• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Interactivity > graphics

Drizzlehell

Banned
I remember seeing a thread floating around where you guys talked about the graphical fidelity that we should expect this generation, and sure, it is an important aspect when it comes to the evolution of the medium, and I do appreciate me some nice graphics that justify buying all that beefy hardware. However, I feel like there are other, very important elements that make up video games that often get glossed over in those types of discussions, chief among them being the level of interactivity that's present in current triple-A gaming.

Currently there's so much effort that goes towards the visuals just so that the game could impress the audience at first glance but, as a result, most of the things that you see in the scenery ends up serving as nothing more than a set dressing. But in my opinion, the stuff that could help to make games far more impressive are things such as more advanced physics and destructible environments, or simply a higher level of interactivity with the game world.

To emphasize what I mean, picture a scene like this:

Let's say that you're playing a new Deus Ex game in a final installment of the Adam Jensen's prequel trilogy with a possible option to play in VR. One of the missions in the game takes you to a hotel where you're staying during a covert mission to put a surveillance on bad guys' room. You have multiple options in which you can achieve that, and one of those is reaching the roof and tapping into the hotel's network through a transmitter that's located there. One of your options to reach that objective is to exit through the window and shimmy across the ledge towards a ladder that will take you to the roof. As you reach the ladder, you hear a loud TV playing from a half-open window just a few meters further from the ladder. You can either ignore it and go up, or you can check out what's all the commotion. Inside of the room you can see a guy who dozed off while watching the box. Again, you can ignore him, or you can knock on the window, which will make him wake up. If he sees you, it would turn out that he's a conspiracy nut (in line with the series' themes) and excited about seeing an augumented super-spy outside of his window, he writes down and shows you a key code to some random broom closet door that janitors use, because he thinks they're hiding some stuff there that poisons the hotel water supply with a mind-controlling drug. He's a nutjob, obviously, so you can either pick one of the options from the dialogue tree that pops up to humor him, question further, or just tell him to buzz off. Or, instead of doing that, you can just say nothing and simply gesture a thumbs up before moving on, and he would actually react to it as well.

It would be this little, out of the way interaction that only serves as a small piece of humorous world building, but I feel that there's very few studios or individual creators who ever bother to put stuff like that in their games, because all the budget has to go towards the graphics and story elements. There are very few creatives in the industry these days who ever think about little details like these, chief among them being Hideo Kojima, for example. Imagine how much better Cyberpunk would be if Night City wouldn't be just a nice-looking wallpaper that decorates V's linear adventure. Or how much more impressive any game would be if you could actually destroy the environments and make the destruction persistent, which would be particularly impressive in games where you revisit certain areas multiple times. There are a few things that are quite as satisfying in a video game as examining the aftermath of a pitched battle, but you simply cannot do that if everything poofs out of existence mere seconds after its over because the devs needed to save memory in order to animate strands of hair up the main character's nostrils.
 
Last edited:

Drizzlehell

Banned
I get annoyed as we go more RPG and role play, there are so many limited idle animations or interaction.

Like leaning on walls/rails, lying in fields, sitting down etc.
You mean, it's annoying that they're there and someone had to spend time making them, or it's annoying that there aren't more games that has them?
 

Bridges

Member
Stealth TOTK thread.


I agree with the OP but there is a place for both. Doing things that are new and exciting and fun are more interesting than realistic graphics, but every once in awhile it is nice to be impressed by a graphical showcase.

Sometimes you get lucky and get both, like Death Stranding.
 

SeraphJan

Member
Interactivity = The content that you are interacting with > Graphic

No matter how good the interactivity is, if you are interacting with a brick, you will lose interest eventually (unless its a competitive game, but even then, it well attract less user especially in modern era). However a well designed character, well crafted cities, story that you actually cared about, etc. when interact with these, the interaction itself become meaningful
 
Last edited:

StueyDuck

Member
I am having a blast with BattleBit and it looks like this


The game is fun but people 100% overhyped it for me by calling it BF2...

It's more akin to BF3 which is fine but bf2 was God tier and I was expecting alot more, it kind of is a bit of a cluster fuck at times
 
The game is fun but people 100% overhyped it for me by calling it BF2...

