Gaming - Performance vs Gameplay

[Alek_tq]

Simply put - do you think its alrite that new games (such as, CoD4, 5, 6, 7... etc -.-) put emphasis on Graphics and story rather than on actual gameplay, objective, difficulty and the point of the game it self.


Think about the age before super fast PCs and XBox and ****. (10 years back for example).

I use to play SEGA back then. Game's like Golden Axe, Roadrunner, Chip n Dale, etc etc. Mostly, games where each enemy had different virtues and you had to figure the best way to defeat them on your own. Even the early PC games of my childhood - Tomb Raider, for example. Splinter Cell, Prince of Persia - hardly close to good old Tomb Raider. [For all those who don't know, Tomb Raider was a platform-shooting game, can't think of a genre tbh, where you actually had to think in order to complete the levels].

Nowadays, I only see generic FPS games, where one guy has a power suit, or has +50kg of muscles and a cool scar on his face or a light armor, cool sword and ninja moves. Usually that guy goes around and kill's pretty much everyone by tapping the same button and moving around a little bit. Linear games - such as Titan Quest (though, I wouldn't list TQ as a dumb-game mainly because of the complexity of character builds. The developers simply had no time and funds) are even more boring and you can hardly find motivation to play more, especially when you already saw it all.

Also, I haven't seen a balanced and fun-to-play RTS in the last 2 years being made. (Maybe C&C Tiberium Wars was that, but I didn't play it in MP, so I can't judge). I believe there will never be a game even close to Starcraft II, or Warcraft III or Civilization franchise. Or simulation games - I don't see why people would pay lots of money for 20 new item's and ability to go on a vacation (Sims) and keep playing the same game over-and over-and over again. Today's simulation's mostly fail - Caesar III, for instance, own'd every single Sims, Sims City or anything similar.

I'm starting to doze off. My point is:
Since we obviously can't have purely game's that have state-of-the-art graphics and performance while at the same time having interesting tasks and challenges, which one would you pick:

1 - story, graphics and shiny stuff
vs.
2 - gameplay, brain usage, challenge

(vote in your posts, justify your choice).

I am not saying all the games are like this today. Good example is Fall Out 3 - not liner, many quest's demand thinking and patience, the world isn't dead and dull, lot's or random events, lots of freedom.

The games like CoD, God of War, Prince of Persia, even PES, Football manager, Sims (any kind of it, its just nasty), etc etc make me quit gaming and actually start paying more attention at life - but it's not really happening any time soon :)

I'll stick with Warcraft III - Frozen Throne for a long time (DotA). It's simply a game that offers so much diversity compared to the ****ty games made today - which are in most cases failed and/or uncompleted attempts or cheap additions/sequels in quest for more money.

[Impulsand]

Well..

There are good examples of games that take gameplay into consideration over graphics.

A friend of mine really likes simulation games: There are a couple of attack submarine games that are throwbacks to 688Attack Sub from the IBM & clone days. I don't recall the names of the games but they're well done.

I think the newer games that I really enjoyed have been the ones with dark sense of humour and a puzzle to complete.

Trine, Braid, Portal, X3 (simulation game more or less, had balance of good graphics and steady gameplay).

I liked Homeworld 2 (even though it was hard and tough to find the way to play because of steep learning curve).

Team Fortress 2 is a very well balanced game and Valve tries to rebalance it or tweak all the time. the graphics aren't that bad, but more stylized than anything else.

So I would say, if a game has challenge, brain usage and good gameplay... then I'm all for it. Definitely over graphics, unless graphics just happened to be there for the taking as well.

I think you need to try to find other games that appeal to your taste. I'd suggest the "Indie" section of steam for a list of demos you could try.

Trine was a blast, short lived, but fun nonetheless. One game that perhaps conflicts with your graphics vs. playability generalization is Demon Souls PS3 game. Decent to good graphics and crazy fun playability.

Cheers,

Imp

[therani]

I choose 2, gameplay over graphics, but then I like Nethack.

