Thread 4 Gamers

[The Armed Republic of Dutch Coolness]

The only thing that's being toned down are the graphics.

That's not really comforting now, is it?

Graphics are a lot less important than gameplay and story.

[Arstotzkas]

Um... I forget what Crysis was.

That game where North Korea is a superpower.

And where Aliens are. And with that Nanosuit.

The one where you need a supercomputer to play on max.

[Bezombia]

That's not really comforting now, is it?

Graphics are a lot less important than gameplay and story.

Ha.


If that's the case, then why aren't Baten Kaitos, Daggerfall, Myst or even I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream still some of the most played games?


If you honestly believe that graphics doesn't mean anything you're fooling yourself. Graphics aren't a deal breaker for me (in any sense, remember my first computer game didn't even have graphics), but hot damn will I like a game more if they're good.
Probably the only reason I played Battlefield as much as I did.

[Czechanada]

That's not really comforting now, is it?

Graphics are a lot less important than gameplay and story.

Well, it's important to have good gameplay then? It's not really possible when constrained to a gamepad, a CPU that is weaker than Mr. Burns, and a small amount of high-latency memory that isn't suited for CPU work.

Moreover, graphics should never be arbitrarily limited. The artist should be able to achieve their artistic desires without any constraints.

Furthermore, how can I be immersed in a game if textures constantly pop in, and the bar wench's hair is more jagged than shattered glass?

[The Armed Republic of Dutch Coolness]

Graphics are a lot less important than gameplay and story.

Ha.


If that's the case, then why aren't Baten Kaitos, Daggerfall, Myst or even I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream still some of the most played games?


If you honestly believe that graphics doesn't mean anything you're fooling yourself. Graphics aren't a deal breaker for me (in any sense, remember my first computer game didn't even have graphics), but hot damn will I like a game more if they're good.
Probably the only reason I played Battlefield as much as I did.

Better graphics will certainly make me enjoy the game more. I don't believe they don't mean anything (nor did I ever say that), I just said that I find graphics to be of much less import to me than gameplay, and the game's story.

Graphics are a lot less important than gameplay and story.

Well, it's important to have good gameplay then? It's not really possible when constrained to a gamepad, a CPU that is weaker than Mr. Burns, and a small amount of high-latency memory that isn't suited for CPU work.

I personally find a controller to be much nicer than a keyboard. And how is it necessary to have the latest of the latest stuff to have good gameplay? That's bullshit. Warcraft 3 has great gameplay, for instance, and could run on a potato.

[Bezombia]

That game where North Korea is a superpower.

And where Aliens are. And with that Nanosuit.

The one where you need a supercomputer to play on max.

That's not necessarily true.


PCGamer (or was it PCMag?) did a piece where they played Crysis 3 at max settings 1440P 60FPS. Granted they had a 4690X and dual Titan Zs, but I digress.

[Bezombia]

I personally find a controller to be much nicer than a keyboard. And how is it necessary to have the latest of the latest stuff to have good gameplay? That's bullshit. Warcraft 3 has great gameplay, for instance, and could run on a potato.

Nobody ever said you have to have the latest and greatest to have good gameplay.


However, it helps to not literally be outperformed by a toaster.
Because when your hardware is physically incapable of displaying draw distances beyond five hundred feet, yes gameplay is going to suffer.
Just ask Czech about Serious Sam 3.

[The Armed Republic of Dutch Coolness]

I personally find a controller to be much nicer than a keyboard. And how is it necessary to have the latest of the latest stuff to have good gameplay? That's bullshit. Warcraft 3 has great gameplay, for instance, and could run on a potato.

Nobody ever said you have to have the latest and greatest to have good gameplay.


However, it helps to not literally be outperformed by a toaster.
Because when your hardware is physically incapable of displaying draw distances beyond five hundred feet, yes gameplay is going to suffer.
Just ask Czech about Serious Sam 3.

I have never found Halo's gameplay to be hampered by a lower CPU than a NASA PC.

[Nuverikstan]

Graphics are a lot less important than gameplay and story.

Well, it's important to have good gameplay then? It's not really possible when constrained to a gamepad, a CPU that is weaker than Mr. Burns, and a small amount of high-latency memory that isn't suited for CPU work.

Moreover, graphics should never be arbitrarily limited. The artist should be able to achieve their artistic desires without any constraints.

Furthermore, how can I be immersed in a game if textures constantly pop in, and the bar wench's hair is more jagged than shattered glass?

