Do you think the graphics vs gameplay debates of the wii/ps3/360 era got us into this

I remember during that gen more and more people were demanding amazing graphics and cinematic experiences. Everyday there would be a thread polling what is more important a game with superior graphics or gamepay; and so many gamers jumped on the graphics train. Games with average gamepllay and awesome visuals began scoring a lot higher(metal gear solid 4, gta 4) and devs started focusing more on the cinematic approach.

Now jump to this gen and heavy gameplay games like god of war are taking a more cinematic approach. First person shooters offer the same bland experience but more detailed visuals.

So I guess it is safe to say we finally got the answer in the "graphics vs gameplay" discussion. Graphics and cinematic immersion are the big thing this gen.

Yes.

We really got too greedy with the visuals.

Crysis is still just a pretty game with lackluster gameplay. That game was hyped due to visuals, and no one even plays it.

If you're a long time video game follower like me then you'd know the answer is no.

This debate started even before video games was a twinkle in the eye of Bill Gates. This started all the back in the SNES, Sega Genesis, Turbo Graphics 16 era of games.

Classic lines like "Sega does what Nintendo don't!" and "Nintendo, now you're playing with POWER!" are timeless reminders of that age and got that debate started before internet trolling was ever a thing.

It would be naive to suggest that this is the spawn of something that happened as late in the game as PS3 and 360, far from it.

Yeah a lot of good games got passed on last gen because they didn't meet the conventional standard. A lot of games like bioshock got a pass because they were pretty.

I remember when Super Mario 64 and Shenmue on dreamcast was a thing, but I guess people have short memories.

@Mercenary848: Nice revisionist history.

I don't get the gameplay vs graphic argument during the 7th generation. Gameplay is THE reason I avoided the Wii. PS3 and 360 had graphics and gameplay.

Hell it goes back to Colecovision vs Intellivision vs Atari 2600 days. The bottom line is human beings like shiny things and that extends to many forms of entertainment. Graphics are it in games. People like to be wowed and visuals are the easiest way to do it. Its instantaneous. Wowing with gameplay takes a person actually putting the time into playing and experiencing it for an extended amount of time.

The new GOW looks like TLOU with an Axe. Debates didn't do anything, it was the sales. Trends are set by what sells the most.

I kind of blame the Unreal Engine. It looked like trash and most devs used it.

I get it your old.

I am talking more in line with the cinematic push that we see today. No one has said that there hasnt always been graphic debates. You sound like a broken record grandpa

no.

since the dawn of the industry there has always been a big push to offer a movie like experience. developers would see movies like star wars and would think "god i would love to make something as epic looking as that". people have also always wanted to play games that would be like those movies. they would love to have an epic lightsaber duel or fly an x-wing in an epic looking battle in space. or be indiana jones or batman or whatever.

this desire has been a big part of the drive behind the technology used in games both on the hardware and software side. it will always be there.

the big issue at the moment is that its actually getting harder and harder to wow us with spectacle in games. the jump in visual fidelity in terms of the end product is getting smaller gen after gen. on a technical level its still a huge leap but the end result doesnt look a million times better than games from last gen. but going from the PS2s finest to the PS3s finest was a far more noticeable leap.

the other issue is the cost of development so the AAA sector has just become very conservative. either put a new skin on tried and trusted gameplay or make a seaqual. we haven't had a crysis since crysis. we haven't had a game that pushed the state of the art in the experience we can get from games.

crysis gets flack for just being a benchmark but actually the gameplay in crysis was very ambitious and driven by technology. it had destructible buildings where the player could also use the debris as a weapon. the AI was actually pretty advanced and had to adapt to the wise variety of things the player could so (stealth, melee attacks, attack with a helicopter, charge in in a jeep etc.). it wasn't perfect. it was broken in places but it was ambitious and it made people sit up and take notice.

but we havent moved beyond that really. most games this gen are just prettier versions of games we were playing last gen. star citizen is the closest we have (and if it delivers it will push the state of the art again not just visually but in what the player can do in a game) but its not out and all pointers indicate that it wont be out for a while yet.

Another ignorant fool lmao.

Crysis fans so deluded hahahahaha

(im laughing at you irl)

Fine by me, still a fool though.

I actually think the "cinematic" games are an evolution of the old Adventure genre. Those games (Grim Fandango, etc) have basically no "gameplay" as people tend to talk about it, other than walking, and are basically solely focused on telling a story with occasional player interaction. The big shift (other than away from point and click) has been away from puzzles and TOWARDS more traditional "gameplay" elements (e.g., a shooting arena set piece). I think that's why they don't bother me as much as some - I am a huge Myst/Day of the Tentacle/Zork Grand Inquisitor/etc fan, and when I play "cinematic" games it kind of feels like an alternative to the puzzle-oriented adventure option (aka, my brain is too tired to think, and would rather shoot something right now to progress)

@Epak_: your the one who can only make insults and not form a opinion to counter my point. I have met toddlers with better communication skills then that.

Oooh someone got mad. It's a common practice to call Crysis a shallow, pretty game here, I've watched it for 10 years now. Most people haven't even played the game and only jump on the hate wagon to make a stronger argument, fools I tell you. Fools with no imagination, fools who don't take advantage of the suit powers, fools who only played the gimped-to-hell console version.

Besides, you just said Crysis had lackluster gameplay and that's it, what is there to counter lol? You haven't probably even played the game lol.