If they're not making games that you like, it's almost always because the kind of game you like is not very popular right now. These days, it pretty much sucks for anybody who doesn't want to play a plastic guitar.

It's a phase the gaming industry goes through. When a game sells really well, the whole industry jumps on board and starts churning out what's hot right now. They did it with Doom, and Diablo, and Tomb Raider, and Halo, and right now they're doing it with Guitar Hero. Guitar games seem to be the flavor of the week right now. Wait a while, and I absolutely assure you that it will change again, whether we like it or not. Maybe they'll start making tons of games like Dragon Age.. that'd be a nice change. Or maybe when Diablo 3 eventually comes out, they'll jump back on the Action RPG bandwagon again.

[ASYLUM101]

I certainly hope so, but fyi guitar games have been around for a while, they just haven't always had a guitar. Anyone remember FREQUENCY? :)

[therani]

I certainly hope so, but fyi guitar games have been around for a while, they just haven't always had a guitar. Anyone remember FREQUENCY? :)

Dance Dance Revolution too, for that matter. The guitar games are basically DDR with a toy guitar instead of a dance mat. My point isn't that it's an original concept, but that it's the current flavor of the week.

[ward_rb]

a year or two ago i would have agreed with you. but the more i think about it, the more i feel its just looking on your gaming past with rose colored glasses. there has always been many more crappy games released than good games. always. its just that when you look back, nostalgia kicks in and you only remember the good.

and if you think an emphasis on graphics is a new thing, youre fooling yourself. even back in the early pc/nes days, companies were constantly trying to push the bar as far as graphics go, and sometimes the games suffered from it.

[ASYLUM101]

and if you think an emphasis on graphics is a new thing, youre fooling yourself. even back in the early pc/nes days, companies were constantly trying to push the bar as far as graphics go, and sometimes the games suffered from it.

yep. I wish they'd stop! The graphics now are fantastic. No need to raise the bar, games already look better than lifelike. I could say they're only hurting themselves but I'm lying, cause some people would just go out and buy the next gen console or graphics card while others(like myself) stay a few years back in terms of tech.

[jesubar]

there's some games (not many) out now with max gfx and really good gameplay: Team Fortress 2 and L4D

but... in truth, even such games can be made with lower gfx demands and still have great gameplay

then there are some games whose gfx are a large part of why the game is successful: Titan Quest -- this is a really beautiful game. It's a work of art. Gameplay is so - so but the gfx are of such a high standard i dont think it would work with less gfx (woudl just become another D2).

also -- i want to say i don't like lifelike looking games: GTA3 is pusshing the limit. True Crimes NYC is stretching it too far. Postal 2 is pushing the limit. And yea -- i dont like seeing facial expressions on computer. It's just too ick.

[Alek_tq]

I actually feel gay playing game's like GTA or some easy FPS, it's practically no brain usage - just do shlt for no reason. Achievements? Wtf do those prove (imho, it proves how much time you spend wasting ur braincells)? And don't get me started on WoW.... Sure, it's a "team" and "social" game, but it messes people up.

The only achievement I think is wort is my kill/death rate in Blackshot (FPS, OMP) which is above 70% at the moment (Which is achieved by having score of 20-2 on average per game). But even that is close to being a no-life nerd.

L4D is a brilliant game. Especially the 2nd part. With it's built in team-speak, it allows for easier teamwork, which is highly needed. And the game is very fun and it's not linear, especially not the multiplayer.

FallOut3 was art. A bit too much gray for my taste, but surely, the best game in the past few years, and probably (but sadly) few years to come.

Lets compare chess, or card games with today's PC/console games. What do you think is harder?

[yerkyerk]

I think chess is a very primitive form of an RTS (well, actually turned based strategy, but that in itself is a primitive form of RTS), actually. Wether it's harder I don't know. Chess isn't hard, it just requires insane amounts of practice before you become really good at it; because than your brain learns all of the (logical) possible patterns.

Anyway, I don't necessarily think old games used to be better. Sure, I still enjoy playing Doom, X-Com (1 and 3) and Dungeon Keeper 2, but I think games are getting better.