Hey! The gamepad is a fun thing to use. I originally thought I would hate it and drop my Wii U the day after I got it. But I really like it and can't wait to see how they use it for Smash Bros. My only thing against it was Super Mario Bros for the Wii U where all you do is make platforms.

[The Rich Port]

I personally find a controller to be much nicer than a keyboard. And how is it necessary to have the latest of the latest stuff to have good gameplay? That's bullshit. Warcraft 3 has great gameplay, for instance, and could run on a potato.

Nobody ever said you have to have the latest and greatest to have good gameplay.


However, it helps to not literally be outperformed by a toaster.
Because when your hardware is physically incapable of displaying draw distances beyond five hundred feet, yes gameplay is going to suffer.
Just ask Czech about Serious Sam 3.

It also bears mentioning that greater graphics are a huge selling point of the next gen consoles.

It's false advertising at this point.

[The Armed Republic of Dutch Coolness]

Nobody ever said you have to have the latest and greatest to have good gameplay.


However, it helps to not literally be outperformed by a toaster.
Because when your hardware is physically incapable of displaying draw distances beyond five hundred feet, yes gameplay is going to suffer.
Just ask Czech about Serious Sam 3.

It also bears mentioning that greater graphics are a huge selling point of the next gen consoles.

It's false advertising at this point.

No, it's not false advertising.

The graphics are better than those of the current gen consoles.

[Bezombia]

Well, it's important to have good gameplay then? It's not really possible when constrained to a gamepad, a CPU that is weaker than Mr. Burns, and a small amount of high-latency memory that isn't suited for CPU work.

Moreover, graphics should never be arbitrarily limited. The artist should be able to achieve their artistic desires without any constraints.

Furthermore, how can I be immersed in a game if textures constantly pop in, and the bar wench's hair is more jagged than shattered glass?

Hey! The gamepad is a fun thing to use. I originally thought I would hate it and drop my Wii U the day after I got it. But I really like it and can't wait to see how they use it for Smash Bros. My only thing against it was Super Mario Bros for the Wii U where all you do is make platforms.

ITT there's only one gamepad

[Czechanada]

Ha.


If that's the case, then why aren't Baten Kaitos, Daggerfall, Myst or even I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream still some of the most played games?


If you honestly believe that graphics doesn't mean anything you're fooling yourself. Graphics aren't a deal breaker for me (in any sense, remember my first computer game didn't even have graphics), but hot damn will I like a game more if they're good.
Probably the only reason I played Battlefield as much as I did.

Better graphics will certainly make me enjoy the game more. I don't believe they don't mean anything (nor did I ever say that), I just said that I find graphics to be of much less import to me than gameplay, and the game's story.

Well, it's important to have good gameplay then? It's not really possible when constrained to a gamepad, a CPU that is weaker than Mr. Burns, and a small amount of high-latency memory that isn't suited for CPU work.

I personally find a controller to be much nicer than a keyboard. And how is it necessary to have the latest of the latest stuff to have good gameplay? That's bullshit. Warcraft 3 has great gameplay, for instance, and could run on a potato.

Yes, but Warcraft 3 was only possible on PC because PCs generally had stronger CPUs as well as more RAM that allowed for the type of gameplay that Warcraft III needed, like a complex AI and plenty of units on screen.

[Czechanada]

Well, it's important to have good gameplay then? It's not really possible when constrained to a gamepad, a CPU that is weaker than Mr. Burns, and a small amount of high-latency memory that isn't suited for CPU work.

Moreover, graphics should never be arbitrarily limited. The artist should be able to achieve their artistic desires without any constraints.

Furthermore, how can I be immersed in a game if textures constantly pop in, and the bar wench's hair is more jagged than shattered glass?

Hey! The gamepad is a fun thing to use. I originally thought I would hate it and drop my Wii U the day after I got it. But I really like it and can't wait to see how they use it for Smash Bros. My only thing against it was Super Mario Bros for the Wii U where all you do is make platforms.

I would never once denigrate the gamepad. It's a solid device for specific genres of game. However, it becomes a problem when games are made for only that particular device.

A surgeon would never use a tablespoon in heart surgery, would he? It would be possible, though not the best choice.

[The Armed Republic of Dutch Coolness]

Better graphics will certainly make me enjoy the game more. I don't believe they don't mean anything (nor did I ever say that), I just said that I find graphics to be of much less import to me than gameplay, and the game's story.


