Would anyone play a game like this?

posted
Total Posts
14
show more
deadbeat
i'll wrestle a lion if i means i can play my favorite playstation 1 games again ;___;
poddo
gameplay IS the most important thing, and yes, graphics don't matter to the GAMEPLAY quality of a game, and well, since it's a /game/, the gameplay is what matters. but it doesn't mean that no one should hype about how people are able to make games look better either -- both are good things and both balance out a game's all-around worth.

edit: also, of course i'd play "a game like this"! i'm a sucker for remakes and reboots of old things :)
Rorona
If something had ps2 graphics on the ps4, I'd probably laugh and not buy games from that development team again.

Gameplay and graphics are both extremely important. If something had great graphics, but mediocre gameplay, it'd be called a mediocre game. (See Son: Rise of Rome) If something had bad graphics, but amazing gameplay, it would be regarded as terrible, because if something looks like it was from the original Quake, and you're playing on the ps4, the development team has fucked something up, badly.
Azure_Kite

Rorona wrote:

If something had bad graphics, but amazing gameplay, it would be regarded as terrible, because if something looks like it was from the original Quake, and you're playing on the ps4, the development team has fucked something up, badly.
A bit of a strawman there. If the developers have a clearly defined aesthetic they wish to aim for, graphical fidelity isn't an absolute necessity in order for a game to be considered "good". Examples such as Minecraft, Super Meat Boy and Terraria/Starbound prominently come to mind. The latter two examples are moreso throwbacks to the age of SNES and Genesis, however the overall point still stands. Games don't need to be utilizing all of a console's capabilities in order to be considered a good game.

Whether graphics or gameplay make the game worthwhile is purely in the eyes of the consumer thinking about buying a game. It is not so clearly defined as "This game uses 1,000,000 poly character models, therefore it's a good game".
Jarby
Honestly, I'd love to see more indie games use minimal 3D designs in an interesting way (i.e. not Minecraft) since 2D sprites have been in fashion for ages in that area. I highly doubt anyone is going to buy a current gen console for indie games though, you'd get a PC for that.
silmarilen
i still actively play age of empires 2 (100+ hours gametime in the past 3 months) so you can tell graphics arent the important thing for me. if i like the gameplay the graphics dont matter.
Rorona

Azure_Kite wrote:

Rorona wrote:

If something had bad graphics, but amazing gameplay, it would be regarded as terrible, because if something looks like it was from the original Quake, and you're playing on the ps4, the development team has fucked something up, badly.
A bit of a strawman there. If the developers have a clearly defined aesthetic they wish to aim for, graphical fidelity isn't an absolute necessity in order for a game to be considered "good". Examples such as Minecraft, Super Meat Boy and Terraria/Starbound prominently come to mind. The latter two examples are moreso throwbacks to the age of SNES and Genesis, however the overall point still stands. Games don't need to be utilizing all of a console's capabilities in order to be considered a good game.

Whether graphics or gameplay make the game worthwhile is purely in the eyes of the consumer thinking about buying a game. It is not so clearly defined as "This game uses 1,000,000 poly character models, therefore it's a good game".
I didn't quite specify. People actually like 8-16 bit games, because it's retro, or because it give them nostalgia value. I'm one of those people. But you don't want to see something with ps2 graphics or n64 polygons on a newer console.

Keep in mind that all the games that you've stated have been released on PC only, or at least PC first, which is where they gained their popularity, and that they're all indie titles. Indies aren't expected to have the same texture qualities or graphical fidelity as large companies, because of how few people and how little experience they're expected to have. Games released on consoles are games that have big companies behind them, which don't have a reason not to have stellar graphics.

I don't know if I was quite accurate enough with what I was trying to say, because I wrote that at like 4 AM. What I was trying to say was that if something was released on the newer consoles with poor graphics, they'd be ridiculed. PC is different because of how large the indie scene is. XBL Arcade is actually disgusting because of how few good games come out of the indie scene. PC's indie scene is different because good games actually have actually come out of it.

silmarilen wrote:

i still actively play age of empires 2 (100+ hours gametime in the past 3 months) so you can tell graphics arent the important thing for me. if i like the gameplay the graphics dont matter.
AoE2 is one of those exceptions with incredibly amazing gameplay. I play AoE2HD on steam, but like...it's mostly for nostalgia.
Ceph23
I'd laugh if I saw that PS2 level 3D graphics on a PS4. But only because it is just so stupid to put that game on that console.
If it were some other prev gen console I'd play it.
RBRat3

Ceph23 wrote:

I'd laugh if I saw that PS2 level 3D graphics on a PS4. But only because it is just so stupid to put that game on that console.
If it were some other prev gen console I'd play it.
It's sad that those of you would laugh about that, what you just said demonstrates why games these past few years have been absolute shit.

Id take a cube flopping around on platforms where it was a weeks worth the adventure fun rather than blasting the screen filled with polygons of shit and lasted a few hours of gamesplay.
Ceph23
Hey now. I'm not saying that games that doesn't have cutting edge graphics suck. I'm really into retro games and I'm currently playing Chronocross on an emulator.
It just feels wierd playing that kind of game on a console that emphasizes on amazing graphics.
RBRat3

Ceph23 wrote:

Hey now. I'm not saying that games that doesn't have cutting edge graphics suck. I'm really into retro games and I'm currently playing Chronocross on an emulator.
It just feels wierd playing that kind of game on a console that emphasizes on amazing graphics.
A game console company is exactly what their trademarks and copyrights claim a "computer entertainment system" this does directly translate into overzealous graphic capabilities for every game imaginable there is no emphasis other than making a selling point, it's just for entertainment.
P r o m i s e s
I sometimes still play old games on my Nintendo 64 or on my GameCube. When I'm enjoying the game, I don't pay attention to the graphics.
I don't really much care about graphics, anyway.

silmarilen wrote:

i still actively play age of empires 2 (100+ hours gametime in the past 3 months) so you can tell graphics arent the important thing for me. if i like the gameplay the graphics dont matter.
Lol, I still actively play that game too
Tekklorn
Not gonna lie, graphics do to some degree make or break a game for me, I'm not talking about just the quality of textures or the quality of shader effects etc but rather the attention to detail and the art style of the game. For example, fallout 3 had some pretty bad graphics at it's time of release, with problems like textures that were very low res in some areas, overlapping textures and rigid animations etc but for me I thought the graphics were amazing. This was because the style was perfect for this post-apocalypse 1950's wasteland whether it be the the bizarre looking servant robots or the bandits who wore cheesy biker jackets and had even cheesier hair styles.
Please sign in to reply.

New reply