A modern game which is truly brilliant, is Team Fortress 2. It's polished to perfection, looks, balance, classes, everything... new (free) content still coming out and the style it uses will not be outdated for many years to come (unlike the more realistic fps's, like crysis).
Saints Row 2 is also mad fun, which is what the GTA series should have been. Unfortunately the PC port was done very poorly..

I think the current hype is not as much about plastic guitars as it is about implementing sandbox and RPG elements in every game. Not sure what to think about that really. The concept of it is nice, but so many games get it wrong...

Oh, and for the record, since Fallout 3 gets way too much praise in this thread; I actually prefer Fallout 1 over it.

[Alek_tq]

I think chess is a very primitive form of an RTS (well, actually turned based strategy, but that in itself is a primitive form of RTS), actually. Wether it's harder I don't know. Chess isn't hard, it just requires insane amounts of practice before you become really good at it; because than your brain learns all of the (logical) possible patterns.


I think the current hype is not as much about plastic guitars as it is about implementing sandbox and RPG elements in every game. Not sure what to think about that really. The concept of it is nice, but so many games get it wrong...

Oh, and for the record, since Fallout 3 gets way too much praise in this thread; I actually prefer Fallout 1 over it.

I agree, chess is a primitive and greatly complex and by far more complicated than some PC RTS games. But if you think about it, comparing chess (which has the ultimate balance, the only imbalance of chess is that its turn based game - someone has to play 1st) to a well balanced game like Warcraft 3FT, you would realize that both take lots of practice to master, to learn patterns at chess is to know strats at RTS, to move at certain position on the table, is to use terrain advantage in RTS, to exploit the pieces' virtues and cover their cons with other pieces is equivalent of you're army design and shape in RTS games. But nowadays, most RTS games are generic, unfinished and imbalanced. Let's pray for Starcraft.

I agree, almost every new game has RPG elements and character design (who cares about character design and look's anyway?).

Some poster already stated that when we think about older games, nostalgia kicks in and we find them greatly better than the new ones. It's the same for me, Caesar IV will never be as good as the 3rd part, nor will the by far superior Civ 4 be as good and fun as Civ 3.
But then again, FallOut has changed from turn-based isometric game to FP-RPG game. And the developer it self has changed, to me, it makes unsignificent difference, but to older gamers...

[yerkyerk]

Well, the biggest difference between chess and RTS games is that by being good at chess, you get praised - and by being good at RTS games all you get is that you're a no-life gaming freak. I mean, that's just hypocrite. Oh well.

[Alek_tq]

Depends. Pro players of many games (CS, Starcraft, DotA for instance) have huge prizes.

Also, did you know that in China, DotA is so popular, some players have titles of DotA Gods, and are praised by the community, literally. Examples are Loda, Merlini, Slasher etc etc mostly legends and current pro players. Most of LAN gaming is followed by respect and glory. The reason you've said that is probably because internet is full of kids, dic.ks and people alike, who ruin your expirience. I, myself, enjoy being call'ed haxor, rusher fag, etc etc...


Taking DotA as example (War3 mod map, very popular, click my sig), players actually have fun clubs, the biggest online tournament, Farm 4 Fame is usually being broadcast live via internet with shoutcast and all the possible and impossible features. And it's not a game where the person that plays the most win's all the time. The top team at the moment is made out of casual gamers, who reunited for old times sake and pure pwnage. Sure, they have sponsors and what not, they travel a lot and have fun, hell, even meet hot girls, cuz girls acutally play DotA (proven fact.).

[Impulsand]

Well, for games that I would play again (and again) one of them is an oldie called Star Control II. One of the best games ever made.

You can actually download the remade version. Here (http://sc2.sourceforge.net/downloads.php) is the download link for it. Linux, MacOS, Windows versions all aboard. It had decent graphics for it's day and the game play is amazing.

[Impulsand]

Depends. Pro players of many games (CS, Starcraft, DotA for instance) have huge prizes.

Well yeah, depends on your location, but what Yerk is saying is that Chess has a wider recognition. Perhaps a failing one as different things become popular... but wider nonetheless.

[therani]

Well yeah, depends on your location, but what Yerk is saying is that Chess has a wider recognition. Perhaps a failing one as different things become popular... but wider nonetheless.

Indeed. You're way more likely to find a chess club in a high school than a Starcraft club. And even if you were lucky enough to attend a school with a Starcraft club, it wouldn't look nearly as awesome on your resume.

[yerkyerk]

Well, my point was mostly that being good at chess is being praised outside of the chessworld, whereas similar prestations with games are at best only praised by fellow gamers - but that's not really noteworthy, as being good at a certain practice tends to always get praise from fellow practicioners of sorts.

This also goes for sports, which are also games and have no productive value - they're praised outside of professing community. And not only are they paid for playing games, they're grossly overpaid as well.
Perhaps videogames are too young for that type of recognition?
Perhaps in the future we have posters of fat, morbidly obese, pimply teenagers in our rooms :D

[Impulsand]

Well, my point was mostly that being good at chess is being praised outside of the chessworld, whereas similar prestations with games are at best only praised by fellow gamers - but that's not really noteworthy, as being good at a certain practice tends to always get praise from fellow practicioners of sorts.

See now you're just repeating yourself.


Perhaps in the future we have posters of fat, morbidly obese, pimply teenagers in our rooms :D

And LOL. That would be fitting, no pun intended, but I think they wouldn't be as marketable as some slim-chisel-jaw jock who happened to be good at computer games in a "professional" setting.

[yerkyerk]

See now you're just repeating yourself.True. I wanted to state that it's a moot point wethere there's praise for expertise within a certain profession for fellow practicioners, which basically means videogamers aren't recognized, whereas boardgamers and sportsmen are (sportswomen in the case of tennis).
Ah, 3 times. Who's counting?

And knowing the average gamer, they'll only have interest in posters of female gamers :)
Ehr, what was this thread about again?

[therani]

And knowing the average gamer, they'll only have interest in posters of female gamers :)


But probably not the fat pimply ones.

[Impulsand]

Ehr, what was this thread about again?

Re: Gaming - Performance vs Gameplay

Aside, here's a shameless bump in the name of "The Ur-Quan Masters (http://sc2.sourceforge.net/downloads.php)".

[yerkyerk]

Well, one interesting thing about something mentioned in the OP;
When answering the following question;
"Do you enjoy the current games more than you enjoyed the older games in the past?"
I think we'll hear a "no" to that from most gamers (who played back in the day as well)
Dune 2 was a horrid FPS, with terrible controls, almost no differences in factions, negligible storyline (although that seems to be common for RTS games) - but it was a classic and I enjoyed playing it at that time.
Would I enjoy playing that same game now?
No.

Would you enjoy games more, less or equally if there was no advancement in the gaming industry? I tend to feel that the answer would be equally.

This ofcourse, does not only apply to games, it applies to every aspect of our lifes.

Are we happier than people with much less luxury? Are we happier than our forefathers, who lived in harsher conditions?
Would we be happy ourselves, if we had to live for extended periods in less luxury? Would we be happier if we lived for extended periods in more luxury?
Probably not (that answer is actually scientifically supported).

So, I tend to believe that we don't enjoy games more, even though they have gotten much better. That might also help explain all the nostalgic feelings regarding older games.

[Impulsand]

And this is the wrong thread for those latter meanders.

I do remember some games from when I was younger that I still play.

I still play Commander Keen, Super Mario World, Final Fantasy III and Star Control II for some examples. Why? Because they're fantastic games.

However, there are parallels with the way games are developed that seem to have lack of planning and game play. It hasn't really changed. Nostalgia being what it is... it doesn't change the fact that the only thing that human creativity has at it's disposal are better tools. That's it.

[yerkyerk]

Well, better tools to allow for some creative ideas to be put forth that were previously not possible.

3d perspective came with an entire new genre of gaming (mostly FPS, as a lot of games don't necessarily have to be in 3d), which was different from existing games.
Realistic gravity is also an interesting development for puzzles.
Plus, ofcourse, the sheer number of people who are now able to make a game - which brings a lot more creativity into play. You just have to know where to look (the indie front seems to be most interesting for new concepts).

