Guest Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 Video games are becoming more and more visually appealing as time goes on. I mean, look at the Crysis games, they're beautiful! These kind of games immerse you in color and vividness and they really show how far we've come (at least visually) since video games were in their infancy. However, graphics aren't everything. Game physics, ai, dialogue, gameplay, etc are other important parts of a game. And while these are very important parts of the game, no huge strides or changes have been made. The only noticeable leap was with L.A. Noire and their voice acting and lip syncing. Gameplay mechanics and physics for FPS's, RTS's, RPG's, and MMORPG's haven't really changed much for a while. Still, one could argue that these mechanics work well and therefore they don't need to be changed. In my opinion, games should focus on the physics, as they are quite lacking compared to the graphics. One thing that really should have been implemented into games is realistic bleeding and realistic wounds. Where a slash of a sword to your arm would visually show a gash and that arm would be rendered useless. I'm tired of slashing at an enemy's hit box and seeing no carnage or damage whatsoever, spurts of blood mean nothing. Also, destructible environments should be added in more games. It's ridiculous how games like Crackdown or GTA are open world chaos games, with explosions and such everywhere, yet buildings and trees are completely unharmed. In a game, I want to participate in an unscripted event where I am standing in a crumbling building and I have to find my way out or die. In my humble opinion, more and more games are becoming too linear but with good graphics. I hate forced linear games with a passion, and I love open world games like the Elder Scrolls or Minecraft. Don't we play video games to escape the world and play how WE want to play? Sorry for the huge wall, just wanted to state my opinion, and I'd like to hear what you guys think, should future games focus more on graphics or physics?
Dreamer102 Posted July 11, 2011 Posted July 11, 2011 Two words... "ASHERON'S CALL" If they could start actually SELLING games as huge and immersive as AC1 post beta, I would shell out up to 200 dollars for it. I know I know...it would require a server to run the worldspace and enemies...but heck, It would be soooo worth it to have that huge world-size, variability and expandability. Another point stuck in my craw is how videgames don't combine genres. For example: There are great FPS shooters... There are great RPGs... There are great Flight Sims... There are great Speace Sims... BUT NONE THAT COMBINE THEM ALL!!! Imagine a game where you can run around planet-side like in oblivion, then get in a plane or other aircraft and fly to another continent or city and roam around again. Then have the option of getting back in your aircraft and flying through the atmosphere (under full control like in EVOCHRON MERCENARY, not a cutscene like most Space sims) to wind up in planetary orbit or travel to other planets/solar systems and fight with other ships like in Wing Commander or EVE Online. Combine the usage of Mechs like in the Robotech or Mechwarrior games and wow...what a game! Can you imagine it?!? It would be the ultimate game!
Guest Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 Sorry for the huge wall' date=' just wanted to state my opinion, and I'd like to hear what you guys think, should future games focus more on graphics or physics? [/quote'] Nor. Game developers should think like 10-20 years ago. Today there are so many games with fantastic graphics and/or physics which don't have much else to offer. Back then when graphics hadn't had such an important significance as they have today, game developers focussed much more on gameplay, story, atmosphere, music etc. Because this is what leaves an impression. When you play a game that has good graphics for today's standards, they will be totally outdated in three years. But the atmosphere that kept you in front of the screen and made you play that game over and over again will never be outdated. I personally don't like that the developement has shifted towards a more visually fixed direction. Sure, nice graphics and a realistic physics engine have their benefits, but it should never be the emphasis of a game (unless it's something like a physics-oriented game). Just look back at the nineties; there were dozens of great adventures (Monkey Island, Loom, Day of the Tentacle or Zak Mckracken to name a few). They never had overwhelming graphics, they were rather funcional (like for example the comic-style of Day of the Tentacle). And what use should an expensive graphics-engine in an adventure have anyway? It's a shame that there's no market for adventures anymore because many consumers have adapted the new direction of the gaming industry. I know that there are still games that follow the old spirit but in a direct comparison there was a bigger frequency of good games in the past then today.
Ryanhabs Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 I voted games should focus more on physics to add a more real life expierence to the games immersion factor, but this also comes with a twist. There are scores of games flooding store fronts each month anymore and 1 thing stands consistent with 90% of them, they lack something major to make them all good games, some have terrible controls (ie.need better physics for that more real to life feel for the player), but too many others lack the basics. What I mean is there are very few games that give you enough back story to make a new player feel that sense of immersion that we play games for. Some just lack content. If i'm playing for a game for 30 mins, I shouldnt see a cutscene for every 5 minutes because my character walked through a new door. Finally, and this is a big one for me personally, mostly all lack character customization. I'm sorry to drag oblivion and games of the like in to this thread but, why is it all these years after morrowind and oblivion have been released are people still playing these sorts of games? For me the answer is simple, if I spend time making the character that I'm controlling, spending hours to get everything just right, theres already an attachment to that character for me. It give the player a connection to the game that normally doesnt exist. Its YOUR chosen hero / heroine not some random guy / girl that showed up on your screen when you started the game. Its the little things like that I feel are missing from most games and sure, some things I mentioned won't work for all games but hey... I mostly play RPG, Action/ Adventure and real-time strategy. I truely think in those specific genres having a better connection with the characters story and the character itself starts the immersion process.
tacomarine Posted July 12, 2011 Posted July 12, 2011 yeah, games today really already have decent graphics. i mean, i'd rather have a good game then live in a bad game. really. there are good games out there (minecraft and ruunescape are unfortunately good examples) that have crappy grahics, but good physics. recent games have actually gone bust *cough* (force unleashed two) because even though it's a good looking game, almost all depth is... i beat the game in five hours. good looks? yes. am i around long enough to appreciate it? no. another good example would be some of the zombie games that are in development right now. like what Ryanhabs said about real life? theres a isometric game called porject zomboid. another called rouge survivor. have 100 gamers compare both of them with LFD2? isos win, i think like 70 to 30. LFD has better graphics, but the two iso games can relate to real life ie. hunger, sanity, actually building things and places, not finding an m16 with 500 rounds sitting next to a train, ect. cuncluding? a lot of gamers are actually settleing for sub-par graphics and good game physics. maybe a good buissiness move would be to follow the trend and focus more on physics than graphics? OMG thats brillient.
Dreamer102 Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I will take Plot and depth over graphics any day. heck, I still play SW:JKJA when I really want smooth playing gaming action.
TheBigPill Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 Neither, visuals and physics are the opium of the masses. Edit: Unless by physics you mean gameplay...
merctime Posted July 13, 2011 Posted July 13, 2011 I think I have to second a few things here... graphics and physics are nice but how about a storyline. No, really. A story. An engaging one. That isn't told through endless cutscenes that I can't fast forward through that keep me from playing and engaging in the storyline. Anyone play the old-ish divine divinity diablo clone? It had WONDERFUL immersion and a cool storyline, with little offshoot plots. In a diablo clone! It was great. Really, truly, provide a story, even if it isn't 'original', just make it full, and interesting enough, and give it some spin-off plots or flesh it out with different possible paths in the story to take for replayability. Then, get the graphics and the physics handled. AFTER the story, not first, and plugging in some 5 minute storyline after your game looks so L33T on the newest hardware. My 2 cents. Happy gaming! -Merctime
HoroBoro Posted July 17, 2011 Posted July 17, 2011 I am of the story faction. I feel that games these day are all about flash and slash...with little substance. Remember Chrono Trigger? Caution: spoilers and minor insanity. Remember how Lucca's Mom got her legs horribly maimed because of Lucca? Remember how, once you took control got uber skillz, you could actually GO BACK IN TIME TO PREVENT THAT FROM EVER HAPPENING????!? And then SHE ACTUALLY WALKS AROUND and DOES LAUNDRY INSTEAD OF GRIPING ABOUT HOW LUCCA AND TABIN ARE WORKAHOLICS!? That was genius... And the trial...don't get even started on that... These days, I feel like games are giving the illusion of freedom without actually giving any story. Take for example, Mass Effect (an oldish game, but a good comparison). Ok... I can travel to Dozens of worlds... But I do basically the same thing on each one. Heck I can't even convince Ashley to give up her Alien hating ways. Don't get me wrong - the effects, gameplay etc... was absolutely stellar. That's what kept me going... But the game did not feel nearly as good as some old SNES RPGs. And I will never play it again, nor will I play the sequel. The issue with freedom is that there's no reaction - no depth. Sure, you can have your dozens of environments, hundreds of characters, and countless hours of gameplay. But... If the interaction between them is crap, all you have is a huge sack of crap. I don't enjoy playing with crap no matter how nice it smells =( Just in case some of you take this the wrong way, I appreciate all the work gaming companies do. I just feel that they're going in the wrong direction. It might be different for different people though. I was always stuck in the RPG Gene. And Strategy/MOBA games I don't care about the story but that's because there's other people to make them more interesting XD. Which is probably why I hate MMORPGS... Because they take the worst from both words...
Deshawn Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Hi...,Nice thread.I am totally agree with tacomarine.Games today really already have decent graphics.There are good games out there (minecraft and ruunescape are unfortunately good examples) that have crappy grahics, but good physics....nice sharing.
Jerbsinator Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 I don't vote for any, I vote for gameplay. Games need better gameplay...like Nintendo makes them. If Blizzard or Bethesda put as much effort into games as Nintendo does their games would be the wave of the future.
