Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
LastLast
  1. #21
    I agree. I played a MUD (text game with no pictures even) years ago called dragon realms, and then gemstone made by a company called Simutronics. those games were incredibly fun. there was game immersion, character progression, unique classes and less worry about balances and nerfs every week like in WoW. Still, those games were incredibly fun, especially for their time. I think the OP may be onto something, LOL

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Obese View Post
    From personal experience I've noticed 99% of the time a game with amazing graphics, almost always ends up having really lame/boring gameplay, or just really bad gameplay, something that makes a purchase of the game feel like the biggest waste. But games that haven't focused on graphics, but focused moreso on actual gameplay which I've been addicted to and get entertainment out of them for insane amounts of time. There are honestly some games I could have paid $2000 for each and it still would have been worth it, they had disgusting graphics, but the gameplay just kept me going for ages.

    WoW maybe terrible compared to what it USE to be, but who cares? It's still an amazing game IMO, WoW is still a game worth playing over the majority of other games out there atm. Unless you're big into SC2/HoN/LoL or FPS games (like CS or Battlefield, TF2...etc) you don't have much else to choose from that will actually last you longer than a night or 2 of gameplay.
    Crysis 2, was, in my opinion, one of the best (single player)shooters I've played in the last 3 years.

  3. #23
    Dreadlord
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Thunder Bluff
    Posts
    849
    Things is, that graphics attarct, gameplay does not on eye sight.
    Thats why they always break down after a while.
    It works for ali ttle time, than fails

  4. #24
    Banned Ms Andry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    North of the law
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Conscious View Post
    Sick of amazing gameplay having outdated graphics.
    I agree with this. I'm looking at you Nintendo!

  5. #25
    Mechagnome Lihonessa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    678
    To me, good graphics are a secondary demand. The main thing I want however is simply an enjoyable game -- I'd rather play a good, solid game with terrible graphics then an amazing looking game which is practically crap.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by ungar View Post
    I agree. I played a MUD (text game with no pictures even) years ago called dragon realms, and then gemstone made by a company called Simutronics. those games were incredibly fun. there was game immersion, character progression, unique classes and less worry about balances and nerfs every week like in WoW. Still, those games were incredibly fun, especially for their time. I think the OP may be onto something, LOL
    I still play MUDs on and off. I frequent (meaning: log in at least 4 weeks a year) Avatar MUD, which has always been one of my classics.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by ZyngaFail View Post
    The World of Warcraft client is actually remarkably bad optimized for the basic graphics it features.
    Incorrect. Textures require a lot of RAM, and WoW has a LOT of unique textures. Other games that look better, have far more limited textures.

    Even better question, why are all the "amazing graphics" games so DAMN GREY! I swear every game is so full of bloom effects and painted in variations of grey it's boring. It's one of the reasons I enjoy the Unreal games is that they're not affraid of using some damn color.

    Crysis wasn't too bad, but all of the big FPS games do it now (MW1&2, BF, etc...)

    Hell, have you guys seen the abomination that is Duke Nukem Forever?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ms Andry View Post
    I agree with this. I'm looking at you Nintendo!
    Metroid Prime says hi.

  8. #28
    Metroid Prime says hi.
    I only enjoyed the first one, the games after that did not catch me at all.

  9. #29
    "Good graphics" doesn't mean crisis-like realism to me. Good graphics means that it looks seemless and fitting. This is why wow still looks better than Rift to me. This is also why I don't think Terraria looks awful. I don't need high definition 3d whatever... I can see the beauty in 2d art.

    So in that sense, graphics are important for me.

    I can't play games with ugly graphics. But I could play a game with no graphics at all (i.e. text based)... because then there are no ugly graphics.
    Samin
    Quote Originally Posted by Ashrana View Post
    So, what would be your reaction, if you found out, that come cata release first patch, blizzard were planning to kill everyone by sending a bear through the mail?
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    And when you see them you'll be all like :O and we'll be all like and then people on the forums will still be all like(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

  10. #30
    Scarab Lord -Zait-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    The Supervillain Club: The Dreaming
    Posts
    4,898
    It's kind of like Transformers 2 haha

  11. #31
    Banned Ms Andry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    North of the law
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by Poodles View Post
    Incorrect. Textures require a lot of RAM, and WoW has a LOT of unique textures. Other games that look better, have far more limited textures.


