Support NeoGAF

[EverydayBeast]

Nintendo games never compete with graphical power houses and are still different and fun.

 

[64bitmodels]

Fortnite, Roblox, Minecraft...most of todays most successful games look like 15 year old titles with a high degree of interactivity.

I wouldn't say Fortnite and Roblox have a high level of interactivity

Minecraft's redstone and crafting capabilities are timeless (and it's why the game is still relevant a decade later), but Roblox doesn't let you do much unless the game you play involves custom scripting, same for Fortnite.

 

[64bitmodels]

Duke 3D is all about interactive environment and Quake was pushing graphics with a fully polygonal game.

Ehh. I feel like your summarization of Quake is putting it lightly.

it isn't just graphical fidelity. Quake also had fully 3D worlds which meant more complex level design. Look at the level design in Duke 3d/Doom and compare it to Quake's sprawling, unique moving worlds.

Even if you can interact more in Duke 3D, Quake had the more open, fully realized world.

You can perfer duke3d if you want but both were paramount to the gaming industry

 

[Drizzlehell]

Nintendo games never compete with graphical power houses and are still different and fun.

And that's kinda the heart of this subject. Graphics really don't matter.

I mean, it's nice to play a game that has really great visuals, but nobody really plays games for the graphics and no one will give a shit if they're more primitive if the game itself is great.

 

[64bitmodels]

And that's kinda the heart of this subject. Graphics really don't matter.

I mean, it's nice to play a game that has really great visuals, but nobody really plays games for the graphics and no one will give a shit if they're more primitive if the game itself is great.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. If graphics mattered so much Video games wouldn't be here now since no one would be impressed by Pong's visuals. They do matter for giving the game a nice presentation but they don't make a game.... Callisto Protocol proved this

Now, performance is another thing entirely...

 

[charles8771]

This is the price of 60fps, folks

 

[64bitmodels]

This is the price of 60fps, folks

no. wrong.

 

[charles8771]

no. wrong.

That how Gears 5 runs at 60fps on Xbox One, everything is static like a drawing.

60fps games are compromised at all.

 

[Hawking Radiation]

Been saying it for a long time and I'll keep saying it.

We need this kind of interactivity with the game world. Watch Dogs 2 did an amazing job with the random shit going on around you. Newer consoles should be able to better this by some margin.

 

[IAmRei]

i can relate, static environment sometimes just like eye candy over gameplay. although i can understand as well why some devs not implemented lot of interactivity, because of budget and time restraint they might had while developing the game.

 

[existensmaximum]

Why can't we have both?

 

[64bitmodels]

Why can't we have both?

gotta sacrifice one to have the other. a game with Horizon Forbidden West tier visuals and BeamNG tier physics would perform worse on a 4090 than Crysis did on most PCs back in 2007.... and it'd cost lots of money and years to develop

 

[tr1p1ex]

Being a slave to graphics has a ton of real and substantial tradeoffs.

Look at how alive a Totk feels compared to a lot of other games with cutting edge photo realistic graphics.

And look at Battlebit Remastered. Done by 3 people. and the content/features/performance/fun/etc they have is amazing compared to Battlefield over at EA/DICE that was worked on by hundreds of people. Again it shows all the benefits of not being a slave to graphics.

You have to ask yourself if something like this is worth it: "According to former DICE General Manager Oskar Gabrielson, an entire team worked for 3 years building the tornado into BF2042. "

Look at Minecraft for another classic example of how not being a slave to graphics paid off.

 

[tr1p1ex]

Why can't we have both?

because...if you max out one there's no power left for the other.

 

[RTX4070]

Battlebit

 

[Guilty_AI]

Why can't we have both?

You can, but increasing one makes the other exponentially more difficult to accomplish.

Take for example a story with multiple branches, if its just some text adventure or VN, you'll just have to write more lines. Maybe draw a few more pictures.

But if its a full AAA production, now for each new line you write you'll need more acted voice lines, more animations, possibly more models, artists and voice actors depending on what the new scenes depict, and lots lots more R&D and direction to make it all work together without bugs or immersion breaking things.

