do you think it should be less focus on graphics and more on gameplay ?

i think so, every since games started to serious graphics they been lacking content sometimes not all the time.

this doesn't mean i rather have terrible graphics im just saying it would be nice if creators went back to just focusing more on game play

Why not have both be amazing?

@nathanbats: doesn't work that way obviously

@papermario:

In some games like battlefield 1 it does

Cryysis 1 10 years ago was best looking game but focus high on gameplay too. thus become on of the GOAT.

Metro games have excellent graphics and gameplay.

Doom 2016 has one of the best gameplay in FPS and a fantastic looking game run on ID tech 6.

Crysis has some downright bad gameplay sections. Flying the ship, on the rails section.

Metro is Call Of Duty underground, it's hypocritical to bash Call Of Duty for having tiny linear levels, with scripted sequences interrupting every 30 seconds but totally ignoring it in Metro. Aside from that the economy system is useless.

Metro is linear Stalker. its nothing like COD nor play like COD. it has one of the best atmosphere in game. offer amount of exploration.

Now Metro is going sandbox. so it will finally become Stalker. its an excellent series. very PC focus.

Exactly.

Why is it Battlefield 1 can offer awesome graphics, amazing performance and solid gameplay... when so many other games can only deliver one of the three ?

Yeah a lot of these devs; especially the triple A crowd put all their faith in the technical achievement and presentation and less on the gameplay.

Unfortantly it's absolutely like of Duty.

1. Almost no player freedom

2. Very linear, incredibly simplstic directed levels,

3. Huge barrage of "look at this" scripted trying to replicate a movie - completely taking player control away

4. Running around with ai that never shuts up always pointing out the obvious

5. Go to marker

6. Wait for NPC to open doors

7. Other things

8. More things

It's extremely guilty of using practically every detestable modern FPS trend. Only reason it gets a free pass is because A) It was pc oriented and B) People associated it with stalker.

Extreme hypocrisy, really big.

so was Call of duty 1 and medal of honor allied assault yet they got free pass tot. they were as scripted as most of todays shooters.

Metro has something COD lack and thats atmosphere. and its immersion.

Call Of Duty had tons of atmosphere and immersion. More so.

Metro is basically influenced by Call Of Duty, but while Call Of Duty at least lets you shoot things, this has you running around doing nothing most of time.

Fallout, Stalker, Wasteland e.t.c.... it's not original. It's gameplay is bare-bones. It's DLC was terrible.

It's very overrated game. It's pretty much the Uncharted 4 of FPS, even console FPS (which are designed for children) like Killzone Shadowfall are a million times better.

Thats not immersion or atmosphere my dear respected friend. thats also incredibly scripted and linear. you cannot do anything and compass show where to go. in COD1 only NPC can open door and you cannot explore. COD1 was no better than post modern warfare games when it comes to bieng scripted and linear

This is atmosphere.

Metro is excellent series despite bieng flawed. probably one of the best new IP debut last generation.

Because the artists and engineers are the same guys as the directors and designers?

Designing fantastic gameplay isn't really expensive.

Just like Metro?

Gameplay is always the most important criteria in a game for me, but that doesn't mean graphics have to take a back seat. Ideally I like to see both at the top of their game. Playing Battlefield 1 yesterday on XOne, what a freaking looker that game is, it looks incredible. Not just the graphics but the color palette, the art style.... and just overall one of the finest looking games I've ever seen in my life. And this kind of stuff affects your experience, so it's nice when they can get fantastic gameplay and push graphics to their max.

But I agree that gameplay should always come first, that should be the priority and foundation before most of the other stuff such as how great it looks.

Atleast Metro has depth.

@ghosts4ever: LMAO nope. Great atmosphere, good story. No depth whatsoever in its gameplay.

Devs that focus on spectacle serve the casual gamer, so in that sense they can stick around. They don't harm my ability to play awesome games.

I'm just amazed how many people, even on forums like this where you'd assume the average gamer would be more invested in the hobby, just never seem to grow tired of playing these types of games.

Naughty Dog is pretty good at both. No need to settle.

Some devs actually can be observed prioritizing gameplay fixes over the graphics. Watching Tekken 7 developers beef up the arcade version comes to mind.

Heh. This is not the gameplay we were looking for...... At ND, game plays you.

Gameplay, easily. A game can have sub par graphics and fun gameplay and still be great. A pretty game with bad gameplay is bad in my book.

@pyro1245: So you haven't played any ND games... got it.