It's more akin to BF3 which is fine but bf2 was God tier and I was expecting alot more, it kind of is a bit of a cluster fuck at times
Its pure chaos at times and so far I am enjoying that but no its not BF2 days

It is a good distraction for awhile though
 

Whitecrow

Banned
No. Stop saying what should be entertaining or not.

You have fun with engagement? Fair. I can have fun with good stories, characters and worlds with less interaction and more lore.

Your mind is not my mind, and sure its not anyone elses mind
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
Most of the industry already agrees with you OP.

Fortnite, Roblox, Minecraft...most of todays most successful games look like 15 year old titles with a high degree of interactivity. Hell, look at Nintendos top selling games of the last 6 years. We're long past the point of diminishing returns when it comes to graphics.
 

samoilaaa

Member
No. Stop saying what should be entertaining or not.

You have fun with engagement? Fair. I can have fun with good stories, characters and worlds with less interaction and more lore.

Your mind is not my mind, and sure its not anyone elses mind
who are to tell him what he should or shouldnt do ?

i agree with you OP , i really like when a game makes me use my brain to solve different problems or to look around for clues to find out where i need to go next , im playing amnesia the bunker and system shock remake and im loving them both , its sad to see in modern AAA games like God of war puzzles that are being solved by companions , push of a button so you dont get lost around the boring map

and whats even worse is that people like it this way , i remember when most beloved games where actual games not just cinematics with a few gameplay moments
 
Last edited:

StueyDuck

Member
What? Seriously, what? 🫣😅
It's the only open world where you can sit and it still exists. So when you interact with it , it legitimately interacts with you.

Let me guess though, something something nakey jakey video right? Mentioning missions even though it has fuckall to do with the open world 🤣 it's really original do tell me that thought again
 

MidGenRefresh

*Refreshes biennially
It's the only open world where you can sit and it still exists. So when you interact with it , it legitimately interacts with you.

Let me guess though, something something nakey jakey video right? Mentioning missions even though it has fuckall to do with the open world 🤣 it's really original do tell me that thought again

There are many games that do that, I’m just shocked you truly believe that RDR2 is the only one.
 

samoilaaa

Member
Interactivity = The content that you are interacting with > Graphic

No matter how good the interactivity is, if you are interacting with a brick, you will lose interest eventually (unless its a competitive game, but even then, it well attract less user especially in modern era). However a well designed character, well crafted cities, story that you actually cared about, etc. when interact with these, the interaction itself become meaningful
i would rather play a game like dishonored with average story/character but amazing level design /interactivity/ environmental storytelling than a game like god of war with good writing but boring level design
 

Thief1987

Member
if having gameplay for braindead people fun then good for you , i have a brain and i would like to stimulate it outside the usual workplace
Then try to find less braindead work, if videogames is the only way to stimulate your big flat BRAIN.
 
Last edited:
if having gameplay for braindead people fun then good for you , i have a brain and i would like to stimulate it outside the usual workplace
Things other than gameplay can be mentally stimulating. For a recent example that’s been on my mind: Amnesia: The Bunker has awesome gameplay systems which is what makes it stimulating, but SOMA barely even has gameplay systems and it’s equally stimulating for its plot and writing.
 

StueyDuck

Member
There are many games that do that, I’m just shocked you truly believe that RDR2 is the only one.
It's the only one that does it well.

Only other games would be prior Rockstar games. But gta isn't as interactive to me. It's more of a sandbox.

But rdr2 is the only believable open world where if I do something the world is genuinely going to react.

If you insult a female npc the male npcs will fight you, if you kill a deer the body will decompose, if you shoot in the forest the birds will disperse and you won't hear them singing anymore

There is nothing close to it,
 
Compromise Shrug GIF
 

MidGenRefresh

*Refreshes biennially
It's the only one that does it well.

Only other games would be prior Rockstar games. But gta isn't as interactive to me. It's more of a sandbox.

But rdr2 is the only believable open world where if I do something the world is genuinely going to react.