 

[64bitmodels]

But if its a full AAA production, now for each new line you write you'll need more acted voice lines, more animations, possibly more models, artists and voice actors depending on what the new scenes depict, and lots lots more R&D to make it all work together.

im hoping that ai makes this easier so games with Spiderman style production value can have the kind of freedom in the story that Fallout New Vegas has.

 

[CatLady]

Why can't we have both?

If I can't have both I will take gameplay every time.

 

[BbMajor7th]

I definitely think we should be pouring more resources into what games can actually do, rather than what they look like. That said, interactivity by itself is hollow. You need to marry it to meaningful game design that actually contextualizes those things within the wider experience. For example, FromSoft using havoc physics and actual collision for combat in Dark Souls was a cool idea, but it really wouldn't have been that interesting if the game design didn't exploit this to drive the way you play.

 

[64bitmodels]

That said, interactivity by itself is hollow.

great example of this is (as much as i hate to say it) BeamNG. To be fair, it's not much of a game and more of a sandbox with extensive modding capabilities.... but while the car physics are beyond everything else in the industry, there's no real campaign or storymode to give it justice. Wreckfest which has far more neutered and less responsive physics is more fun of a game because it's just designed with gameplay in mind


At the end of the day it is just about fun and game design. There are many great games out there that don't have amazing interactivity that are still fun

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

Graphics are just as important as interactivity and gameplay. To act like it isn't is foolish.

 

[diffusionx]

Graphics are just as important as interactivity and gameplay. To act like it isn't is foolish.

Except it's really not.

 

[MasterDerico]

Fun > everything else.

 

[OCASM]

And that's kinda the heart of this subject. Graphics really don't matter.

I mean, it's nice to play a game that has really great visuals, but nobody really plays games for the graphics and no one will give a shit if they're more primitive if the game itself is great.

Completely false.

 

[Kakax11]

What about this then???

 

[hyperbertha]

It is possible to have both.

RDR2 still looks better than most "next gen" games and still is the only actual interactive open world.

Rdr2 is one of the least interactive games in existence.

 

[Whitecrow]

The fact that you can make a thread about an opinion doesnt mean you should.

It gets into my nerves how many people just dismisses the different needs different people have and tries to stablish an absolute truth on a totally subjective matter.
Just so you know, thinking that gameplay is all that matter in games doesnt give you any kind of moral badge, just makes you look... not smart.

 

[Madserb2023]

I just want a game to be fun and polished. Mario Galaxy was neither interactive or graphically impressive but it was good. if you look at the best games ever made, they range drastically in interactivity and graphics from the Last of Us to TOTk. Couldn't be more different. But they have one thing in common, they are both polished examples of games in their genres. Empire State building and St Paul's Cathedral have nothing in common, other than they are well built examples of their respective architectural styles. Doesn't matter how nice a table looks, if it is missing a leg and it constantly falls over, then it's useless. That's pretty much gaming today.

 

[Drizzlehell]

The fact that you can make a thread about an opinion doesnt mean you should.

It gets into my nerves how many people just dismisses the different needs different people have and tries to stablish an absolute truth on a totally subjective matter.
Just so you know, thinking that gameplay is all that matter in games doesnt give you any kind of moral badge, just makes you look... not smart.

You couldn't make it any more clear that you haven't read a single word that I wrote in the OP, and just rushed to sperg out at me after seeing the title. Talk about making yourself look "not smart."

 

[KXVXII9X]

And that's kinda the heart of this subject. Graphics really don't matter.

I mean, it's nice to play a game that has really great visuals, but nobody really plays games for the graphics and no one will give a shit if they're more primitive if the game itself is great.

Graphics may not be the end all be all, but overall presentation is very important to me which can dramatically effect how satisfying the gameplay is. A game with a strong art direction, sounddesign, HUD/UI, animation quality, physics, lighting, and overall attention to detail can enhance a game so much.

Seeing a game that focuses more on mechanics but neglects to have smooth turning on the characters with poor flash-like art puts me off unless it is done intentionally in a stylistic way that makes sense. It just makes the game look cheap.

 

[Fabieter]

There is no reason to not do both.