However, if old games have so much better gameplay; wouldn't it simply be a task of taking the old game, copying it exactly; than improve upon it. I mean, that'd be the logical step to take from an economical viewpoint, right?
People are already known with the stuff you're offering and it'll be in every way better than the current game they're playing (except for fanboys, lowres fetishists and nostalgics).

[Impulsand]

I should have corrected my previous post as I'm prone to missing words...

THIS is what I meant:


However, there are parallels with the way old games and the way new games are developed that seem to have lack of planning and game play. It hasn't really changed. Nostalgia being what it is... it doesn't change the fact that the only thing that human creativity has at it's disposal are better tools. That's it.

Otherwise, parallels as a word in that context just doesn't make sense. My reference to old games was that I find some old games still entertaining, but more than nostalgic. I enjoyed playing them then and now. It depends on the game. There are good examples of games and bad examples... the only difference between the two personally imposed opinion camps is the human element. It doesn't matter when the game was made. I think it holds true that there will always be a better and worse game; not a generalized older is better.

Take "Sacrifice" for instance. 3D - 3rd person RTS (~ish) and it worked. Trite story, but fun in that you could play either side of the coin. It's "Old" now, but not really.. 2001? I dunno if that's old. But it was an impressive and creative title.


However, if old games have so much better gameplay; wouldn't it simply be a task of taking the old game, copying it exactly; than improve upon it. I mean, that'd be the logical step to take from an economical viewpoint, right?

This is a moot point to my post as you misunderstood because I wasn't clear. If I were biased to old games, then this would be true in a logical perspective. EDIT: However, enough gaming companies take this view of making games for money that we don't need more of it. One of my huge gripes with games, though, is trying to cash in on a trend and doing it poorly.

I still stand by creativity, as a variable has not changed, save by individual, since making things to be fun started.

EDIT: One other old game to add to the list is Stronghold (http://www.homeoftheunderdogs.net/game.php?id=1079), produced by the faded SSI and developed by Stormfront Studios. It was a Dungeons & Dragons based civ / RTS type game. It was so fun, but outdated. I still play it now on DOSBOX; fun, but more than nostalgia. Ah for keeping old games.

[Alek_tq]

We're diverging from the topic; Let me get you back at it in a moment.

@1st page, end-part posts:
You would more likely find a chess club in a school, because searching for a Starcraft club in the school would be wrong:
a) school is relatively small community, with 50% memebers (MAX) being interested in games [boys-girls]
b) out of those 50%, 10% are actually good at games [hardly]
c) out of those 10%, only a dozen will play Starcraft well.


So, if you want to find a Starcraft club, search for it on Internet - where starcraft is played. Same applies for all games. You search for clubs/clans/teams where the game is played, and only then you get results.


Back to topic now:


Can anyone tell me why is Mafia better than any GTA game?

On a more important note - how important is the story segment of the game important to you?
Story vs Fun?



EDIT:

people take games seriously:
http://www.mymym.com/en/coverage/588.html

[yerkyerk]

Fun for me, heh.
I've really enjoyed Saints Row 2, whereas playing (if you can even call it that) GTA IV was dreadful and a waste of time. Although the story was better than the average sandbox game, I find that stories in videogames are usually severely overrated. They can at best compete with a somewhat decent movie - but they take a lot longer to plow through (and it's hard to find a videogame with both a truly interesting story as well as good gameplay). The dumb thing is that I found the Saints Row 2 story a lot more entertaining than GTA 4's as well.

And games are still only taken seriously within (part of) the gaming community.
EDIT; well, perhaps there's less hope than I thought for this world :)
Instead of realizing that sports, boardgames, videogames, etc... should be fun, it's taken to the next level. Serious business. Bah.

