Are graphics ruining games?

[Wel Wyrmin]

Game developers are year by year making better and better graphics. Don't get me wrong. It's a good thing, but when game is all about graphics and lacks huge proportion of gameplay because they tried to make photorealistic graphics then the game suffers...

Look back in the day. For example Garry's mod is still being played a lot with around 10 years old graphics while games like minecraft and terraria are really popular despite their low-quality graphics and in fact still look amazing!

Another matter is playability.... Year ago I was playing on my toaster laptop and I couldn't play big titles because it couldn't handle the good graphics while I could still enjoy games with not-so-good graphics such as team fortress 2... Now I have better computer and can run most games 60 fps on best settings, but I still enjoy the bad looking games usually more because they have more content...

So in short game developers are giving up on gameplay and players, two most important factors of games, because they want their game to look super good. Games become playable to fewer people and lacks content. Is this really what games should be?

[Tux]

MossyRathalos님이 먼저 게시:

Tux님이 먼저 게시:

Most people mostly play non-story based games or games that have a story but not because of the story

That is the reality from what I have seen on charts, and I haven't seen any evidence that suggests its not true.

So that is observation number 1 backed by data in which the contrary position has no data to support it

Ready for number 2?

Alright, show me a chart.

Basically every "top x games" list I've ever seen mentions the story was well as the gameplay.

Here's a source for my opinion. Note the user scores, as well as the fact that the summaries for story-driven games are usually about the storylines as well as the gameplay
www.businessinsider.com/50-best-games-of-all-time-critics-2017-3

The link may not work due to me hand-copying from my phone, so sorry if it doesn't work.

here is one I found showing most played.
https://www.gamespot.com/images/1300-3179796

I dont have all day to look for all the possible lists, it would be great if you did that
so are you at least in agreement that the most sold and most played games are non-story based?

you are at this time suggesting that story based games get higher reviews? are you sure about that? because getting high review and 'getting higher review than' are two different statements

[僕の名前 (仮)]

Level design gets worse, becuase it's takes a lot more effort than before to make good looking map, and more people too.

In old times 1 person did both layout and aesthetics for map, now you need many people. Because of limited time, level design become simplier. Not always, but often.

[Mossy Snake]

Tux님이 먼저 게시:

MossyRathalos님이 먼저 게시:

Alright, show me a chart.

Basically every "top x games" list I've ever seen mentions the story was well as the gameplay.

Here's a source for my opinion. Note the user scores, as well as the fact that the summaries for story-driven games are usually about the storylines as well as the gameplay
www.businessinsider.com/50-best-games-of-all-time-critics-2017-3

The link may not work due to me hand-copying from my phone, so sorry if it doesn't work.

here is one I found showing most played.
https://www.gamespot.com/images/1300-3179796

I dont have all day to look for all the possible lists, it would be great if you did that
so are you at least in agreement that the most sold and most played games are non-story based?

you are at this time suggesting that story based games get higher reviews? are you sure about that? because getting high review and 'getting higher review than' are two different statements

Games that aren't story driven don't get as much playtime simply due the fact that they don't require as much playtime. A story driven game can only be played until completion, whereas an online/screw-around game can be played near infinitely due to the fact that they usually cannot be beaten, as well as the fact that they are often updates over time, which story-driven games aren't.

Most-sold games are going to be bundled or re-releases 90% of the time. Wikipedia (Not the best source, I know), even puts a symbol next to games that have been re-released or bundled with consoles. And guess what? Those games dominate the best-selling list.

Name a console that doesn't have Tetris or a Tetris clone on it. (Besides consoles that came out before Tetris was invented)

[Tux]

MossyRathalos님이 먼저 게시:

Tux님이 먼저 게시:

here is one I found showing most played.
https://www.gamespot.com/images/1300-3179796

I dont have all day to look for all the possible lists, it would be great if you did that
so are you at least in agreement that the most sold and most played games are non-story based?

you are at this time suggesting that story based games get higher reviews? are you sure about that? because getting high review and 'getting higher review than' are two different statements

Games that aren't story driven don't get as much playtime simply due the fact that they don't require as much playtime. A story driven game can only be played until completion, whereas an online/screw-around game can be played near infinitely due to the fact that they usually cannot be beaten, as well as the fact that they are often updates over time, which story-driven games aren't.

Most-sold games are going to be bundled or re-releases 90% of the time. Wikipedia (Not the best source, I know), even puts a symbol next to games that have been re-released or bundled with consoles. And guess what? Those games dominate the best-selling list.

