What side of the fence do you sit on?

I'm asking which side you are on when the inevitable "hardcore" conversations spring up here. You know, what kind of game is catered more to the hardcore gamer.

One side of the philosophical fence says online multiplayer games with great graphics are for the hardcore gamer because of being more expensive and requiring more high-end components. The other side of the fence says games that focus on gameplay elements and things like length over the HD graphics determine what the term hardcore means.

Sure, everyone wants it all. Who would not? But at this stage of game development we have not acheived the total package yet. So where do you stand?

I stand with the gameplay side :D

HD graphics can be standard next gen.

Gameplay. Put it this way, Crysis is the best looking game out there, but it'll never be considered a classic game. Just one that pushed forward graphics in games.braydee1234

trust me Crysis is going to be considered a classics because of it's graphics. To be more specific it's graphics engine, Crysis is most certainly going to follow the same path as Quake 3.

[QUOTE="braydee1234"]Gameplay. Put it this way, Crysis is the best looking game out there, but it'll never be considered a classic game. Just one that pushed forward graphics in games._Pedro_

trust me Crysis is going to be considered a classics because of it's graphics. To be more specific it's graphics engine, Crysis is most certainly going to follow the same path as Quake 3.

Would you consider Doom 3 a classic?

[QUOTE="_Pedro_"]

[QUOTE="braydee1234"]Gameplay. Put it this way, Crysis is the best looking game out there, but it'll never be considered a classic game. Just one that pushed forward graphics in games.braydee1234

trust me Crysis is going to be considered a classics because of it's graphics. To be more specific it's graphics engine, Crysis is most certainly going to follow the same path as Quake 3.

Would you consider Doom 3 a classic?

was Doom 3's engine modifiable that you could create dinosaurs, amazing new Co-op levels and predators?

Radiant Silvergun

Samurai spirits

Thunder force

Contra (2D)

Adventure games (Myst, zack o wiki, the longest journey)

Europa universalis

killer 7

Treasure shooters

Neo Geo AES games (metal slug, king of fighters, fatal fury, aero fighters)

Castlevania

Quake 1

A lot of Dreamcast and Saturn games.

This is my definition of hardcore games.

gameplay...i mean i still play my ps1 games and there so much funRigga911

why are there sides to begin with, just enjoy games for what they are. Graphics and gameplay are supposed to complement each other into making a great game, they are not opposites and dont work against each other.

I'm asking which side you are on when the inevitable "hardcore" conversations spring up here. You know, what kind of game is catered more to the hardcore gamer.

One side of the philosophical fence says online multiplayer games with great graphics are for the hardcore gamer because of being more expensive and requiring more high-end components. The other side of the fence says games that focus on gameplay elements and things like length over the HD graphics determine what the term hardcore means.

Sure, everyone wants it all. Who would not? But at this stage of game development we have not acheived the total package yet. So where do you stand?

Ghost_Dub

Do you mean by that there aren't any games that have both good graphics and gameplay? If so I disagree. I can think of a few.

[QUOTE="Ghost_Dub"]

I'm asking which side you are on when the inevitable "hardcore" conversations spring up here. You know, what kind of game is catered more to the hardcore gamer.

One side of the philosophical fence says online multiplayer games with great graphics are for the hardcore gamer because of being more expensive and requiring more high-end components. The other side of the fence says games that focus on gameplay elements and things like length over the HD graphics determine what the term hardcore means.

Sure, everyone wants it all. Who would not? But at this stage of game development we have not acheived the total package yet. So where do you stand?

NielsNL

Do you mean by that there aren't any games that have both good graphics and gameplay? If so I disagree. I can think of a few.

No of course not. Those games are usually the great ones and the exceptions to the rule. Sadly though today devs tend to sacrifice one for the other like Heavenly Sword for instance. If the team that made it had not focused on fifty Andy Circes facial animations and things like that, the game might have been longer and better.Ghost_Dub

Bad example. Although HS isn't my cup of tea, the people who did play it enjoyed it. Its only shortcoming was in its length. Which sucks of course, don't get me wrong. But stating longer and better implies there's more wrong with it than its length, which lots of people would disagree with.

[QUOTE="NielsNL"][QUOTE="Ghost_Dub"]

I'm asking which side you are on when the inevitable "hardcore" conversations spring up here. You know, what kind of game is catered more to the hardcore gamer.

One side of the philosophical fence says online multiplayer games with great graphics are for the hardcore gamer because of being more expensive and requiring more high-end components. The other side of the fence says games that focus on gameplay elements and things like length over the HD graphics determine what the term hardcore means.

Sure, everyone wants it all. Who would not? But at this stage of game development we have not acheived the total package yet. So where do you stand?

Ghost_Dub

Do you mean by that there aren't any games that have both good graphics and gameplay? If so I disagree. I can think of a few.

Speaking from experience, technology never dictates the length of a game. Why your game was shorter than usual or whatever, is a direct consequence of producers pushing release dates around and wanting more content spanned over multiple releases (sequels, prequels). There's enough space especially on a BD disk to fit all the animations you talk about yet have a lengthy game.

I'm not saying graphical assets do not affect the size of the install (or space on disk), of course it does, but developers, even Crytek, don't go "oh, alright, so this game will be all about graphics, thus it will be short and have no substance". No matter what you think about Crysis, that is not the case. Graphics are always there to support a game, not to over-rule it, unless it's a tech demo.

You can have a very beautiful and long game, it depends on the team if they are up to the task to work on efficiency and effectiveness.

I remain on the fence. I am enamored with the tech side of things, but I also want a compelling experience.I believe a real hardcore gamer is smart enough to know that sometimes there must be a compromise. They understand this and look beyond either factor and instead look for experiences that have acceptable levels of both gameplay and graphics.heretrix

I'm asking which side you are on when the inevitable "hardcore" conversations spring up here. You know, what kind of game is catered more to the hardcore gamer.

One side of the philosophical fence says online multiplayer games with great graphics are for the hardcore gamer because of being more expensive and requiring more high-end components. The other side of the fence says games that focus on gameplay elements and things like length over the HD graphics determine what the term hardcore means.

Sure, everyone wants it all. Who would not? But at this stage of game development we have not acheived the total package yet. So where do you stand?

Ghost_Dub

I'm asking which side you are on when the inevitable "hardcore" conversations spring up here. You know, what kind of game is catered more to the hardcore gamer.

One side of the philosophical fence says online multiplayer games with great graphics are for the hardcore gamer because of being more expensive and requiring more high-end components. The other side of the fence says games that focus on gameplay elements and things like length over the HD graphics determine what the term hardcore means.

Sure, everyone wants it all. Who would not? But at this stage of game development we have not acheived the total package yet. So where do you stand?

Ghost_Dub

dont care. all i care about is if a game is good or not. dont care about graphics or "mature" content (whatever the hell that is...SW still hasnt figured that out) or any of that jazz. if a game is good then ill play it, its that simple. i just ignore the "its not hardcore" argument because its meaningless gibberish imho.

so for me, i dont really acknowledge the fence to be honest.

Harcore please.

Harcore please.

RKfromDownunder