graphics did improve. Aesthetics however, did not imo. Most modern day games are a mix or brown, grey and black. Which i find a sad thing considering it makes them all look the same.
There are plenty of 'colourful' games. Scratch that, there are plenty of 'colourful' mainstream games, Halo, Gears of War, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
No, there has never, ever been a sandbox game with a story or ending... except Grand Theft Auto... and Saints Row... and Red Dead Redemption... and Crack Down... and Assassins Creed...
Well it is true, better aesthetics = better game, but it doesn't have to have good graphics to be a good game.
Fixed it for you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
No, there has never, ever been a sandbox game with a story or ending... except Grand Theft Auto... and Saints Row... and Red Dead Redemption... and Crack Down... and Assassins Creed...
No thanks for that .... even if you're somewhat right Point is, that may be true for the players inventory, but it is not for every single container in the whole Skyrim (also Fallout ... ) world. Also, may I remind you about those 24 unstackable "Stones of Barenziah" (or so... ). In all mentioned games quest items clog up inventories like spiders in Mobgrinders, it's simply an epic design fail.
Even if you had a a bunch of stuff in a container, it doesn't take that long to find what you want. It isn't a design fail at all, they have a system that works for many people, you simply look for the items you need, it isn't that hard, even if you have a lot of items.
Well, the looks of a game, regardless of polycount or whatever don't really matter on the hardware the game was put on.
This is a good example, comparing Medievil, a 1998 game to Gears Of War, a 2011 game.
I much prefer the graphics from Medievil, I prefer the colour choices and the general shape of the geometry. I agree with the choices they made with the entire game, how they managed to balance a gothic style with a sort of slapstick approach to it and manage to fit a whole range of bright colours in it.
In Gears of War, all colours looks really washed out and I dislike the theme, it just seems all done before. The disadvantage of photorealism is that there is sometimes lack of creativity, but some games that are photorealistic can look stunning, for example, Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit 2010, with beautiful scenery.
Yeah, you can probably tell that I love bright colours.
Doesn't look like you know much about Gears of War. Firstly, that's Gears of War 2 (2008, not 2011). Secondly, Gears is one of the more colourful shooters, it has lot's of forests, islands and majestic ruins (along with some city ruins), these areas are just as beautiful as Need for Speed. I respect your opinion, but please play the game before you tell me it's just lifeless, grey city ruins and dark caves (way too many people here do that).
No, there has never, ever been a sandbox game with a story or ending... except Grand Theft Auto... and Saints Row... and Red Dead Redemption... and Crack Down... and Assassins Creed...
High resolution graphics aren't everything, I'd always prefer the game to look good but just because it has high res graphics doesn't mean it looks great. Take Terraria for example, it looks amazing but it has low res graphics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MichaeljMM79 »
Talent didn't go anywhere, it just gets lost in all the noise. You have to find it.
I suppose we should just watch movies, or games with 3 hours of cutscenes, since the gameplay doesn't matter at all.
Or a high-res picture! Graphics don't make a game, gameplay makes a game.
Im talking about like Doom, Quake, Turok....etc. There is no way I would play pong for 10 hours .
Oh yes, Turok and Turok 2: Seeds of Evil were some of the best shooters of the late 90s. I could definitely play that for 10 hours at least once. And even though the graphics were bad (though, Turok 2 certainly wasn't bad for the time), the gore animations (like the Cerebral Bore) made up for it, and of course the gameplay of killing Dinosoids, raptors, and the Primagen, not to mention the music. I personally dislike games where there is a 3-weapon limit, for example.
I don't have access to it, so I can't play it. I played it round a friends house a few years ago, played a few levels, all of them mostly being composed of greys and browns.
You say that you prefer the other games colour choices, and that it really 'fitted the game'. Can you imagine Gears 3 with crazy bright colours? Of course not, the colour scheme was perfect for that game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you can't strive for perfection, what can you strive for?
It'd look more like Halo but yes, of course I can.
And you're actually telling me that Gears would be better if it looked like Halo? Bearing in mind you played one of the games a few years ago, and only a few levels.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you can't strive for perfection, what can you strive for?
I don't have access to it, so I can't play it. I played it round a friends house a few years ago, played a few levels, all of them mostly being composed of greys and browns.
So you don't own any of them and you only played a few levels (of what I assume is the first one, 2005) and your telling me what all the levels in each game look like? I've got the entire series and played through each, paying attention to the visual style, it is far more than just 'greys and browns'.
Doom 3 took me 3 levels for me to realise it was a bad game, Duke Nukem Forever took me the whole game until I realised how much I hated it.
I've just never had a reason to play GOW again.
I'm not sure what your point is here, are you now saying DOOM 3 should be bright like Halo? It's a survival horror game, it's meant to be dark and scary. Same as GoW is meant to look war-torn and desolate. Halo is meant to look beautiful and other-worldly. Your point is completely invalid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
No, there has never, ever been a sandbox game with a story or ending... except Grand Theft Auto... and Saints Row... and Red Dead Redemption... and Crack Down... and Assassins Creed...
So my argument is invalid for not being into dark games.
k.
Your logics is invalid because you haven't explained why GoW (and those other games) are bad besides not liking the genre, which isn't an argument. Now you seem to be saying this is just your opinion so you don't have to keep arguing, in which case you shouldn't have started arguing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
No, there has never, ever been a sandbox game with a story or ending... except Grand Theft Auto... and Saints Row... and Red Dead Redemption... and Crack Down... and Assassins Creed...
Can you read? Cause that's not what I said.
I said that better graphics = Better game, I didn't say Good graphics = Good game.
Depends on the kind of game, but most games will look better if they have good graphics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
No, there has never, ever been a sandbox game with a story or ending... except Grand Theft Auto... and Saints Row... and Red Dead Redemption... and Crack Down... and Assassins Creed...
I don't agree with that. Better graphics wouldn't necessarily make Minecraft, Terraria, or Dwarf Fortress a better game. In fact, they might even ruin the style.
Minecraft, Terraria and Dwarf Fortress do have good graphics. How did people start thinking that good graphics = 3D + high res + good lighting and all that?
A game has good graphics when it has style, and when the graphics are consistent. Terraria wasn't created to look like those AAA-games coming out nowadays. Its lighting fits its relatively low-res textures, and its particle engine is nothing short of brilliant.
Minecraft is also clearly defining its own style. Blocks, mobs, the sun, nearly everything (if not everything) consists of clearly visible squares.
Don't even ask me what Dwarf Fortress would look like when it'd be made 3D with high-res textures.
Yes, graphics can make or break a game. But more importantly, the graphics of a game should fit in the style and gameplay. Sometimes this is achieved by making a photorealistic 3D game. Sometimes this is achieved by making an ASCII-based 2D game.
The trailer OP is referring to is pre rendered, so he might as well have compared with Avatar. The real game's graphics is more comparable with Uncharted 1.
Minecraft, Terraria and Dwarf Fortress do have good graphics. How did people start thinking that good graphics = 3D + high res + good lighting and all that?
A game has good graphics when it has style, and when the graphics are consistent. Terraria wasn't created to look like those AAA-games coming out nowadays. Its lighting fits its relatively low-res textures, and its particle engine is nothing short of brilliant.
Minecraft is also clearly defining its own style. Blocks, mobs, the sun, nearly everything (if not everything) consists of clearly visible squares.
Don't even ask me what Dwarf Fortress would look like when it'd be made 3D with high-res textures.
Yes, graphics can make or break a game. But more importantly, the graphics of a game should fit in the style and gameplay. Sometimes this is achieved by making a photorealistic 3D game. Sometimes this is achieved by making an ASCII-based 2D game.
No, Minecraft, Terraria and Dwarf Fortress don't have good graphics. Graphics refers specifically to the textures, not to resolution or aliasing, 16x16 is not good graphics.
The games have good aesthetics, not graphics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
No, there has never, ever been a sandbox game with a story or ending... except Grand Theft Auto... and Saints Row... and Red Dead Redemption... and Crack Down... and Assassins Creed...
No, Minecraft, Terraria and Dwarf Fortress don't have good graphics. Graphics refers specifically to the textures, not to resolution or aliasing, 16x16 is not good graphics.
The games have good aesthetics, not graphics.
Exactly. But in their case it's not game breaking.
Your talking about classics with great gameplay and use Doom, Quake and Turok as examples? Really, gameplay-wise the CoD:MW games that are so hated are lightyears ahead of them. You could have cited Fallout or Dune II, but Doom?
Doom is a classic. Doom was refrenced in other games. Such as:
=90's=
Duke Nukem 3D
Jazz Jackrabbit 2
Soldier of Fortune 2
=Today's Games=
Tomb Raider 3
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3
Rage
Doom was a 1993 FPS game. It has inspired alot of games.
Even though with its ridiculously bad graphics, it has enjoyable gameplay.
I do like the idea of war games, but there's been too much of them now.
COD: BO
COD: MW
COD: MW2
COD:MW3
COD:1
COD:2
COD:3
COD:4
Battlefield 3
Ghost Recon
Goldeneye
and so on.
The enemies closest to Doom today was zombies. No demons?
oh my god what happened to the monsters?! No variety.
Honestly, a COD fan is blinded by COD love. The graphics and gameplay are getting way too predictable.
Best thing about D00M:
No cramped, detailed levels
No DLCs
No [RETURN TO COMBAT AREA] *pwnt by game*
What makes you think graphics refer specifically to the textures? 'Graphics' is a very broad term.
Computer graphics are graphics created using computers and, more generally, the representation and manipulation of image data by a computer with help from specialized software and hardware.
16x16 isn't bad graphics, 16x16 is low resolution.