If you insult a female npc the male npcs will fight you, if you kill a deer the body will decompose, if you shoot in the forest the birds will disperse and you won't hear them singing anymore

There is nothing close to it,

If you enjoy this kind of immersive simulation approach to open worlds, try out Kingdom Come Deliverance.
 

StueyDuck

Member
If you enjoy this kind of immersive simulation approach to open worlds, try out Kingdom Come Deliverance.
I have played kingdom come and enjoyed it. It's not close to rdr2

But it does have great systems akin to Bethesda games which I'd say do better job than most with interactivity.
 

ResurrectedContrarian

Suffers with mild autism
High quality assets in the environment that don't interact at all and are just like fancy static backgrounds are the absolute worst. I don't care how high res your dumb plant is if it doesn't move with the actions around it in any way, or how incredible your rock surfaces look if they're basically boxed off and you can't seamlessly run / climb across them during your movement. Even old cell-shaded graphics with high interactivity would be better than 100% perfect photorealism where everything is static.

Check out this recent AssCreed video at this timestamp:


Look at him jump on that rope and it doesn't even move, lol, it's like he's on a hard platform, even the way the character walks is all wrong. This destroys everything; better to not even have a rope there if it's going to be just a fancy picture with some hidden platform bolted on top.
 
Last edited:

MidGenRefresh

*Refreshes biennially
I have played kingdom come and enjoyed it. It's not close to rdr2

But it does have great systems akin to Bethesda games which I'd say do better job than most with interactivity.

Overall games with system akin to Bethesda offer a ton more interactivity than RDR2 because yes, flexibility in how you approach quests (missions) matter and no, it's not because some YouTuber said so.

Let's be real, fucking Daggerfall is more interactive than RDR2.
 

KXVXII9X

Member
As much as I love story and graphics, I need more advancements in interactivity and gameplay in general. Most games have been the same gameplay wise since the PS3 and a lot of JRPGs are still mechanically the same as PS2 games.

I need more from my games. It is one reason I appreciate Nintendo at least experimenting with different ideas for consoles and changing the way we play games. Things like VR also helped me realize how much potential there is for different gameplay systems and interactivity than we currently have.

I'm really tired of the industry trying to sell static worlds as innovative. Ever since playing Deus Ex Human Revolution on the PS3, I have wanted more from game worlds and how you interact with them.
 

StueyDuck

Member
Overall games with system akin to Bethesda offer a ton more interactivity than RDR2 because yes, flexibility in how you approach quests (missions) matter and no, it's not because some YouTuber said so.

Let's be real, fucking Daggerfall is more interactive than RDR2.
Not really . If I leave a pot on an npcs head in a Bethesda game nothing happens.

Rdr2 the world reacts to you, how else do you define interactivity other than interacting with something and getting a response.

If I kill an animal in rdr2 and scavengers are nearby they'll Come and try eat, if a hunter npc is nearby they will hunt that animal and travel to town, that's real interactivity. Me choosing option 2 in a text tree and getting option 2 response instead of option 3 or 1 response isn't the most amazing form of interactivity to me
 
Last edited:

rofif

Can’t Git Gud
The fact that I can touch everything does not make a game good.
Good story, gameplay, music and graphics do
 

rofif

Can’t Git Gud
Half Life: Alyx is absolutely king here. Everything is real, it's amazing to have full interaction with even the smallest things around you.
But then you play it 2nd and 3rd time around and you realize.... there is nothing in the game.
You fight few enemies, everything is simplistic because the game must be possible to finish but people of different physiques.
Still.... I finished it 3 times and I would be happy to do 4th if I ever get a chance again but it lost a lot of it's magic after first playthrough
 

Trunx81

Gold Member
I posted a video comparing BOTW and H:ZD in the thread you mentioned, OP.

But too much interaction can also get tiresome. I wrote somewhere else that I tried RDR2 after finishing H:ZD and couldn´t get into it as I missed the fluidity that Aloy allowed me. Will play RDR2 in a month or so when this wears off.

But I agree with OPs premise. Look at the most sold games of all time. Minecraft and GTA V on top.
 

