A place to talk about just how awesome PC / Mac games are and brag about your specs!
User avatar
By max.thunder
#45490
Recently a 14 years old neighbour called me to reccomend him some games for his laptop, it didn't have great specs but it could run some older games. I reccomended him some cool old games like Scarface, Splinter Cell or Far Cry but after showing some gameplay videos he said that graphics sucked, that they looked like cartoons, he also said that Scarface was a ripoff of GTA: Vice City :mrgreen: . He also said that he wanted Far Cry 3, not the first one. They seem to judge the game by the graphics and not by the gameplay. After playing a bit Splinter Cell Double Agent he said that the game is very hard.

In my opinion this is why some games are now less quality in gameplay and challenge and more in graphics. This is called casualisation of games, to bring them to a wider audience. Hope that this won't end like with movies.
User avatar
By 0takumetalhead
Registration Days Posts Posts Posts Posts Avatar
#45492
One of the reasons why I can't stand most of today's gaming community. Having good graphics should be optional.
I love both 7th gen and everything before it but I only could be bothered with a handfull of new games the past couple of years (Borderlands 2, Driver San Fransisco) due to Dev's putting graphics before a good story and/or gameplay.
anyway those people should appriciate older games alot more, if it weren't for those whe most likey didn't had the tech to pull of today's stuff in games.
User avatar
By Fireboyd78
#45493
Graphics don't make a game - the gameplay does. Don't judge a book by its cover. But most game companies these days just want the $$$ so they don't care, whatever brings in the dough they'll push out anything.
User avatar
By 0takumetalhead
Registration Days Posts Posts Posts Posts Avatar
#45494
CarLuver69 wrote:Graphics don't make a game - the gameplay does. Don't judge a book by its cover. But most game companies these days just want the $$$ so they don't care, whatever brings in the dough they'll push out anything.
And add this to my previous comment.
User avatar
By Coyote
#45495
Well, they are definitely making the games in a way to bring them to a wider audience. I'm pretty sure anyone making a real game would like to do that. Driver focuses on driving but it still got shooting in Driver 3 and Driver: PL. So perhaps shooting game fans bought those two games, and they liked them. As a result, they bought Driver: San Francisco too, even though it doesn't include on foot or shooting. And maybe they liked Driver: San Francisco as well. That's one more fan! What's wrong with it? :)

Games have always been easy, it's just that we, the players, have become better. It's not like every game is completely different and you need to learn how to play a game from scratch. Most stuff is the same and after years of gaming you can adapt to a game very quickly and easily beat it.

When I was small I thought how the first Driver was a really complex game, with so many missions, etc. And with really hard missions actually! But I beat it a few months ago, in a day or so. Even managed to pass the last mission at the first try! ;)
And then I realised it's a pretty short game. Very easy and simple. It's basically nothing compared to Driver: Parallel Lines or Driver: San Francisco.

But it's not through easier gaming that they're aiming at a wider audience. It's through other stuff. For example: someone on Driver-Dimension once mentioned how he hates how in DSF they made the bad guys look ugly and the nice guys look good. He said this shows how the game aims at a very young crowd. Which is party true — it's a bit childish.

But on the other hand, the whole Driver: San Francisco story is very complex. I'm pretty sure most people don't even understand it. They just think of "Tanner shifting in a dream blabla unrealistic flying above cars" and that's it. But to explain it to you, what happens in the game is completely possible.

Before and after Tanner's coma, there is no shifting, nor boost or such things. Everything is the way it should be. As Tanner falls into his coma, he's brought into a hospital. The TV in the room is turned on (that's why it's shown at all) and everything that runs on the TV gets into Tanner's subconscious while he "dreams", because a coma is also a kind of dream. Various stuff that you hear around can get into your subconscious, for example if you're kind of lurking and watching TV, and somebody is talking to you. This is absolutely possible.

However, in his coma, Tanner thinks he's had a lucky escape. This is very complicated to figure out: in the mission after Tanner's coma, the Challenger is on a construction site. Without knowing the map (which is impossible when starting the game the first time) the player can't know that this construction site is just beside the little alley in which he got rammed by Jericho. Which means it's actually impossible for the player to know that Tanner's had a lucky escape at all (without researching), and by the way, I've only heard it being said by one person, and that was by Martin Edmondson (or was it Gareth?) in an early interview.

When Tanner shifts into other people, that's not really called shifting, it's called morphing. Every single thing that happens in a dream has a specific meaning about the one who dreams; it tells what's actually going on with this person… there is even sites that tell you that.

Let's take the main theme of Driver: chases. What do chases mean? Let's look on dreammooods: http://dreammoods.com/cgibin/dreamdicti ... arch=chase

Since Tanner is the one chasing here, this paragraph applies to this case:
To dream that you are chasing someone signifies that you are attempting to overcome a difficult goal or task. You may also be expressing some aggressive feelings toward others.
Tanner has a difficult goal or task, is that right? Yes it is. Does that quote above come from a Driver-related site? No, this quote is from professional scientists.

What I'm trying to say is that the story behind the game consists of some quite complex psychological happenings, which are and not just immature bullsh** as most people will think. I highly doubt that even 1% of players would know this. That's why I love reading those reviews about the game, I have to laugh really hard about the people who write them every time. If they just knew… :lol:

So to conclude, YES, the game does have some aspects that make it a game for younger people. But if you search the more complex side, I promise you, you will find it. I think it's good because it allows two completely different kinds of people to play the same game together, and I think if we'd be surrounded by the same kinds of people all the time, life would get pretty boring.


Perhaps you just need to look deeper into modern games, and maybe then you will find what you've been looking for?
User avatar
By RacingFreak
#45496
I still havent changed my views - still playing Driver, NFSHS, MM2 and other older games with joy, I even think NFSTR has lame graphics and Sleeping Dogs' are too overshined and overused of textures. That's about it, just recently installed Windows 7 on my other HDD, so I finally can see for myself NFSTR doesnt worth anything and Sleeping Dogs is a bit boring. I am not sure if I will ever install any new game, maybe Just Cause 2 since it looks quite good.
User avatar
By Klancnik777
Registration Days Posts Posts Posts Posts Avatar
#45516
all i care is gameplay and story not graphics
anyway i have a friend who always complains about graphics and gameplay. i showed him a call of duty 1 gameplay he was all like: OMG GRAPHICS ARE LIKE MINECRAFT AND GAME AINT IN MODERN ERA blablablablalbla and i asked him what would he play then if he would be in 2002 and he was quiet. i hate these kind of people -.-
By aaro4130
Registration Days
#46737
Agreed with this, My brother did this with MM2, He was like "gfx suck!" And i was all like "Um are you kidding me? This is the best you can get in 99, + it has gameplay and the best physics ever seen in a car game (for me anyways)"
User avatar
By VAIMAHDO
#50810
Idiots.... I hate people like that... Am I the only one who is going to make a couple games with outdated visuals.
Last edited by VAIMAHDO on Sat Nov 15, 2014 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Nikusakken
#50820
As much as I agree that the gameplay is the most important aspect of a game, I'd say that graphics do matter, but it's must balanced well with the gameplay. I mean, would Okami have the same acclaim if it had a similar gameplay as the final version but with realistic graphics?
User avatar
By Coyote
#50821
I think it depends on the type of game. When I play an iPhone game, I don’t expect it to look like a PS3 game. I actually don’t care either. It’s still well done, even if it’s 2D. I love playing Doodle Jump multiplayer, it’s so much fun. Yet it looks so simple…

If now I’d play a game that is meant to be really realistic, then yes, it should be well balanced: realistic physics and gameplay, but of course also a realistic look. Gran Turismo would be a good example at this point :) It wouldn’t be the same if Gran Turismo had crap graphics.