    Metroid Prime says hi.
    eh? Metroid Prime 3 didn't have amazing graphics, and also in my own opinion the gameplay actually got dumbed down and less fun. The story was cool, don't get me wrong, but I don't think Metroid Prime is gonna work.

    If you're talking about the first two though, then yeah, they really did have good graphics and good gameplay back then. I was thinking more about the Wii than the Gamecube and what not.

  12. #32
    I agree with the original poster.

    Gameplay trumps graphics every day. Diablo 2 my favorite game of all time has pretty bad graphics these days but I'm still playing it because the gameplay is fiendishly good.

    I buy very few games these days and even fewer without trying them first. 90% of the time the reason I don't finish a game is poor gameplay. The other 10% is either losing interest of lack of time. The game might looks astounding but if the gameplay isn't strong then frankly I'm not interested.

    Also to quote Samin:
    "Good graphics" doesn't mean crisis-like realism to me. Good graphics means that it looks seamless and fitting"

    Couldn't agree more. you don't need to be photo realistic to be "good graphics". I love stylized graphics. Anyone remember a game called Sly Racoon? You play a racoon thief in a cell shaded game world. Awesome game that looks amazing.

  13. #33
    SIGNED.

    I dont care about graphics, i care about gameplay. I have allways said this, and i will allways do.
    Elthia - Holy Paladin - Lightning's Blade EU
    Sometimes the smallest softest voice carries the grand biggest solutions

  14. #34
    Field Marshal naitomeru87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    wisconsin
    Posts
    69
    its getting old its just because of greedy companies.

    ---------- Post added 2011-06-09 at 06:40 AM ----------

    EA is going that root "bf3" for example. more will follow after battlefield tops the list

  15. #35
    Terraria >>>>> Many AAA games out there.

    ---------- Post added 2011-06-09 at 05:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Paintank View Post
    Things is, that graphics attarct, gameplay does not on eye sight.
    Thats why they always break down after a while.
    It works for ali ttle time, than fails
    Thank god that I'm from a age that gameplay was what attracted the players.

  16. #36
    Stood in the Fire
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    464
    I don't think it's the amazing Graphics Fault, they're constantly improving, It's just they have run out of ideas, most of the big title now consist of expansions or sequels..

  17. #37
    Originally Posted by Ghostcrawler
    Q: But who are the forum QQers going to QQ at now?
    A: They'll find another name and still miss the point that Blizzard designs as a collective.

  18. #38
    Mechagnome Ryukaa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by Sant View Post
    I don't think it's the amazing Graphics Fault, they're constantly improving, It's just they have run out of ideas, most of the big title now consist of expansions or sequels..
    and this is where the Indie developers will find their way into the Gaming industry
    In case i do not write History....

    ..... I´ll just cause Confusion

  19. #39
    Legendary! Digglett's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    FC World
    Posts
    6,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Ms Andry View Post
    I agree with this. I'm looking at you Nintendo!
    Seriously, why does it matter if the game is fun? Do you all need pretty things to look at that badly? The graphics aren't up to par, but they know how to stylize them to make them look good. (IE Mario Galaxy, Kirby's Epic Yarn)

    Some of the best games ever made are on older consoles, when you go back to play them they are just as enjoyable, why can't we put petty stuff behind? Graphics don't make a game good, sure, they can enhance the experience, but they do not change gameplay, at all.
    Last edited by Digglett; 2011-06-09 at 05:43 PM.


  20. #40
    Graphics are a plus, but certain not needed for a game to be fun.

    Diablo 2 is still played by many people.
    CS 1.6 is still played competitively by MANY people.
    Portal 2 runs on a "updated" version of the engine and that game is amazing.

    ...list goes on and on.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •