Have we come to expect to much from graphics at the expense of game play?

[moderategamer]

In the gaming world it has become increasingly more important for games to look graphically pleasing some would argue that this is taking away from the games mechanics and overall game play experience. What do you think are you happy with current gen games playability or do you feel that older games had a better experience as there wasn't such a need to make visually striking games?

[minibois]

omg, old games are so much better!!

But nah, don't really care. I think the graphics have not taken away game mechanics really, but rather have taken down the time.

When the visuals started getting better, the games became smaller.

[Nineshadow]

Not necessarily.

 

Look at Pillars of Eternity.

[Briggsy]

This was a discussion people were having a decade ago, and it was much more relevant back then because graphics were improving at an alarming rate. In truth, Games are much more complex now than they ever were, and contain voice acting, fluid animations, piles of side content, more games to choose from, and they are cheaper (snes games were 80-100 bucks back in the day). Like I say, a decade ago it was a concern that games would become increasingly more shallow as graphics became better, especially when the 360 came out and blew peoples minds. So far, I have not seen graphics impede good game design in the genres that matter. Mind you, we also have DLC and micro-transactions, but at least I'm not playing through the first hour of battle-toads every night just to die on the same level, or dialing up a friends modem so we can play Doom. I'm not sure how the good old day's were better. Few oldies can compare with the AAA games these days.

[moderategamer]

This was a discussion people were having a decade ago, and it was much more relevant back then because graphics were improving at an alarming rate. In truth, Games are much more complex now than they ever were, and contain voice acting, fluid animations, piles of side content, more games to choose from, and they are cheaper (snes games were 80-100 bucks back in the day). Like I say, a decade ago it was a concern that games would become increasingly more shallow as graphics became better, especially when the 360 came out and blew peoples minds. So far, I have not seen graphics impede good game design in the genres that matter. Mind you, we also have DLC and micro-transactions, but at least I'm not playing through the first hour of battle-toads every night just to die on the same level, or dialing up a friends modem so we can play Doom. I'm not sure how the good old day's were better. Few oldies can compare with the AAA games these days.

 

You got to admit games average play time has dropped dramatically just think about how long it took to complete Super Mario 64 compared to recent games. When is the last time it took you more than 5-8 hours to complete a campaign i will admit mechanics have greatly improved over the years obviously due to horse power but thats not to say they couldn't be further improved if less time was spent on making the game pretty. Which I'm not complaining about as I love a nice shiny game but certainly with games like Bioshock Infinite there was a distinct feeling that the game was too short due to the fact that it was just so damn pretty. Current games seem to stick with the same mechanics for a quite a few games, games such as COD have been using the same basic mechanics across two platforms now which is probably more down to the fact that it seems to be what people want for some reason. 

[Fulgrim]

This was a discussion people were having a decade ago, and it was much more relevant back then because graphics were improving at an alarming rate. In truth, Games are much more complex now than they ever were, and contain voice acting, fluid animations, piles of side content, more games to choose from, and they are cheaper (snes games were 80-100 bucks back in the day). Like I say, a decade ago it was a concern that games would become increasingly more shallow as graphics became better, especially when the 360 came out and blew peoples minds. So far, I have not seen graphics impede good game design in the genres that matter. Mind you, we also have DLC and micro-transactions, but at least I'm not playing through the first hour of battle-toads every night just to die on the same level, or dialing up a friends modem so we can play Doom. I'm not sure how the good old day's were better. Few oldies can compare with the AAA games these days.

A lot of the AAA titles i've tried turned out to be piss poor games with less than 5 hours of gameplay in with the main storyline. I personally prefer a longer, well done game as opposed to one which focuses more on looks than quality + amount of content.

 

Hell, i keep going back to old titles like VTMB because it's so enjoyable, despite it's flaws. 

[d1screet]

Different strokes for different folks.

 

I'd say that flashy, impressive graphics are able to draw in people's attention quickly and get quick buys from people who are simply looking to be entertained by whatever latest game is out there and getting critical acclaim and buzz. Most of these games tend to be single player centric games, with heavily story-driven 'gameplay'.

 

Gameplay-driven games seem a little more difficult to be successful financially as of late, seeing as while gameplay may be solid, people can certainly get burned out or bored from playing the same game ALL the time. Regardless, these games tend to have the best retention rate of players, as you can definitely see that there are tons of players still playing relatively graphically-simple games such as LoL, Dota 2, CS:GO, CS 1.6 (holy shit servers are still full as fuck), etc.

[Blebekblebek]

this is good question

watch this

[KE2012]

I think we are in the age of graphics, when last decade it was all about the story line, I believe its now all about how far away you can see someones face, or how fancy and shiny something looks.

 

However while I do digg a graphically astounding game, I do keep going back to some old games simply for the story and gameplay mechanics. 

[Briggsy]

You got to admit games average play time has dropped dramatically just think about how long it took to complete Super Mario 64 compared to recent games. When is the last time it took you more than 5-8 hours to complete a campaign i will admit mechanics have greatly improved over the years obviously due to horse power but thats not to say they couldn't be further improved if less time was spent on making the game pretty. Which I'm not complaining about as I love a nice shiny game but certainly with games like Bioshock Infinite there was a distinct feeling that the game was too short due to the fact that it was just so damn pretty. Current games seem to stick with the same mechanics for a quite a few games, games such as COD have been using the same basic mechanics across two platforms now which is probably more down to the fact that it seems to be what people want for some reason.

