By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why High Graphics and Realistic games sucks

Chrkeller said:
CGI-Quality said:

The PS4 version does look great, but nowhere near as good as the Remake.

Sure.  But worth buying a third time?  Not for me, but too each their own.  

Yes. :)



                                                                                                                                                           

Around the Network
Drakrami said:
mZuzek said:

These are bad points too. Slapping a hacking theme on an open-world isn't innovative at all. Square trying different combat systems on Final Fantasy might be "innovative" within its own series but none of these systems do much that hasn't been seen in other games before. It's funny you complain that Nintendo does "Zelda after Zelda", but then use Assassin's Creed as a good example. Also, Zelda is widely regarded as one of the most innovative games of the past decade.

I've played like 2 hours of BotW (it's in my backlog games to play), can you elaborate what's this high praise you are giving it for innovation? It's just open world Zelda, an amazing game, but what's the innovative part? Assassin's Creed is an excellent example. The 1st two ACs that came out in 2007 was very innovative for the gaming industry as a whole. AC4 (Blackflag) bought new elements and they are now basically making a sequel to that called Skull and Bones. And then they basically rebirthed the franchise with AC Origins in 2017. Tons of innovation people don't talk about and take for granted. They do have flaw of releasing a new AC every year, but that's not the main point. 

And you writing off Square's innovation is laughable, again taking things for granted. Do you know how different combat systems are from FF10 to 12 to 13? 15 is all action, if it's good or not or innovative, that's debatable. But for 16, they are again doing a totally new combat system. What's Zelda's combat system? R1 for Slash? 

Actually the R button is for throwing your sword. Zelda's combat system isn't inherently deep, but it's made deep through all the different ways you can approach enemy encounters. You can just come up to them and hit them like normal, or you can sneak up and kill them with stealth strikes. You can jump from a nearby cliff to get better shots with your arrows, or you can just push a boulder to take some down. You can distract the enemies by throwing something near them, then take all of their own weapons before they even see you. Hell you can chop down a tree on top of them. You can scare them away by using your Magnesis rune or you can use the Stasis+ rune to freeze one of them for a bit. You can attack them while riding your horse, or just let the horse run them over. Also, every different weapon type will lead to totally different fights (both the weapons you're using, as well as your enemy's), and the game ensures these different scenarios will play out because your weapons break. But if you know when your weapon is about to break, you can use that to get a critical hit and knock your enemy away, say you knock them off a cliff, there's one down.

This level of interactivity applies to everything in Breath of the Wild. It's not just Zelda but open-world, it's a completely open game. Whatever you see in the environment can be interacted with in several ways. See apples in a tree? You can jump up to get them, or you can hit the tree to knock the apples down. Or you can chop down the tree, take the apples, and now the tree's log can be pushed somewhere to serve as a platform. Or you can cut the log to get wood, which you can use to create an updraft and soar higher, or you can make a campfire with it. You can use your campfire to rest and heal, or you can use it to roast those apples you picked up and make them restore more health. Or you can light your wooden weapons on fire to increase their damage, or light up a torch and carry it to snowy areas to get through the cold. All of this from one apple tree.

That's why it's an innovative game, it allows for a level of interactivity we simply hadn't seen before on this scale, certainly not in any other open-world game. It has extremely deep physics and chemistry systems that allow for everything in the world to be interacted with in a multitude of ways that then feed into one another.




I make music, check it out here on Bandcamp, Spotify, and Youtube!

mZuzek said:
Drakrami said:

Such a flawed post lol.
Most of the best games are high graphic games.

Elden Ring, Horizon West, Red Dead 2, Halo Infinite.

What exactly do you want to be innovated? And what genre are you talking about? If you are talking about open world, they are constantly trying to put new stuff in. That is why you see GTA5 with the different person perspective, games like Watch Dogs taking on a hacking perspective. And then you have games like For Honor, Skull and Bones, new generations of Assassins Creed. For RPGs Square has tried to innovate and make new combat systems for every numbered final fantasy coming out. There's actually plenty of innovation in the industry.

More like you are asking for the sky because you don't know there's a limit because you are not a developer.

Back to your point. One of the developers don't care much about graphics and that's Nintendo. Do you see a lot of innovation from them? I see Mario after mario, Zelda after Zelda. There's some innovation, but not much more than the rest of the industry.

These are bad points too. Slapping a hacking theme on an open-world isn't innovative at all. Square trying different combat systems on Final Fantasy might be "innovative" within its own series but none of these systems do much that hasn't been seen in other games before. It's funny you complain that Nintendo does "Zelda after Zelda", but then use Assassin's Creed as a good example. Also, Zelda is widely regarded as one of the most innovative games of the past decade.

Zelda, the most innovative? One of the best games of the past decade, sure. But most innovative? Nope.

Your argument about it being such already falls on its head after you mentioned that other games don’t achieve anything that hasn’t been seen in other games before, same as Zelda. If you apply this line of thought to other games, you have to remove the blinders and apply the same to Zelda.



Hynad said:
mZuzek said:

These are bad points too. Slapping a hacking theme on an open-world isn't innovative at all. Square trying different combat systems on Final Fantasy might be "innovative" within its own series but none of these systems do much that hasn't been seen in other games before. It's funny you complain that Nintendo does "Zelda after Zelda", but then use Assassin's Creed as a good example. Also, Zelda is widely regarded as one of the most innovative games of the past decade.