Dreamer102 Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Ok... I can travel to Dozens of worlds... But I do basically the same thing on each one. Heck I can't even convince Ashley to give up her Alien hating ways. Don't get me wrong - the effects' date=' gameplay etc... was absolutely stellar. That's what kept me going... But the game did not feel nearly as good as some old SNES RPGs. And I will never play it again, nor will I play the sequel. The issue with freedom is that there's no reaction - no depth. Sure, you can have your dozens of environments, hundreds of characters, and countless hours of gameplay. But... If the interaction between them is crap, all you have is a huge sack of crap. I don't enjoy playing with crap no matter how nice it smells =( [/quote'] I feel the same way. The ultimate game experience for me was and always will be "Asheron's Call". It didn't have the best graphics, but you had a whole continent to explore and EVERYTHING in it was the way it should be. ALL buildings/dungeons were accessible (provided you could get to the entrance and were of sufficient level), you could go anywhere you could see pretty-much and the entire world was completely OPEN! Games like "Freelancer" give you a whole solar system to explore but all you can do is fight in space and land on a planet and have the exact same experience whether you land on a planet or a space station. No first person experience...no spacewalking...nothing that an actual person would want to experience in a Space-combat/exploration sim. Land on "Planet A"...you have the choice of shopping, going to the bar and checking the job board. Land on "Planet B"...you have the choice of shopping, going to the bar and checking the job board. Land on "Planet X"...you have the choice of shopping, going to the bar and checking the job board. So repetitive it's mind-numbing...ugh.
Ragged Robin Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 I feel the same way about games as I do the movies and TV I watch. If there isn't enough there to engross me and to suspend disbelief, then it's not worth playing/watching. All good art is a tale well told.
Guest Loogie Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 Games of the future should focus on better storytelling. Almost any story-driven game from the 1990s blows today's games out of the water. The problem is the focus is too much on physics and graphics. Only games that have come out in the past 5 years with truly great stories are GTA IV and New Vegas, and even they fall flat compared to things like System Shock and Fallout 1/2.
Guest Posted October 12, 2011 Posted October 12, 2011 I don't vote for any' date=' I vote for gameplay. Games need better gameplay...like Nintendo makes them. If Blizzard or Bethesda put as much effort into games as Nintendo does their games would be the wave of the future. [/quote'] Quick question: how would you improve gameplay without improving physics?
Guest Loogie Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Better story, meaningful choices. Maybe releasing different types of games instead of goddamn first person and third person shooters with different window dressing over and over and over again.
Cezul Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Personally, I feel we've pretty much mastered graphics ( consoles just need new hardware/an upgrade ) And i think better physics would be nice. Although, we should really focus on better hardware, perhaps infinite hardware. I remember hearing talk about IBM making a crystal based CPU that had near unlimited memory and RAM. It would be this kind of hardware that'd take games to the next step, into massive worlds where the NPCs actually play the game as well instead of wait idly, do a few animations, or wait for player stimuli. Essentially giving npcs 'Needs(things like food,shelter,etc)' that they have to accomplish based on an assigned personality type ( are they responsible? Thuggish? Would they work for money to buy their needs, or would they rob to gain success? )
gregathit Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 If I only had to pick between the two I would choose graphics over physics. Now if there was a third option listed as "other" to the poll I think the outcome of the poll would be a landslide for the "other" option. The "other" option I would like is the same as has been stated above - improved storytelling. A really good immersing story will trump the shiniest graphics or latest physics any day. We can only hope either at release or through mods that Skyrim will be a combo of all three!
LilDevil Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 I'm going to have to go with physics because I would like realizm over a more detailed rock. I will admit I came into the whole gaming era very late in comparison to most people on this forum so.... I could be counted as being apart of the generation of gamers who where leaning towards graphics over gameplay. Games I tend to lean towards are open world *with* character creators, or your good old fashion rpg. The games that don't have those I try to look for story. Now I have played a lot of old rpgs (ie Shining Force, Phantasy Star 1) and as many new ones (Witcher series, OBLIVION ) as I can. I can happily say most of them are very good, so I'm not upset with current game trends(well, ones that are rpgs but I don't play anything else really unless a friend forces me), my opinion there will always be bad ones, but also great ones.
Jerbsinator Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 If your expecting Skyrim to have a good story I think you will be disappointed. Since when has Bethesda EVER made a good main storyline?
gregathit Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 For them a good story line is to make an open world where you are not "forced" down a certain path at least in my opinion. This allows me to role play who I want to be and what I want to do. As long as they do that I will be happy!
Ragged Robin Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 Once again I find myself agreeing with gregathit. At least as far as, if I can't have an absorbing storyline then the provision of a well laid out world with history and characters/interactions with enough room for exploration would be fine for me. If the game allowed plenty of room for creative modders with imagination then all the better.
Jerbsinator Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 I agree as well but from a straight storyline standpoint Bethesda definitely has weak writing. From a open world standpoint though they do a pretty damn good job, especially Fallout 3.
Ragged Robin Posted October 21, 2011 Posted October 21, 2011 I agree as well but from a straight storyline standpoint Bethesda definitely has weak writing. From a open world standpoint though they do a pretty damn good job' date=' especially Fallout 3. [/quote'] Agreed once again. Perhaps rather than paying so much for voice actors Beth should consider talking to folk like Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, Michael Moorecock, Alan Moore and even Grant Morrison. Each one of the above would at least add something to an overall story line. One of the above having whatever main quest there would be in a game, the others each adding a mini quest within the game framework. I could just imagine Grant's take on a mages guild. It'd be full of Chaos Magicians all dedicated to bringing about the end of the world (and they'd be the good guys!).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.