What I can’t stand however, is playing old PS2 games on a huge flatscreen TV. The resolution just sucks, and these games weren’t made for modern TVs. That’s what looks really sh*t :) I guess that’s also why I don’t play old games anymore, I’d need an extra (smaller) TV just for these games.
User avatar
By pete
Registration Days Posts Posts Posts Avatar
#50850
Gameplay sometimes depends on graphics. If a game like Minecraft tried to go for more realistic textures instead of its trademark minimalistic style it would probably be much worse. Has anyone here ever played Delta Force 2? The graphics were bad back then, the graphics are terribly outdated now... and that is just what makes the game so beatiful. If they had tried to make "super realistic" graphics back then it would have just looked like they tried too hard to do something "revolutionary" like everyone these days and players would have just been distracted by bad graphics. But there are of course games like Gtand Theft Auto V, which would be complete shite if they tried to go minimalistic.
Oh goodness. That all probably makes no sense. Sorry.
User avatar
By 0takumetalhead
Registration Days Posts Posts Posts Posts Avatar
#50855
Most modern games lack the depth old skool games have, which made me picky about the modern ones. Can't stand handholding either, which sadly my fave atmospheric fps games do have (both Metro games).

Where's the time where the game allowed you to explore the whole goddamn level, searching for secrets or new ways to finish it? Instead we gett invisible walls 99% of the time, no secrets and above all: bloody health regen which allows you to chicken out, gett your health back and attack, rince and repeat, draining all tactics in the process. Granted I can stand the latter IF it has a proper in-universe explenation which rarely happens sadly. And I CAN tollerate Metro's way of doing it: regen is slow (hiding isn't a option either, the A.I. bloody outsmarts you) making medkits nescesary if you wan't to survive a firefight without proper thought. Also the same game is linear, true but you can explore the level you are in (when there's no A.I. partner). I have a hard time finding games that do that (with the obvious exception of said game and the Borderlands series). Granted this rant is about FPS games but TPS's can be guilty of it aswell.

TLDR version: Modern games are way to restrictive and watered down with a few exceptions.
User avatar
By jam_1989
Registration Days Posts Avatar
#52113
My Youtube channel has a few videos of old games and the most common comments i get is 'the graphics suck' it just shows how dumb some people are these days.
Atleast im not the only person who thinks modern games are too easy because i find myself getting bored so quickly where as i can sit n play games like Driver, Carmageddon 1+2 and still enjoy it everytime.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by jam_1989 on Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By VAIMAHDO
#52114
Morons like that always piss me off. Automaticly dislike them. Driv3r is a great example, if you say it's graphics are "crap" then your calling reality crap because almost every single texture in the game is a real life picture. Plus you can't be that stupid to buy a game because it's shiny. I play games that feel real or just flat out fun. The new Battlefield games for example, they look pretty, but I have never played any of them because those types of games do not interest me. Driv3r is sexy looking by the way. :wink:
User avatar
By Olanov
#52116
DaRkProDucTioNs00 wrote:if you say it's graphics are "crap" then your calling reality crap because almost every single texture in the game is a real life picture.
Well, what we see in real life isn't generated by pixels and resized to crap. Just sayin'.
User avatar
By VAIMAHDO
#52118
Olanov wrote:
DaRkProDucTioNs00 wrote:if you say it's graphics are "crap" then your calling reality crap because almost every single texture in the game is a real life picture.
Well, what we see in real life isn't generated by pixels and resized to crap. Just sayin'.
If the technology was great enough at the time, the pixel count would be too high to even pick out a pixel.
User avatar
By Olanov
#52119
Point is, it's not really reality what we're staring at, it's not us calling reality crap. We're calling a virtual texture crap that has been transferred into a game and most like resized down to a nill. Far from reality.
User avatar
By 0takumetalhead
Registration Days Posts Posts Posts Posts Avatar
#52128
Funny thing is, I remember Guerilla games talking about the re-release of Killzone, the original PS2 release only made use of 1/4th the original texture size that was stored on disc.
Crazy Copper Frenzy

https://youtu.be/xAE3QsULyB4

https://youtu.be/AxdGf3F0yIg

Driv3r "Nice Getaway"

https://youtu.be/CYkmGAPoO9s Lucas in Driv3r's Ni[…]

https://youtu.be/Yvc_xKrKhnc?si=k4I5kraarTXctHJp […]