Name a console that doesn't have Tetris or a Tetris clone on it. (Besides consoles that came out before Tetris was invented)

ok lets compartmentalize this

1. 'Most sold' in your mind does not represent value (and I would agree actually!) but some evidence is better then zero evidence even if its not strong,
2. as I had mentioned and you are pointing out here, 'most played' is fairly obvious that non-story based is going to be more
3. most loved can be seen on user review averages one has to compare the two. its not good enough to just say 'story based games have good reviews' if non-story based games also get good reviews, one has to compare.

So in summary in your mind, showing non-story based games as being 1. the most sold. 2. the most played and 3. the same level of reviews (we havent done that yet but I am pretty sure it will be)

then I have to ask, how do you measure that story based games are more valued if they are NOT the most sold, most played and highest reviewed?

[Mossy Snake]

Tux님이 먼저 게시:

MossyRathalos님이 먼저 게시:

Games that aren't story driven don't get as much playtime simply due the fact that they don't require as much playtime. A story driven game can only be played until completion, whereas an online/screw-around game can be played near infinitely due to the fact that they usually cannot be beaten, as well as the fact that they are often updates over time, which story-driven games aren't.

Most-sold games are going to be bundled or re-releases 90% of the time. Wikipedia (Not the best source, I know), even puts a symbol next to games that have been re-released or bundled with consoles. And guess what? Those games dominate the best-selling list.

Name a console that doesn't have Tetris or a Tetris clone on it. (Besides consoles that came out before Tetris was invented)

ok lets compartmentalize this

1. 'Most sold' in your mind does not represent value (and I would agree actually!) but some evidence is better then zero evidence even if its not strong,
2. as I had mentioned and you are pointing out here, 'most played' is fairly obvious that non-story based is going to be more
3. most loved can be seen on user review averages one has to compare the two. its not good enough to just say 'story based games have good reviews' if non-story based games also get good reviews, one has to compare.

So in summary in your mind, showing non-story based games as being 1. the most sold. 2. the most played and 3. the same level of reviews (we havent done that yet but I am pretty sure it will be)

then I have to ask, how do you measure that story based games are more valued if they are NOT the most sold, most played and highest reviewed?

I never said they HAVE to be the highest reviews. You said:

Tux님이 먼저 게시:

I can write a very compelling and detailed analysis on why I think story in games has always been a bad idea to focus on in gaming

I'm trying to say that story-driven games are just as high rated and loved as online/storyless games. When I said that many story-driven games are the best ever made, note how I said "many", not "all". It would be foolish to say that games like Quake or Arma shouldn't be on a best game list, but you said that basing a game around story isn't a good idea.

Also look at the review list I sent you. Many of those story-driven games are within the 7-10/10 rating, while most of those online games are within the 6-10/10 rating. I'm talking about the user scores here, not the critic scores.

Also the top game on many lists I'm seeing is Ocarina of Time (I seriously don't understand this. I personally rate it as one of the more mediocre Zelda's).

[Dominic]

Well when it comes to Garry's Mod it is because of the community that it is still played. They made a lot of mods. Same for Doom and so on. Doom is good and all. But once I used a source port for it I could never go back to its original version.

Some games with not the best graphics at this time messed up to. Like Quake 3 Arena, Unreal tournament, Quake live and so on by lacking in a single player area.

[Tux]

MossyRathalos님이 먼저 게시:

Tux님이 먼저 게시:

ok lets compartmentalize this

1. 'Most sold' in your mind does not represent value (and I would agree actually!) but some evidence is better then zero evidence even if its not strong,
2. as I had mentioned and you are pointing out here, 'most played' is fairly obvious that non-story based is going to be more
3. most loved can be seen on user review averages one has to compare the two. its not good enough to just say 'story based games have good reviews' if non-story based games also get good reviews, one has to compare.

So in summary in your mind, showing non-story based games as being 1. the most sold. 2. the most played and 3. the same level of reviews (we havent done that yet but I am pretty sure it will be)

then I have to ask, how do you measure that story based games are more valued if they are NOT the most sold, most played and highest reviewed?

I never said they HAVE to be the highest reviews. You said:

Tux님이 먼저 게시:

I can write a very compelling and detailed analysis on why I think story in games has always been a bad idea to focus on in gaming

I'm trying to say that story-driven games are just as high rated and loved as online/storyless games. When I said that many story-driven games are the best ever made, note how I said "many", not "all". It would be foolish to say that games like Quake or Arma shouldn't be on a best game list, but you said that basing a game around story isn't a good idea.

Also look at the review list I sent you. Many of those story-driven games are within the 7-10/10 rating, while most of those online games are within the 6-10/10 rating. I'm talking about the user scores here, not the critic scores.

Also the top game on many lists I'm seeing is Ocarina of Time (I seriously don't understand this. I personally rate it as one of the more mediocre Zelda's).