[ward_rb]

On a more important note - how important is the story segment of the game important to you?
Story vs Fun?

although a good story isnt necessary if the game is fun enough, i find story to be an important factor. i even enjoy "crappy" stories like you get in fighting games. its just a way of putting the events in the game together, and although i prefer a good story, even a bad one is a major part of the fun factor for me.

but im also mainly a single-player gamer...not a big fan of the online gameplay. the only online multiplayer games ive played for longer than a couple days are team fortress 2 and street fighter 4.

some people get their kicks from "pwning" peiople online, i have much more fun in single player or co-op.

[lm01]

Dune 2 was a horrid FPS, with terrible controls, almost no differences in factions, negligible storyline (although that seems to be common for RTS games)


Just because there was a long period without good RTS, (after Total Annihilation and Starcraft, 1997~1998 + expansions) you shouldn't make that comment regarding RTSs, the same could be said about RPGs.

And this in my point of view, is why sometimes fewer games are better ^^
We don't get untested/unbalanced/uninteresting/... (intruduce more UNs in here)

Edit:
About Real 3D vs Isometric 3D ?
I vote Isometric all the way, more than 95% of the RPGs RTS in real3D are a shame.
Either by gameplay, views, character interaction... (just remembered Black Isle games :S)

Story vs Fun?
I like a good story, character interaction, having fun without it is way harder.
Guess you mean Story vs Blood? :P


BTW, you guys that like DotA, like I do, ever tried Heroes of Newerth (http://www.heroesofnewerth.com/)? give it a shot xD
It's DotA without the limitations of the WC3 mod.

[Alek_tq]

No, I've meant story vs fun; as in, for example, GTA vs Mafia. Where Mafia offered greater challenge than GTA and actually required skill - unlike GTA games which can be played and owned by 10 year olds (which is sad).


Also, why fun is more important than story -
I can play a game like GTA4 or whatever once, get trough it half-arsed and be happy its done with and never play it again. But I'll go back to play DotA, or Mortal Kombat on my SEGA forever, because its fun, without actually having any story.



@HoN - that game is a lame rip-off, IceFrog had signed a contract with VALVE and is developing a game - probably the real DotA.

[Impulsand]

Yeah, I played Track Mania United Forever for weeks based on fun factor.. and I still go back (because they have a Wipeout based car model for me, seriously it's just fun).

Have you played Newerth? I've a couple of friends who played both quite regularly and they felt HoN was a great game by itself. I've not played either, so I really don't know. But DoTA is just a mod isn't it? Whereas HoN is a game in itself... I think.

ah well, ignorance here for me.

[Renevent]

I think there's all types of games today just like there was all types of games then. Some games focus on graphics and gimmicks, some on gameplay, some on both.

Nothing has really changed...maybe there's a cycle (we've seen an emergence of indie games lately)...but all in all I think gaming is great today just like it was 20 years ago.

[Alek_tq]

I think there's all types of games today just like there was all types of games then. Some games focus on graphics and gimmicks, some on gameplay, some on both.

Nothing has really changed...maybe there's a cycle (we've seen an emergence of indie games lately)...but all in all I think gaming is great today just like it was 20 years ago.
Wold you post some examples?

[Renevent]

Examples of what? Great games today and 20 years ago?

[jesubar]

yes there is too much emphasis on Graphics in modern games
it is very nice (see latest left4Dead the faces of the people are really nice) but... the problem is thatit narrows the imagination.

possibly like reading a book. when 10 people read a book, each of them will have about 10 different ideas of what the characters or monsters looke dlike precisely. but when they play a game, the look is set right there.

10-20 years ago, gfx was very basic and representational. so when you saw link or fantasy monsters it was up to your imagination to really try to see how fearful or lovable they were. but today,. it is all set out in full colour and detail. it does ruin the breadth of the world you experience.

however, some developers are realising this today and are moving back. i think there will be simpler games coming (for mobile?) that will also be epic in scope and will be basic gfx too! These will have excellent gameplay.

[yerkyerk]

Ehr - if you don't mind graphics at all, I reckon Nethack to be a cool game...

[Raven.rpg]

I would say 1
I prefer story over anything else
So you can guess that I am old-school RPG lover