Heh if you think that is game play you need to expand your library. I 'played' them.

@pyro1245: *insert Jennifer Lawrence thumbs up ok gif"

I think game play is really important... but so are tight controls. Graphics are subjective and can be 'good' in many different ways.

Most will say gameplay, then go back to arguing about graphics in every other thread while ignoring gameplay.

Of course.

The Ascension level in Crysis isn't really a rails sequence. You can fly around if you have good power/thrust management. It just so happened you're hemmed in by mountains. But, unlike a rail sequence, you can circle around a location in the valley if you want. A rail sequence means you're just in for the ride.

I've also been playing STALKER: Call of Pripyat, Metro Last Light, and Metro 2033 Redux recently. It's true both games have their share of
"Press E to win," like the one below. But, they're infrequent enough to not really matter.

It isn't bad because it's on the rails (the car part is on the rails), it's terrible because it controls horribly and feels completely out of place.

Stalker: Call Of Pripyat beyond setting, isn't really comparable to Metro. Metro is the illusion of a survival game, It has bare bones gameplay more interested in trying to be a cinematic experience.

If people like that, fair enough, but let's not try make out it's something it isn't.

In some cases, it's attempts to be cinematic outright conflict with the gameplay, because it is literally, more interested in being a movie.

i think in todays industry there is a very wide acceptance of graphics in games amongst gamers. a game doesnt need to be on the technical bleeding edge to be considered good. i mean undertale won the PC GOTY in many places last year and that will run on a pocket calculator.

good graphics is also a very loose terms. pillars of eternity has very nice graphics. not bleeding edge but doesnt want to make you rip your eyes out either. it has quite complex gameplay and it didnt cost the earth to produce.

so there is no shortage of games out there with different visual styles, gameplay types and so on. you just need to go digging.

the issue is at the AAA end and that comes back to cost of development. basically no they cant. like a summer blockbuster, an AAA game has to be a spectacle. its expected to push the cutting edge of tech and dazzle its audience.

what happened before was that new tech would open up new gameplay possibilities. e.g. crysis let you drive a car into a shed, blow it up then use the debris to kill your enemies. not practical but fun. you could shoot down a tree and, if it landed on an enemy, they would be killed. more horsepower allowed devs to have the player character navigate huge building in something like creed. or have a more detailed stealth system in thief (compared to, say, MGS on the PS1).this made AAA games attractive. it was a spectacle and there was lots of new stuff to try and opened up new way to play games and AA and indie developers couldnt do it.

what has happened is that the tech is no longer pushing the gameplay. publishers dont want it to push new gameplay. new gameplay is unproven and on 50 million budgets unproven is unacceptable.

not one single AAA game this gen has had technology push gameplay forward. not one. it has pushed better visuals, more complex animations and the general spectacle but the gameplay is the same as last gen. a bit more refined sure but the same. same creed. same old COD. same old uncharted and halo. same ol mario on the wiiu (just to keep it even here :P). sometimes they will even take that same old gameplay and put a new skin on it, make a few tweaks and call it a new IP. still the same old game.

No depth maybe, but Ranger mode is a genuinely unique experience in the FPS space. And while Last Light went way too ham on the scripted sequence, its gun economy paired with that no fuss/uber tense difficulty actually makes for a rich playing experience. It's no STALKER, but lots of things aren't up to snuff with Stalker. But it isn't exactly the rail shooter some of yah are making it out to be. I agree the part where you have to purchase ranger mode separately is some grade A horse shit if you didn't preorder that game.

My original 2013 Steam Metro Last Light seems to have gained Ranger Mode on its own.

One thing about the Metro games.... I found their monsters to be more terrifying both in movement and presentation.

The ones in CoP seemed rather lifeless. The Major barely brushed against a pseudo giant and.... Lost to the Zone. Reload Latest Save.

In the Metro games, there's no mistaking Artyom is being shredded apart. You know it. ;)

If the next STALKER game has the graphics and presentation of the Metro games plus bigger continuous maps, it's going to be awesome.

ohhhh 'teh deaeepthzzz' that is non existant.

what are you talking about?

They need to hire better game designers. Whoever works on gameplay isn't the same people that work on the graphics.

The presentation is technically better in Metro no doubt, but the enemy AI in Stalker is so good, just across the board. That game's zombie AI (the ones meant to be "bad") are better than most games normal enemy AI.

Of course.

good games have both, not one of the two.