I am asking a fairly basic question based on where we are now

If story based games are not the top selling, not the most played and likely not reviewed higher by users or by industry then I have to ask, how do YOU measure that story based games are better or more loved when they are not the top selling, not the most played and not the highest reviewed by users or by critics?


think on that question a bit

(p.s. you have to look at the user reviews of all the top non-story based games and then compare that with the user reviews of all top story based games in order to have a point) say top 10 or so

[Tux]

Datario님이 먼저 게시:

Well when it comes to Garry's Mod it is because of the community that it is still played. They made a lot of mods. Same for Doom and so on. Doom is good and all. But once I used a source port for it I could never go back to its original version.

Some games with not the best graphics at this time messed up to. Like Quake 3 Arena, Unreal tournament, Quake live and so on by lacking in a single player area.

when only 3 out of 15 games have a story and when most people understand that games like Dialblo (one of the three) are not played for the story one has to consider there is a possible trend here that maybe I am right. I can take my arguement to a new level which involves the history of games but its rather 'brainy' so I am not wanting to leave numbers just yet

[Dominic]

Tux님이 먼저 게시:

Datario님이 먼저 게시:

Well when it comes to Garry's Mod it is because of the community that it is still played. They made a lot of mods. Same for Doom and so on. Doom is good and all. But once I used a source port for it I could never go back to its original version.

Some games with not the best graphics at this time messed up to. Like Quake 3 Arena, Unreal tournament, Quake live and so on by lacking in a single player area.

when only 3 out of 15 games have a story and when most people understand that games like Dialblo (one of the three) are not played for the story one has to consider there is a possible trend here that maybe I am right. I can take my arguement to a new level which involves the history of games but its rather 'brainy' so I am not wanting to leave numbers just yet

Well what I mean is I do like the games but it feels imcomplete without even a single player story mode. It does not need a real story to it or anything. But atleast a campaign like the first Doom or Something. But without that it seems unfinished. More or less because Quake 1 and Quake 2 both had a whole single player campaign and multiplayer While Quake 3 just seems to not.

I like to have both a single player experiance and a multiplayer one on the side.

[Mossy Snake]

Tux님이 먼저 게시:

MossyRathalos님이 먼저 게시:

I never said they HAVE to be the highest reviews. You said:



I'm trying to say that story-driven games are just as high rated and loved as online/storyless games. When I said that many story-driven games are the best ever made, note how I said "many", not "all". It would be foolish to say that games like Quake or Arma shouldn't be on a best game list, but you said that basing a game around story isn't a good idea.

Also look at the review list I sent you. Many of those story-driven games are within the 7-10/10 rating, while most of those online games are within the 6-10/10 rating. I'm talking about the user scores here, not the critic scores.

Also the top game on many lists I'm seeing is Ocarina of Time (I seriously don't understand this. I personally rate it as one of the more mediocre Zelda's).

I am asking a fairly basic question based on where we are now

If story based games are not the top selling, not the most played and likely not reviewed higher by users or by industry then I have to ask, how do YOU measure that story based games are better or more loved when they are not the top selling, not the most played and not the highest reviewed by users or by critics?


think on that question a bit

Top reviewed games on IGN (This appears to be a mixture between personal and critic reviews. m.ign.com/lists/top-100-games This list was made in 2015, but it still holds up well):
1. Mario Bros 3
2. Zelda: A Link to the Past
3. DOOM
4. Super Mario Bros
5. Portal 2
6. Half Life 2
7. Super Metroid
8. Ocarina of Time
9. Halo 2
10. Tetris
11. Mario 64
12. Sid Meier's Pirates (Wtf)
13. Chrono Trigger
14. Mario World
15. Minecraft

Metacritic Critic reviews (These may have been paid. www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/all/filtered ):
1. Ocarina of Time
2. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (The amount of TH scares me)
3. GTA IV
4. SoulCaliber (SC is a story-driven fighting game series)
5. Mario Galaxy 1 (arguably story based, but I wouldn't put it there due to the fact that it's Mario)
6. Mario Galaxy 2
7. GTA V (People do enjoy the singleplayer, although the online is more popular)
8. Zelda Breath of the Wild
9. Perfect Dark
10. Metroid Prime
11. GTA 3
12. Halo 1
13. NFL 2K1 (Wtf)
14. Half Life 2
15. BioShock

Tell me again how they aren't the highest rated?