@Epak_: not mad, just gauging the fact that I'm dealing with someone with very limited communication skills and mental capacity. You still have not refuted my point, you just threw a tantrum.

I have played crysis, and the gameplay is nothing special at all. Just a pretty far cry clone. You can't even come up with a reason to refute why so many people criticize the game. Take your fanboy glasses off.

Yes, every gen the same thing happens, console gamers want to compare their toy to the power of a high end gaming PC. It has gotten worse since the PS2/Xbox era and is now the way publishers advertise their new toys to their drones.

Absolutely not... This is a manifestation brought about from the rise of the PC elitist and insecure console owners. As PC has become far more accessible it's shed light that there are bigger performance gaps, which the elitists/super enthusiasts have pounded into the ground.

The result being, insecure console owners and subsequently an entire hobby fixated on the wrong elements that have made video games what they are...

Everyone likes a well optimized game, there's nothing wrong with that... But there are FAR MANY more things to focus on on video games than resolution and frame rates. I think it's embarrassing that our hobby can't get away from that in the face of so many games being copycat experiences with horrible Hollywood stories and presentations.

Thankfully for every critically praised dud, like uncharted (which has zero compelling and thoughtful gameplay, but we can watch a B movie!) there is a breath of the wild that flaunts its nearly perfect video game concepts and scope in the face of the unimaginative industry, reminding us that video games are special because they can look beautiful and also respect your time through interaction! The fact that it's accomplished on the "weakest" hardware is the flashing neon sign flashing above the industry that the industry, "has it all wrong"

Sadly, I'm not sure if they're paying attention.

Stop being a lame-o and try to use your imagination while playing the game.

lol you just confirmed my point. Its a boring game that is really pretty, so you have to use your imagination to enjoy it.

Yup, people who lack creative thinking and people who only play games that hold their hand all the way through can't seem to be able to enjoy Crysis. A game which gives you all these cool powers to play with and toy with the enemy + destructive environments which can be used to your advantage. I know a game you'd enjoy, it's called Call of Duty.

@Epak_: Yet you cant coherently explain why the game is deep. I am giving you a chance to explain why im wrong and im willing to listen, but you are just throwing out childish insults and ad hominem attacks. Also you gave yourself away with the typical SW chide "say someone is a COD fan" because they don't like a game I do. You said you have been on this board for 10 years, so you are atleast 23. Act like an adult.

So many game give you that in better ways then crysis. If I want to toy with enemies I will play Hitman.

How coherent do I have to be, you've made up your mind. Only thing you can say is that Crysis sucks blah blah blah, gameplay is boring blah blah blah, very thorough of you :D

I mean thats pretty much it, but you got offended that I don't like your favorite game and tried to come at me with insults. That is childish. You can't be triggered because someone doesn't like the same game as you, and then get even more butthurt because YOU CANT EVEN DEFEND A GAME THAT YOU LIKE lol!

naw, graphics arguments are nothing new, they were always heading in that direction

Yeah yeah, hardly my favourite game, don't even game on PC anymore. Just tired of dead minded people hating on Crysis, go with the mainstream my friend.

God of War sold very well.

*Plays Sewer Shark*

Been this way for aw long as i can remember

pretty much.

Digital Foundry got popular purely just to tell people the 360 had better multiplats then the PS3.

@Mercenary848

No, ask your parents. It's been going on since the start.

@xantufrog:

"I actually think the "cinematic" games are an evolution of the old Adventure genre."

^this.

@LegatoSkyheart:

Bcuz it did

@lrdfancypants: I'm glad someone agrees with me. It might sound kind of crazy on the surface - especially since you can still find "traditional" Adventure games from some pubs

@xantufrog: I've said the same thing before.

I don't understand the hate for them.

It's not as though there aren't tons upon tons of other games to choose from.

The gaming industry having a raging boner for how Hollywood does business is what got us here.This medium is way too fixated with the term "cinematic" and less on what's actually interesting about being a fucking game. Also God of War always had a lot of effort put into its presentation n visuals, the actual gameplay in God of War was fucking shallow compared to the likes of NGB, DMC3, Bayonetta, God Hand, etc.

It just so happens that God of War 1-3 were at least still video games, where as 4 looks like some wank.

I've dumped hours in to Crysis..... it's one of the very few FPS games that no matter how many times you play a level it's always a different play through.

The debate has always been real, but Wii owners did have to stand by game play back in the day. these days I think it's just preference, and also our younger gamers, who graphics is everything to them for now

The debate has existed since the Nintendo vs Genesis days and has NEVER stopped. Do your homework!

Naw the graphics war was bound to happen. It was inevitable.

Crysis had a level of depth that is absent from most other FPS games these days. To the point of its sequels being far more shallow(consolized) than the original. To say its shallow and that you've played it is to say you played it like it was CoD and didn't even try to experiment.

Not coherent enough, you also lack mental capabilities because you're not hating on the original Crysis. PS. The sequels sucked ass, Warhead was still good though.

This guy knows. The SNES had more colours and the Genesis had a way better CPU.

Well yeah, people really put graphics on a pedestal, and developers responded as such.

Now, graphics ARE important and I'm not necessarily against pushing graphics to new heights, but that said they aren't the mosat important thing ever IMO and aren't some end all be all. And while there's nothing wrong with pushing graphics and there's potential benefits, there's also great risk. The push fotr graphics has gotten to a point where games need higher sales to be considered "successful" to a company, meanwhile there needs to be more development and cost to get such graohical power into games. This in turn means more developers are probably going to want to play it safer.