MidGenRefresh

*Refreshes biennially
Not really . If I leave a pot on an npcs head in a Bethesda game nothing happens.

Rdr2 the world reacts to you, how else do you define interactivity other than interacting with something and getting a response.

If I kill an animal in rdr2 and scavengers are nearby they'll Come and try eat, if a hunter npc is nearby they will hunt that animal and travel to town, that's real interactivity. Me choosing option 2 in a text tree and getting option 2 response instead of option 3 or 1 response isn't the most amazing form of interactivity to me

If the quest in Daggerfall tells you go there by X date or Y will happen and you won’t go, it will happen.

Different games, different priorities. And I guess different players, different definition of interactivity.

Hell, to me even game that has you locked in a space ship like Prey 2017 offers more interactivity than big and open RDR2.
 

SeraphJan

Member
i would rather play a game like dishonored with average story/character but amazing level design /interactivity/ environmental storytelling than a game like god of war with good writing but boring level design
I believe they are equally important, however the line is different for everyone

For me, one of my favorite franchise is Hitman, that game had the best interaction of any video game I've seen, yet its also full of rich and quality content. However I could totally understand why people like the new GOW, even if its not my cup of tea, I prefer the classic GOW 2 on PS2
 
Last edited:

stickkidsam

Member
The earliest form of interaction in games I remember was physics based. I think it was Spider-Man 2 when I would send enemies flying off roofs to beat them. Later in Halo 3 it was using explosions to splatter Covenant with heavy debri. Hell even seeing bodies float on water was cool.

I think that’s what makes BotW and TotK feel so cool. Interacting with the physics of the world is a major focus of the game, which is part of why it feels disappointing that it lacks interactivity in other areas like the narrative.
 

Drizzlehell

Banned
No. Stop saying what should be entertaining or not.

You have fun with engagement? Fair. I can have fun with good stories, characters and worlds with less interaction and more lore.

Your mind is not my mind, and sure its not anyone elses mind
I'm not telling you what you should feel or think. I am very clearly expressing my own opinion here. Quit being so defensive.
 

Drizzlehell

Banned
The fact that I can touch everything does not make a game good.
Good story, gameplay, music and graphics do
Depends on the game too, but I'm talking about more than just being able to touch everything. It's about the game creating an elaborate illusion of believable, reactive world and inviting you to poke it with a stick to see what would happen. Something that actually encourages you to use your imagination instead of just following a thread from one story beat to another and mindlessly mashing some buttons along the way.

Even a more linear, straightforward game can be transformed into something more in-depth if you give the player more agency. Like Half-Life: Alyx for example, which rewards the player for being creative in combat and exploration, even though the path forward is mostly straight.
 
Last edited:

Wildebeest

Member
I think what you are talking about is reactivity. Interactivity might be like if you see a fidget spinner in the game world, you can spin it, but it doesn't mean anything other than you can do it. Reactivity is another thing. So, people like to try to break stuff in games and cause chaos. Take the example of a game that has destruction. One thing, a player might do is try to break as many things as possible at once to see if they can crash the game or something. A regular fix to that might be to put in a hard limit for how destruction can be simulated at once to keep the game running, like strictly limit how many destructible props are in a level. A reactive game design solution would recognise that player urge. Have a lot of props and make it possible for a player to have the resources to cause a huge amount of destruction. Then, when they do it, you have it create some special situation like a difficult boss that slows down time and hunts them through the very slowly disintegrating city.
 
Last edited:

StueyDuck

Member
If the quest in Daggerfall tells you go there by X date or Y will happen and you won’t go, it will happen.

Different games, different priorities. And I guess different players, different definition of interactivity.

Hell, to me even game that has you locked in a space ship like Prey 2017 offers more interactivity than big and open RDR2.
prey 2017 was my game of that year , but i would argue that it's a different type of interactivity, but so is the case for most immersive sims, games designed around those core principals of the game interacting to what you do as a player.

the OP was graphics vs interactivity and again my point still stands RDR2 looks better than most games coming out till this day and the game is more interactive to you as a player than just about anything in the same space.
 
Top Bottom