Yeah, there are some games that are shorter than one would hope and make a great example of a problem with specific developers, but that problem does not exist across gaming as a whole by any stretch. Its also the responsibility of a consumer to find out if a game is worth full price, before they buy it. I knew bioshock infinite was a short game before it launched, because bioshock 1 and 2 were short games as well (20 combined hours to beat both of them according to my steam history).

I dunno, maybe I see it differently because I was born in the early 80's and saw video games evolve from pixels on the screen to life-like works of beauty that we have now. Should someone go out and pay full price for every game release? obviously not, that's what steam sales are for. When games like dragon age 3 or GTA 5 come along that are overflowing with high quality content, then paying full price makes sense.

Like I said before, this is a really old topic, and the state of AAA game content vs. graphics hasn't really budged in the last decade, aside from the DLC crapstorm that we have to deal with right now.

[Trik'Stari]

I'd have to say...maybe.

 

The bigger problem, I feel, is that gaming has gone "mainstream". As much as I despise sounding like a hipster, the fact that consoles have gotten so big, and there's so much money to be made, is what has caused the true decline in gaming. Companies don't give a fuck if you enjoy their game, if you're stupid enough to buy it, they can quote master shake from the ATHF;MFFT soundtrack, "use this damn thing as a coaster, we don't care WE GOT YOUR MONEY BITCH". 

 

And that's exactly how they act, market to morons who know nothing, pocket the money, repeat next year.

[Laurysss]

You got to admit games average play time has dropped dramatically just think about how long it took to complete Super Mario 64 compared to recent games. When is the last time it took you more than 5-8 hours to complete a campaign i will admit mechanics have greatly improved over the years obviously due to horse power but thats not to say they couldn't be further improved if less time was spent on making the game pretty. Which I'm not complaining about as I love a nice shiny game but certainly with games like Bioshock Infinite there was a distinct feeling that the game was too short due to the fact that it was just so damn pretty. Current games seem to stick with the same mechanics for a quite a few games, games such as COD have been using the same basic mechanics across two platforms now which is probably more down to the fact that it seems to be what people want for some reason.

8 hours ? You kidding me? There's piles of games from recent years that take much longer then 8 hours. GTA V.

[Skrizzles]

THIS....is entirely possible. Recent games I have finished...ACU, FC4(which I know I'm late to the party, but my previous system couldn't handle)-Seemed really short and lacking in content, Not to mention ridiculously simple.

 

On the Assassin Creed front, the previous games allowed you to own entire cities, recruit and train other assassins for foreign missions, and there were complex puzzles you had to solve. But that was Revelations...the series has been downhill ever since.

 

Then there's Far Cry. Once again, severely less complicated storyline compared to fc3, and not in a good way. There was literally so much less to do. I ended up doing a ton of the side missions just to try and make it last longer. Some of which were pretty cool. Shangri-la was definitely cool. But overall, it seemed pretty simple(you can finish with about half of the skills fc3 required)...and short.

 

But the graphics are good.

[faziten]

In the gaming world it has become increasingly more important for games to look graphically pleasing some would argue that this is taking away from the games mechanics and overall game play experience. What do you think are you happy with current gen games playability or do you feel that older games had a better experience as there wasn't such a need to make visually striking games?

Totally not. We have plenty games which are strong in one or other department:

Telltale games: Not eye candy, not good mechanics but hell of a story. 

Devil may cry: Mid range eye candy, strong good mechanics, mid complexity story line. 

Dark souls: A pain in the ass mix between DMC and Skyrim.

Crysis/Metro: Totally eye candy, mid range mechanics (more than CoD of course), meh storyline (once again, more than CoD). 

Bioshock, Dishonored,Far cry,Tomb Raider: A mix between good playability, good graphics and story.

 

Now, genres are mixing, bringing FPS-RPG-like open world with shit to awesome graphics... From Borderlands to Shadows of Mordor. 

 

I strongly believe that there are games for everyone. Of course what is on the news, or making the most noise is not always the best. 

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

Graphics are there to build up the hype.

[R_Golden]

Games aren't shorter because of their graphics, games are shorter because they're fast to make (COD) and sell. There's nobody to blame but the consumer for that.

[SXCS23]

It looks like many games that don't have a large multiplayer audience are shooting to get ~15 hours (Assassin's Creed, Bioshock, Tomb Raider, Saint's Row, Mass Effect, Batman: Arkham)while the ones that are well known for multiplayer are ~8 hours (Call of Duty, Halo, Gears of War, Battlefield, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon). The ones with a longer play time tend to be the open world sandbox games (Witcher, Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age, Fallout, GTA).

 

In the end it comes to what are you willing to pay for a game knowing how long you will play it. Me? I'll put $$$ down on Halo because I will play the story multiple times and sink hundreds of hours into the multiplayer because my friends and I have a blast doing so. However, I'm hesitant on spending $20 for Call of Duty years later because I'll play that story once and never touch it again.