Sure gameplay should be the top priority but I don't see why both can't be polished. Aside from obvious things like poorly executed control schemes and shallow mechanics I think the hand holding that goes on in games these days is the biggest detriment to gameplay. I played Contra: Hard Corps for the first time in awhile the other day and that game throws you right in the white hot fire from the word go. No being eased into the game. The game tells you to get good or go the **** home from the first second. Too many games treat the player like a moron these days and controls schemes are stream lined and BORING. I'm looking at you nearly FPS since CoD4 having the same layout. I'm looking at you GTA with your auto-aim horse shit causing incredibly unsatisfying gunplay. I'm looking at every game with a "time-slows-down-when-seen" thing that sucks the tension out of every encounter. I'm kinda bitching about many things here but, yeah, I really want devs to start treating the player like they have at least half a brain cell and alittle skill.

Graphics can help a lot to immerse yourself into the gameplay and make the game more enjoyable. So its important that graphics not be rushed or done poorly.

Its also important that any sequel to a game have at least equal or better graphics and not worse (looking at you Civ 6)

It's for this reason that I've stayed such a big Nintendo fan. They focus on gameplay, design, value and polish like few others do.

I'd say the 3 big pillars in gaming these days for me are the Souls games, Nintendo, and Street Fighter.

Want a game with great gameplay and great graphics??? Then try Skyrim! Boom... Ok well that's just my opinion, but it is really good and gameplay is definitely worthwhile.

lmao

You're fighting a losing battle here.

Metro had an atmosphere that rises well above and beyond most first person shooter campaigns. It had an ending that was meaningful, combining the futility of war with humanity and compassion.

It had difficulty. You had to juggle air time, finding breathing aparatuses, healing yourself, conserving bullets so you could spend them on better guns. At many points in the games, you could go stealth or guns blazing, and there was no game over if you chose to not do one or the other.

You literally had to survive, and make choices depending on situations. Small acts of humanity also garnered a different ending if you went out of your way.

In Call of Duty, there are no choices. You simply just go.

Neither Metro game had that. **** the book doesn't even have that. It's completely unearned as far as the characters are concerned both in the game and in the book.

Unfortantly this was never a losing battle, I was a fact from the start. Anyone claiming this isn't a simplstic Call Of Duty style shooter is delusional. Except Call Of Duty (the original not those billion sequels) executes it better.

Also your own about small acts of humanity, and "meaningful", like somehow Metro is really deep and of higher esteem. It really isn't. If anything Call Of Duty is more so.

How many kids heard of Stalingrad? Or The Battle Of Pegasus Bridge? Do you think kids watch old 1940/60's war movies? Highly doubtful. Much like Total War, it presents history in an interactive matter, and more importantly, fun. Pegasus Bridge conveys a sense of seemingly futile heroism in the face of overwhelming odds and Stalingrad the propaganda machine of the Russians with a complete disregard for life. Thematically, Call Of Duty does have ideas behind it, albeit primarily taken from movies - more relevant than anything in Metro. And this is coming from a guy who views Call Of Duty as digital cancer.

In fact, if you watch the clip above, the player returns thinking he will be given a rifle, as many people would have at that time. It's a great example of subverting player expectation.

Unfortantly when pc gamers (once and a while) get something approaching a AAA game, they tend to oversell and hype it most likely for validation, as they do when they wave their plastic boxes in a series of jpegs, while contrary to that, a game of equal or better quality on a console will be disregarded and mostly likely mocked.

If you enjoy Metro knock yourself out, I found it incredibly underwhelming and generally find it insulting that people attempt to compare it favorably to Halflife.

This is a question that's asked at least once a week in this forum. Usually people agree that gameplay is more important for games than graphics in most cases, especially some genres like Arcade games. However, I think there are some instances where graphics (including style) are more important than gameplay. One example would be games totally focussed on story telling. They usually have pretty crap gameplay, but they don't need to have some deep gameplay, but I do need to get at least a hint of emotion in their faces. Heavy Rain would be a horrible NES game for example.

That aside: We usually do not have much more than screenshots and maybe some trailers before a game releases, so that's sometimes the only thing we can talk about. I have no idea how Kingdom Hearts 3 will play, but I can talk about those weird huge weapons they showed or how beautiful they portrayed Tangled

Both. I must admit I do like graphics though.

We saw with the Wii that restricting graphical capability does not invite third party developers to improve the other parts of their games.

I'm not sure that they are capable of writing better stories/A.I./game mechanics than what they are doing, and the Wii has shown us that a lesser focus on the graphical part of a game seems to have only negative impact on the other parts of a game.