense of money. An adult would see if a game is worth it or not. For example I would only pay $50 for a game if it IS a must have. Like BC2. If its not, then I'll wait till it goes on sell for $10-$25.

[QUOTE="Archangel3371"][QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

Games are now designed around 12 year olds who play on xboxs. It's sad, shallow gameplay, and focus on "good" graphics. ( I think the graphics still look like **** on consoles, but whatever.)

morrowindnic

Developers design their games around what sells. It doesn't have to be a good game, just a game that will sell good. Look at games like MW2 and what not. Shallow games, design to milk money from kid's parents.

Kids can't really judge if a game is good or not. Hell they probabley don't even care. They just play what is "cool" at the time. Games that have cool effects, but have just basic repetative gameplay. They will beg their parents to buy these games. They have no sense of money. An adult would see if a game is worth it or not. For example I would only pay $50 for a game if it IS a must have. Like BC2. If its not, then I'll wait till it goes on sell for $10-$25.

So the only reason in the world someone would buy a game you don't like is a lack of understanding of games and the value of money. Truly a mature and well-reasoned argument.

The sooner games get rid of this supposedly necessary prerequisite of "fun", the better.

Everytime I hear someone say how Saints Row is "fun" whereas Grand Theft Auto IV is not, it makes me cringe. These people can't even wrap their minds around the concept that that's exactly why lots of people prefer Grand Theft Auto IV.

Grand Theft Auto IV, Manhunt, Half-Life 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl, The Witcher are just some of the stellar games I've played over the years that I would never describe as being "fun". I think gamers use the attribute in an antiquated and automated way without really thinking about what it actually means. Would anyone describe Gangs of New York or The Thin Red Line as "fun" movies? No, not all games are "fun". Nor do they have to be. It's pretty simple - some of us have broader tastes and don't want to pigeonhole gaming into one obsolete and horribly overused attribute.

[QUOTE="Archangel3371"][QUOTE="morrowindnic"]

Games are now designed around 12 year olds who play on xboxs. It's sad, shallow gameplay, and focus on "good" graphics. ( I think the graphics still look like **** on consoles, but whatever.)

morrowindnic

Developers design their games around what sells. It doesn't have to be a good game, just a game that will sell good. Look at games like MW2 and what not. Shallow games, design to milk money from kid's parents.

Kids can't really judge if a game is good or not. Hell they probabley don't even care. They just play what is "cool" at the time. Games that have cool effects, but have just basic repetative gameplay. They will beg their parents to buy these games. They have no sense of money. An adult would see if a game is worth it or not. For example I would only pay $50 for a game if it IS a must have. Like BC2. If its not, then I'll wait till it goes on sell for $10-$25.

Graphics make games more enjoyable, and if you played gta iv on ps2 with the ps2 graphics you wont have much fun like the ps3 or the 360 version.( i know that there is no ps2 version im just assuming)johny300

That is a personal opinion because while I can be a graphic's ***** on my PC it doesn't stop me from enjoying Super Mario Bros 3 just as much as any new release this year. Im sure gamers that have been gaming since the 80's (most of you I hope anyway) will agree that we reached a point the moment the Dreamcast was launched were most games look great (maybe thats just me though, I still think some snes games look great like Yoshi's Island).