[Tux]

MossyRathalos님이 먼저 게시:

Tux님이 먼저 게시:

I am asking a fairly basic question based on where we are now

If story based games are not the top selling, not the most played and likely not reviewed higher by users or by industry then I have to ask, how do YOU measure that story based games are better or more loved when they are not the top selling, not the most played and not the highest reviewed by users or by critics?


think on that question a bit

Top reviewed games on IGN (This appears to be a mixture between personal and critic reviews. m.ign.com/lists/top-100-games This list was made in 2015, but it still holds up well):
1. Mario Bros 3
2. Zelda: A Link to the Past
3. DOOM
4. Super Mario Bros
5. Portal 2
6. Half Life 2
7. Super Metroid
8. Ocarina of Time
9. Halo 2
10. Tetris
11. Mario 64
12. Sid Meier's Pirates (Wtf)
13. Chrono Trigger
14. Mario World
15. Minecraft

Metacritic Critic reviews (These may have been paid. www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/all/filtered ):
1. Ocarina of Time
2. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (The amount of TH scares me)
3. GTA IV
4. SoulCaliber (SC is a story-driven fighting game series)
5. Mario Galaxy 1 (arguably story based, but I wouldn't put it there due to the fact that it's Mario)
6. Mario Galaxy 2
7. GTA V (People do enjoy the singleplayer, although the online is more popular)
8. Zelda Breath of the Wild
9. Perfect Dark
10. Metroid Prime
11. GTA 3
12. Halo 1
13. NFL 2K1 (Wtf)
14. Half Life 2
15. BioShock

Tell me again how they aren't the highest rated?

sorry i dont understand.

If those two lists are list of the highest reviewed games by users and the other by critics I am seeing the vast majority of them as non-story based games.

come on lets me honest here...Halo for the story? come on....is that your position?

I think my data is stronger for my position then the data exists for yours. More over...I have a well thought out document theory on WHY as well.

[Mossy Snake]

Tux님이 먼저 게시:

MossyRathalos님이 먼저 게시:

Top reviewed games on IGN (This appears to be a mixture between personal and critic reviews. m.ign.com/lists/top-100-games This list was made in 2015, but it still holds up well):
1. Mario Bros 3
2. Zelda: A Link to the Past
3. DOOM
4. Super Mario Bros
5. Portal 2
6. Half Life 2
7. Super Metroid
8. Ocarina of Time
9. Halo 2
10. Tetris
11. Mario 64
12. Sid Meier's Pirates (Wtf)
13. Chrono Trigger
14. Mario World
15. Minecraft

Metacritic Critic reviews (These may have been paid. www.metacritic.com/browse/games/score/metascore/all/all/filtered ):
1. Ocarina of Time
2. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (The amount of TH scares me)
3. GTA IV
4. SoulCaliber (SC is a story-driven fighting game series)
5. Mario Galaxy 1 (arguably story based, but I wouldn't put it there due to the fact that it's Mario)
6. Mario Galaxy 2
7. GTA V (People do enjoy the singleplayer, although the online is more popular)
8. Zelda Breath of the Wild
9. Perfect Dark
10. Metroid Prime
11. GTA 3
12. Halo 1
13. NFL 2K1 (Wtf)
14. Half Life 2
15. BioShock

Tell me again how they aren't the highest rated?

sorry i dont understand.

If those two lists are list of the highest reviewed games by users and the other by players I am seeing the vast majority of them as non-story based games.

come on lets me honest here...Halo for the story? come on....is that your position?

IGN list:
8/15 are story-driven games. That means that 7 of them aren't.

MetaCritic list:
11/15 are story-driven (12/15 or even 13/15 if you include Mario Galaxy 1 & 2)

Also Halo IS a story-driven game. That's an undeniable fact, and Halo 4 & 5's awful storylines are one of the major points that killed those 2 games.

Also for your edit, you've shown me absolutely nothing besides sales figures (Which you even AGREED is meaningless

Tux님이 먼저 게시:

1. 'Most sold' in your mind does not represent value (and I would agree actually!) but some

Then there is the fact that online/screw-around games will accumulate higher playcounts simply due to social reasons and the fact that they usually cannot be "beaten" is common sense, making that argument meaningless.

[Tux]

MossyRathalos님이 먼저 게시:

Tux님이 먼저 게시:

sorry i dont understand.

If those two lists are list of the highest reviewed games by users and the other by players I am seeing the vast majority of them as non-story based games.

come on lets me honest here...Halo for the story? come on....is that your position?

IGN list:
8/15 are story-driven games. That means that 7 of them aren't.

MetaCritic list:
11/15 are story-driven (12/15 or even 13/15 if you include Mario Galaxy 1 & 2)

Also Halo IS a story-driven game. That's an undeniable fact, and Halo 4 & 5's awful storylines are one of the major points that killed those 2 games.

we will have to disagree.

I do not believe the vast majority of purchases for Halo, Dialbo, Skyrim or GTA is because of the story. nor is Soulcalibur! I am starting to look into these titles I am not familar with

I cant prove that but i doubt it very seriously.

and the history of gaming seems to suggest I am very much on to something here

[zert]

Tux pretending to know something about games episode #57

[Mossy Snake]

zert님이 먼저 게시:

Tux pretending to know something about games episode #57