Zelda, the most innovative? One of the best games of the past decade, sure. But most innovative? Nope.

Your argument about it being such already falls on its head after you mentioned that other games don’t achieve anything that hasn’t been seen in other games before, same as Zelda. If you apply this line of thought to other games, you have to remove the blinders and apply the same to Zelda.

The original Zelda was very innovative and new to world.  Skyward, love it or hate it, was innovative in motion controls.  BotW had a whole new level of environmental interaction.  Zelda has been quite innovative.  I would argue Ocarina brought new to world 3D controls that were never seen before via Z-targeting.  

I think Zelda is one of the more innovative franchises in gaming.  



Chrkeller said:
Hynad said:

Zelda, the most innovative? One of the best games of the past decade, sure. But most innovative? Nope.

Your argument about it being such already falls on its head after you mentioned that other games don’t achieve anything that hasn’t been seen in other games before, same as Zelda. If you apply this line of thought to other games, you have to remove the blinders and apply the same to Zelda.

The original Zelda was very innovative and new to world.  Skyward, love it or hate it, was innovative in motion controls.  BotW had a whole new level of environmental interaction.  Zelda has been quite innovative.  I would argue Ocarina brought new to world 3D controls that were never seen before via Z-targeting.  

I think Zelda is one of the more innovative franchises in gaming.  

mZuzek said “of the past decade”, referring to BOTW. And that’s what I responded to.

Last edited by Hynad - on 13 July 2022

Around the Network
Hynad said:
Chrkeller said:

The original Zelda was very innovative and new to world.  Skyward, love it or hate it, was innovative in motion controls.  BotW had a whole new level of environmental interaction.  Zelda has been quite innovative.  I would argue Ocarina brought new to world 3D controls that were never seen before via Z-targeting.  

I think Zelda is one of the more innovative franchises in gaming.  

You said “of the past decade”, referring to BOTW. And that’s what I responded to.

Sure and I find BotW innovative.  Open world that is non linear with the main quest is quite new.  And the environmental interactions are new to world.  There is a reason why it dominated reviews and sales.  

And I didn't say anything regarding "of the past decade."  I make a general Zelda comment, which I stand by.  



agreed. Just one example is the sports genre. I used to love playing arcade style sports games (NFL Blitz, NBA Jam, NHL Hitz, Mario Strikers, MLB Slugfest, etc...), but now the sports genre is mostly filled with realistic gameplay and graphics. It's such a slog to play through a Madden, The Show, NBA 2K game these days. I like my games to move at a faster pace with more/nonstop action. These games just don't do it for me any more.



"If new things are so great, where have they been the whole time?"

The_Liquid_Laser said:
DragonRouge said:

The "graphics at the expense of gameplay" dichotomy, is false for the most part. Visual presentation and gameplay mechanics design are two different jobs done by different people actually. It could make sense for low budget games with limited amount of staff, but in that case, what cutting edge graphics technology could you afford?

Every former fan of the Final Fantasy series knows this dichotomy is real.  Final Fantasy games used to be excellent all around: graphics, gameplay, music, world building, story, etc...  Then Final Fantasy 13 released.  Visually it's one of the most impressive games on the PS3, and the music is excellent too.  Gameplay, world building and story are all noticeably lacking compared to earlier Final Fantasy titles.  They didn't even have towns.  That is a severe cutback.

Budgets are limited.  Companies choose how many to hire for each job to work on their games.  Currently for AAA games it is common for artists and animators to take more of the games budget than all the rest of the staff combined.  It did not used to be this way.

The "FFXIII has bad gameplay and design" is highly debatable, and the decisions made in that regard could have been more related to their goal of appealing to the western market than because of budget priorities.

Yes, budgets are limited, the point still stands. A game having great graphics doesn't mean that it has crap gameplay of that there was a consciuos decision to sacrifice gamaplay design for shiny visuals. That is more of a perception from a prejudice some people have, which for some strange reasons, hate cinematic elements in video games. 



Chrkeller said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Every former fan of the Final Fantasy series knows this dichotomy is real.  Final Fantasy games used to be excellent all around: graphics, gameplay, music, world building, story, etc...  Then Final Fantasy 13 released.  Visually it's one of the most impressive games on the PS3, and the music is excellent too.  Gameplay, world building and story are all noticeably lacking compared to earlier Final Fantasy titles.  They didn't even have towns.  That is a severe cutback.

Budgets are limited.  Companies choose how many to hire for each job to work on their games.  Currently for AAA games it is common for artists and animators to take more of the games budget than all the rest of the staff combined.  It did not used to be this way.

Or like Elden Ring repeating the same bosses over and over...  

I don't get how is that related to the issue of gameplay vs graphics. It's just an instance of adding content by recycling existing elements.



Chrkeller said:
Hynad said:

You said “of the past decade”, referring to BOTW. And that’s what I responded to.

Sure and I find BotW innovative.  Open world that is non linear with the main quest is quite new.  And the environmental interactions are new to world.  There is a reason why it dominated reviews and sales.  

And I didn't say anything regarding "of the past decade."  I make a general Zelda comment, which I stand by.  

It was mZuzek who said that. And that’s who I thought I was replying to.

Either way, I find plenty of innovation in many games, even if they’re on the discreet side in scope. But none of those games, including BOTW, reinvents the wheel.

But some people here are incapable of objectivity, and throw double standards left, right, and center. Which is annoying.