Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Norris2k said:
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
daredevil.shark said:
Zekkyou said:
That's a really awful picture though. The point it's trying to make is valid, but it's poorly represented. This was a post in reply to it a few months back:
It's also worth remembering that graphics tech isn't entirely linear. As time goes on we "max" certain avenues of improvement, but at the same time we create/gain access to new avenues. I'd personally like to see lighting become to the 8th/9th gen what polygons were to the 5th and 6th. Incredibly demanding area of graphics though.
|
Good one. The point is (which you also agree), graphics dont make a game good. Innovative ideas make a game good. Problem is good game with good ideas are hard to find. And mediocore developers like cryteck likes to push graphics because they have forgotten what innovation is.
|
Good Gameplay makes a game good.
Fun well designed gameplay will destroy Innovation every single time. And Innovation is only positive half the time.
|
That's one of the definition of a good game. I don't really care so much about gameplay myself, if it's playable it's good enough to serve a great art, story, dialogues, characters, and impressive scenes. For example, Resident Evil is improving in term of gameplay (you can do more and more easily), has never been about "fun", but it's a dying serie because of everything else. And to say it clearly, in my case, I prefer to play Clive Barkley's Jericho with its shitty gameplay (because I will remember forever a few scenes where I really felt deeply impressed in term of atmosphere and design), than any game perfect gameplay wise where I feel emptiness and conservatism in term of art, design, story (I mean, Mario).
|
Gameplay is subjective, meaning making a game easier is only an improvement to those who prefer it. So there is not any perfect gameplay nor is it objective in anyway, its preferential. In the strictest sense, Gameplay is defined as how the player interacts with the game, the medium. The whole as opposed to a single or a few aspects of the game divorced from the interaction.
The reason Ryse is said to have shitty gameplay because its Graphics rarely improve the player experiences. If its only pretty to look at and not improving the player's enjoyment then its really not doing anything.
|
You give a better explanation and I agree on gameplay subjectivity, but it doesn't really change my point, we can agree to disagree on : I don't think a good gameplay makes a game good.
See the scene in TLOU when we see the black brothers for the last time, it's not even interactive, and it's still one of the many thing that deeply made me involved, impressed and pleased with the game. The same thing with the giraffe scene, the scene is barely interactive and doesn't rely on gameplay, and still it's one of my greatest moment on the PS3. It's a complex equation involving timing, rythm, graphics, design, story, atmosphere, sometime gameplay, etc. But not just to focus on this game, really, I think the gameplay is over rated (in part because it'sheavily promoted by N fans).