There are plenty of 'colourful' games. Scratch that, there are plenty of 'colourful' mainstream games, Halo, Gears of War, Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, etc.
Fixed it for you.
Even if you had a a bunch of stuff in a container, it doesn't take that long to find what you want. It isn't a design fail at all, they have a system that works for many people, you simply look for the items you need, it isn't that hard, even if you have a lot of items.
Doesn't look like you know much about Gears of War. Firstly, that's Gears of War 2 (2008, not 2011). Secondly, Gears is one of the more colourful shooters, it has lot's of forests, islands and majestic ruins (along with some city ruins), these areas are just as beautiful as Need for Speed. I respect your opinion, but please play the game before you tell me it's just lifeless, grey city ruins and dark caves (way too many people here do that).
However, they are important factors involved towards making a game great.
Moraterra Single Player Survival - Last Updated: September 16, 4:00 PM PST
http://www.minerwars.com/?aid=640
I suppose we should just watch movies, or games with 3 hours of cutscenes, since the gameplay doesn't matter at all.
Or a high-res picture! Graphics don't make a game, gameplay makes a game.
Oh yes, Turok and Turok 2: Seeds of Evil were some of the best shooters of the late 90s. I could definitely play that for 10 hours at least once. And even though the graphics were bad (though, Turok 2 certainly wasn't bad for the time), the gore animations (like the Cerebral Bore) made up for it, and of course the gameplay of killing Dinosoids, raptors, and the Primagen, not to mention the music. I personally dislike games where there is a 3-weapon limit, for example.
You say that you prefer the other games colour choices, and that it really 'fitted the game'. Can you imagine Gears 3 with crazy bright colours? Of course not, the colour scheme was perfect for that game.
And you're actually telling me that Gears would be better if it looked like Halo? Bearing in mind you played one of the games a few years ago, and only a few levels.
So you don't own any of them and you only played a few levels (of what I assume is the first one, 2005) and your telling me what all the levels in each game look like? I've got the entire series and played through each, paying attention to the visual style, it is far more than just 'greys and browns'.
Like Siknote said, they use different styles to compliment different universes. GoW would be terrible if it looked like Halo.
I'm not sure what your point is here, are you now saying DOOM 3 should be bright like Halo? It's a survival horror game, it's meant to be dark and scary. Same as GoW is meant to look war-torn and desolate. Halo is meant to look beautiful and other-worldly. Your point is completely invalid.
Your logics is invalid because you haven't explained why GoW (and those other games) are bad besides not liking the genre, which isn't an argument. Now you seem to be saying this is just your opinion so you don't have to keep arguing, in which case you shouldn't have started arguing.
Depends on the kind of game, but most games will look better if they have good graphics.
I honestly can't wait for the day when we actually have to answer that properly!
Minecraft, Terraria and Dwarf Fortress do have good graphics. How did people start thinking that good graphics = 3D + high res + good lighting and all that?
A game has good graphics when it has style, and when the graphics are consistent. Terraria wasn't created to look like those AAA-games coming out nowadays. Its lighting fits its relatively low-res textures, and its particle engine is nothing short of brilliant.
Minecraft is also clearly defining its own style. Blocks, mobs, the sun, nearly everything (if not everything) consists of clearly visible squares.
Don't even ask me what Dwarf Fortress would look like when it'd be made 3D with high-res textures.
Yes, graphics can make or break a game. But more importantly, the graphics of a game should fit in the style and gameplay. Sometimes this is achieved by making a photorealistic 3D game. Sometimes this is achieved by making an ASCII-based 2D game.
No, Minecraft, Terraria and Dwarf Fortress don't have good graphics. Graphics refers specifically to the textures, not to resolution or aliasing, 16x16 is not good graphics.
The games have good aesthetics, not graphics.
Exactly. But in their case it's not game breaking.
Doom is a classic. Doom was refrenced in other games. Such as:
=90's=
Duke Nukem 3D
Jazz Jackrabbit 2
Soldier of Fortune 2
=Today's Games=
Tomb Raider 3
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3
Rage
Doom was a 1993 FPS game. It has inspired alot of games.
Even though with its ridiculously bad graphics, it has enjoyable gameplay.
I do like the idea of war games, but there's been too much of them now.
COD: BO
COD: MW
COD: MW2
COD:MW3
COD:1
COD:2
COD:3
COD:4
Battlefield 3
Ghost Recon
Goldeneye
and so on.
The enemies closest to Doom today was zombies. No demons?
oh my god what happened to the monsters?! No variety.
Honestly, a COD fan is blinded by COD love. The graphics and gameplay are getting way too predictable.
Best thing about D00M:
No cramped, detailed levels
No DLCs
No [RETURN TO COMBAT AREA] *pwnt by game*
What makes you think graphics refer specifically to the textures? 'Graphics' is a very broad term.
16x16 isn't bad graphics, 16x16 is low resolution.