 

[KXVXII9X]

I definitely think we should be pouring more resources into what games can actually do, rather than what they look like. That said, interactivity by itself is hollow. You need to marry it to meaningful game design that actually contextualizes those things within the wider experience. For example, FromSoft using havoc physics and actual collision for combat in Dark Souls was a cool idea, but it really wouldn't have been that interesting if the game design didn't exploit this to drive the way you play.

This is how I feel when playing Blade and Sorcery. It is really cool all the things you can do and how interactive everything is, but I am rarely invested outside messing around for a few moments. I want a game not a tech demo. Thankfully the Devs are working towards making it a full game.

 

[CGNoire]

Uh, no. I mean those types of DISCUSSIONS, as in discussions about what's important in modern gaming and what we should expect when it comes to the evolution of the medium. Things that usually get the most attention are graphics and performance, while things like interactivity or gameplay rarely get the same level of attention or are being discussed so eagerly. At least from what I saw around here.

Maybe next time before you start ranting at me for no reason, I dunno, maybe ask first?

Dude come on now...

I remember seeing a thread floating around where you guys talked about the graphical fidelity that we should expect this generation,

 

[Drizzlehell]

Dude come on now...

"Come on" what? That thread is part of a larger discussion, and so is this one. Except that one talks about the importance of graphics while I wanted to bring attention to other things, and yes, I deliberately made it a separate thread so that people wouldn't whine that I'm polluting a discussion about graphics (which didn't stop them from coming here and whining anyway).

Not sure what's your problem here.

 

[Drizzlehell]

Graphics may not be the end all be all, but overall presentation is very important to me which can dramatically effect how satisfying the gameplay is. A game with a strong art direction, sounddesign, HUD/UI, animation quality, physics, lighting, and overall attention to detail can enhance a game so much.

Seeing a game that focuses more on mechanics but neglects to have smooth turning on the characters with poor flash-like art puts me off unless it is done intentionally in a stylistic way that makes sense. It just makes the game look cheap.

True, but strong art direction doesn't necessarily require high visual fidelity.

 

[CGNoire]

"Come on" what? That thread is part of a larger discussion, and so is this one.

Yes but the framing of this thread using that thread as an example legitamizes my "rant" on people trying to derail threads designed specificly to talk about graphics into a zero sum graphics vs gameplay debate. It happens in every one of those threads. In other words I wasnt jumping to conclusions.

 

[Drizzlehell]

Yes but the framing of this thread using that thread as an example legitamizes my "rant" on people trying to derail threads designed specificly to talk about graphics into a zero sum graphics vs gameplay debate. It happens in every one of those threads. In other words I wasnt jumping to conclusions.

It's not derailing anything if it's a separate discussion. You're free to ignore this thread completely and continue posting in a thread dedicated solely to visual fidelity, but then again you'd miss out on the fact that I didn't present a one-sided argument in my OP, and it's not a "zero sum debate." You complain to me that some nebulous people continuously derail threads about graphics with talks about gameplay, when right now you're doing exactly the same thing in my thread, which I created specifically to have a separate discussion and avoid polluting that thread about graphics. Which is just ironic, lol.

Also, I think it's valid to frame this thread in this way because I've noticed that people around here give a lot more attention to discussing things such as graphics, performance, and hardware while putting little to no effort into having nuanced discussions about other aspects that go into creating a compelling gaming experience. Its intention is to invite a discussion about those 'other things' for a change instead of constantly banging on about 60 FPS and 4k resolutions. And again, if you're not interested in talking about it then simply ignore the thread and move on.

 

[CGNoire]

It's not derailing anything if it's a separate discussion. You're free to ignore this thread completely and continue posting in a thread dedicated solely to visual fidelity, but then again you'd miss out on the fact that I didn't present a one-sided argument in my OP, and it's not a "zero sum debate." You complain to me that some nebulous people continuously derail threads about graphics with talks about gameplay, when right now you're doing exactly the same thing in my thread, which I created specifically to have a separate discussion and avoid polluting that thread about graphics. Which is just ironic, lol.