I personally find a controller to be much nicer than a keyboard. And how is it necessary to have the latest of the latest stuff to have good gameplay? That's bullshit. Warcraft 3 has great gameplay, for instance, and could run on a potato.

Yes, but Warcraft 3 was only possible on PC because PCs generally had stronger CPUs as well as more RAM that allowed for the type of gameplay that Warcraft III needed, like a complex AI and plenty of units on screen.

Point being that even now it's still a great game, despite not needing strong CPUs, a lot of RAM, super-duper graphics, and so forth.

[Czechanada]

Nobody ever said you have to have the latest and greatest to have good gameplay.


However, it helps to not literally be outperformed by a toaster.
Because when your hardware is physically incapable of displaying draw distances beyond five hundred feet, yes gameplay is going to suffer.
Just ask Czech about Serious Sam 3.

I have never found Halo's gameplay to be hampered by a lower CPU than a NASA PC.

The funny thing is is that Halo was actually constrained by consoles. It was originally going to be an open-world game for Mac and PCs.

[Czechanada]

Yes, but Warcraft 3 was only possible on PC because PCs generally had stronger CPUs as well as more RAM that allowed for the type of gameplay that Warcraft III needed, like a complex AI and plenty of units on screen.

Point being that even now it's still a great game, despite not needing strong CPUs, a lot of RAM, super-duper graphics, and so forth.

The CPUs don't have to strong, nor does there have to be a lot of RAM. Consoles just didn't have enough.

[New Frenco Empire]

Picked up GRAW again today. Forgot how fun that game us...even if it's unfair as fuck!

It also bears mentioning that greater graphics are a huge selling point of the next gen consoles.

It's false advertising at this point.

No, it's not false advertising.

The graphics are better than those of the current gen consoles.

Just stop. They'll just keep going on and on and on about it. Best to just post about whatever you want and try to ignore the air of pretentiousness that constantly haunts this thread.

[The Armed Republic of Dutch Coolness]

Point being that even now it's still a great game, despite not needing strong CPUs, a lot of RAM, super-duper graphics, and so forth.

The CPUs don't have to strong, nor does there have to be a lot of RAM. Consoles just didn't have enough.

Like I said: my point is that you don't need to have a supercomputer to have good gameplay.

I have never found Halo's gameplay to be hampered by a lower CPU than a NASA PC.

The funny thing is is that Halo was actually constrained by consoles. It was originally going to be an open-world game for Mac and PCs.

Halo was going to be a RTS.

[Czechanada]

The CPUs don't have to strong, nor does there have to be a lot of RAM. Consoles just didn't have enough.

Like I said: my point is that you don't need to have a supercomputer to have good gameplay.

The funny thing is is that Halo was actually constrained by consoles. It was originally going to be an open-world game for Mac and PCs.

Halo was going to be a RTS.

Originally envisioned as an RTS, but originally announced as an open-world third-person shooter.

[Czechanada]

Like I said: my point is that you don't need to have a supercomputer to have good gameplay.

No one has ever said that. Don't be making things up.

Why did Thief: Deadly Shadows have smaller levels broken up by loading screens as opposed to the more larger and open levels of the original two games?

[The Matthew Islands]

It's not going to be a bad game, but realize that a good console game is the equivalent of a mediocre PC game. It's not going to be up to the standards of the original Witcher games. They've already dumbed-down the combat and potion mechanics.

Yes, because if it's on a Console it's autobad (or mediocre, in this case).

The only thing that's being toned down are the graphics.

Aside from the bit where the article said they are making the game easier because Console Players don't like challenges.

[Czechanada]

Hey, Beno, you should buy Unity, and make games with it.

By GabeN, I suck at posting links.

[Czechanada]

Yes, because if it's on a Console it's autobad (or mediocre, in this case).

The only thing that's being toned down are the graphics.

Aside from the bit where the article said they are making the game easier because Console Players don't like challenges.

That's what I loved about The Witcher 2. Every fight felt like a battle where one had to use every trick at their disposal to win.

When I saw a group of enemies, I didn't say: "Oh, more scrubs to mow through." I said: "Oh, shit, more enemies. How am I going to prepare for this one?"

And that is now going to be taken away from me.

[Czechanada]

The one where you need a supercomputer to play on max.

That's not necessarily true.


PCGamer (or was it PCMag?) did a piece where they played Crysis 3 at max settings 1440P 60FPS. Granted they had a 4690X and dual Titan Zs, but I digress.

It was PC Gamer. They were testing out their Large Pixel Collider.