Also, I think it's valid to frame this thread in this way because I've noticed that people around here give a lot more attention to discussing things such as graphics, performance, and hardware while putting little to no effort into having nuanced discussions about other aspects that go into creating a compelling gaming experience. Its intention is to invite a discussion about those 'other things' for a change instead of constantly banging on about 60 FPS and 4k resolutions. And again, if you're not interested in talking about it then simply ignore the thread and move on.

You missunderstood my orginal post and why I made it.

Im not saying your the one derailing those threads or that your making a zero sum argument. I also dont have issues with this thread or yourself. I was just pointing out that "the narrative" that others cant talk about gameplay here (neogaf) without being shouted down is mostly because they keep trying to derail graphic threads instead of making there own threads. You mentioned a thread that that happens often in and so I wanted to clarify that isnt the case. It seemed relavent since you mentioned it in the op so I responded with my issue of that framing.

On topic as far as my opinion on the question posited in the op gos. Yes interactivity is far more important than graphics. Replaying older games makes that clear.

 

[Drizzlehell]

You missunderstood my orginal post and why I made it.

Im not saying your the one derailing those threads or that your making a zero sum argument. I also dont have issues with this thread or yourself. I was just pointing out that "the narrative" that others cant talk about gameplay here (neogaf) without being shouted down is mostly because they keep trying to derail graphic threads instead of making there own threads. You mentioned a thread that that happens often in and so I wanted to clarify that isnt the case. It seemed relavent since you mentioned it in the op so I responded with my issue of that framing.

On topic as far as my opinion on the question posited in the op gos. Yes interactivity is far more important than graphics. Replaying older games makes that clear.

I see. Well, I wasn't aware of that, but yeah, it would be reasonable that if someone wants to talk about gameplay then they shouldn't try to make their point in a bitchy way in a thread that's not even about gameplay, specifically. That's why I made this thread, although I tried to frame it as a companion piece to the discussion about graphics, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised that it would draw some ire from people who didn't understand my intention.

 

[Disco Dave]

Boobs > Game design + everything else.

 

[charles8771]

Folks want 60fps as a standard, so developers had to sacrifice interactivity in order to do that

While games in 7th gen had interactivity, frame rates is something folks won't talk about:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/were-ps3-games-always-so-slow-and-jaggy.23359/

Games with great physics/interactivity on 7th gen ran at 20fps, but it not like 20fps was considered very smooth in 2008-2012

 

[Feel Like I'm On 42]

Except it's really not.

Actually it really is and always has been.

 

[diffusionx]

Actually it really is and always has been.

It's not. Graphics really are secondary. They're so focused on because they're the easiest thing to sell, but then something like TOTK comes along and reminds you that there are way better ways to make a game interesting and enjoyable. Plus, if you look at the PC side of things, there's so many games with simple graphics that triple-down on other elements and they find an audience. Noita, Battlebit, Dwarf Fortress, Teardown, this little game called Minecraft you've perhaps heard of.

 

[Johnny2Bad]

Back in the 90's I used to read all the magazines and was totally up on all the advancements but these days I just don't care anymore. Graphics have come a long way since then and I can appreciate that but I no longer give a shit about the technology.

These days I'm much more concerned about game play and whether I'll like it or not.

 

[ResetEraVetVIP]

Depends on the game.

 

[charles8771]

Back in the 90's I used to read all the magazines and was totally up on all the advancements but these days I just don't care anymore. Graphics have come a long way since then and I can appreciate that but I no longer give a shit about the technology.

These days I'm much more concerned about game play and whether I'll like it or not.

Diminishing returns, that why your newest iPhone today isn't exciting as the iPhone 4 in 2010.

The PS4 and Xbox One being 3 years behind of high end PCs wasn't a big deal due for small progress in hardware and diminishing returns.

 

[SportsFan581]

Gameplay trumps all. Ugly games can still be great fun.

I don't mind great graphics either though.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

One of the most impressive gameplay mechanics I've seen in the past few years was using the vacuum in Luigi's Mansion 3 to suck up or interact with things in the environment. It was a joy.. And that's running on a system that's around the horsepower of an XBOX 360.

And Teardown's voxel-based destruction while looking like Minecraft. As impressive to me as something like Cyberpunk.

There is a niche to be filled in the AAA landscape with environmental destruction and interaction like those 2 examples on a grander scale.