Graphics and online killing our games???

My brother mentioned this yesterday...and I have been thinking about it...I think its true.

Think about it...most of the games that have been released recently either suck at gameplay or story, every day, the devs put more and more effort in giving us better graphics and improving the multiplayer...but what about the single player? what about the story? what about the game lenght?

Take a look at PS2/Xbox/gamecube games.

most of them would last over 10 hours or so, 12 hours was pretty much the standard for any PS2 game,

now on PS3, almost every game can be completed in 6 hours at least.

in my opinion, the devs focus so much on improving the graphics, adding physics and making a better multiplayer, that when they realize they have almost used all the space in those things so when it comes to designing the single player, they can only use a small percentage of space, resulting in shorter games with little to no changes/improvements in the gameplay.

For example, I recently got GoW3 and I thought it was a cool game, but I felt extremely dissapointed, it was not half as long as GoW2 and it was not as epic as the previous installments, it had very few "WOW" moments and, tbh, the story sucked, and the final boss fight was extremely easy.

I think that SMs were just thinking about how to improve the graphics and not the main game...and its almost the same in every game nowadays...take a look at it, games like call of duty which have an extremely short campaign that finishes in a flash, and all because the devs feel lazy after having worked so long in the graphics and multiplayer of the game.

even EA (I think that EA is a very stupid company imo) said that "the future of gaming is not in single player experience, but multiplayer, in the future we will focus more in online mode for our games"

even MGS4...I think that it has the least gameplay in the saga after MGS, I think that is 5 hours of gameplay and 15 hours of cutscenes if im not wrong...that is just sad!

so what happened to those old ps2, xbox, gamecube games? what happened to the long games that lasted over 20 hours like kingdom hearts, GTA, final fantasy (even final fantasy 13 failed this generation, if im not wrong FF13 can be completed in 8 hours)

what do you think about it...do you think that games should still compete to be graphics king? (the saddest part is that they cant take the crown away from crysis yet...) or give us the great gameplay we had once?

1.) To some extent

2.) Your playing the wrong games

1.) To some extent

2.) Your playing the wrong games

Yangire

[QUOTE="Yangire"]

1.) To some extent

2.) Your playing the wrong games

lightleggy

If you want long games I suggest playing RPGs, if you want short games continue creating rants about the games that your playing.

Graphics are killing the developers :P,games are so expensive to develop today

For some games like FPS I would prefer an online to a SP and graphics don't bother me but games like RPGs are best for SP and need great graphics (exept MMORPGs).gamebreakerz__

[QUOTE="Yangire"]

1.) To some extent

2.) Your playing the wrong games

lightleggy

Hmm I see a trend here...

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="Yangire"]

1.) To some extent

2.) Your playing the wrong games

Yangire

If you want long games I suggest playing RPGs, if you want short games continue creating rants about the games that your playing.

I don't see anything wrong. Just about everyone who gamed in the previous generation think the current generation has less substance. That held true for the PS2/X-Box/GC days. Even then, there were people who said the games of that generation didn't compare to the previous generation before that one and so on. I just take whatever's out and enjoy.

[QUOTE="gamebreakerz__"]For some games like FPS I would prefer an online to a SP and graphics don't bother me but games like RPGs are best for SP and need great graphics (exept MMORPGs).lightleggy

I don't see the problem with better graphics and physics.

Metal gear solid 4, uncharted 1 and 2, killzone 2, GTAIV, call of duty, stalker are those "the wrong games"? then which are the "right ones"lightleggy

If you want long games I suggest playing RPGs, if you want short games continue creating rants about the games that your playing.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="Yangire"]

1.) To some extent

2.) Your playing the wrong games

Yangire

If you want long games I suggest playing RPGs, if you want short games continue creating rants about the games that your playing.

I'm with post #2. You must be playing the wrong games.

Look at games like Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3, Bioshock, Fable 2, Mass Effect, Ratchet & Clank. Hannah Montanna (jk)... sure some of these games can be sped through and completed in under 10 hours but they offer much more than that. Be it the extra contect found by exploring (Fallout 3, ME, RDR) or the alternate modes included with the package (RDR, Uncharteds, most FPS games). In most AAA titles there isa mountain of content.

Don't forget that even older games like Mario could be completed very quickly if you knew where the feathers/secret roms were and wanted to speed thru.

Online is fine if it's good. If every time you die it's because it's your fault, not the games fault, and if the game is balanced/skill based it's great fun. Tacked-on multiplayer needs to die though. If you're not focusing on a proper, supported online service like in Battlefield/COD then just make a longer single player game.dkjestrup

Metro 2033 which boasts the best visuals is actually a great game with some of the best displays of atmosphere.

So awesome graphics can lead to great games.

Graphics are always important to a certain extent but of course not all concentration should be on graphics.

[QUOTE="Yangire"]

[QUOTE="lightleggy"] Metal gear solid 4, uncharted 1 and 2, killzone 2, GTAIV, call of duty, stalker are those "the wrong games"? then which are the "right ones"lightleggy

If you want long games I suggest playing RPGs, if you want short games continue creating rants about the games that your playing.

Wow...now I really know you have no idea what you're talking about.

FF13 clocks in at 30-40 hours minimum.

The poll results are shaped in a way that reminds me of something ... I just can't seem to put my finger on it ... Ohwell, maybe in a couple of years it'll suddenly pop up in my head.

To some extent your right, but most of this is just a rant blaming everything for the declining quality of most games which the cause of the decline in difficulty and length can be attributed to other factors.

To say first off you can't blame Graphics, Graphics only enhance the experience and there one of the largest factors that makes games enjoyable. I'm not talking about technical aspects specifically, but just making a game look attractive is 40% of what makes it fun.

On the online front I sort of agree with you, but I tell you one of the best things about this gen has been the online shooters and the abillity to take things like racing games online however this is a double edged sword because as much fun as this is alot of games single player has been gimped because the developement is split 50/50. For example I loved UC2 single player, but it was far too short while on the other hand the multiplayer was quite lame I'm thinking that if the devs had more time for the single player they could have producedmore, but on the other handdevs like Blizzard andDICE makes multiplayer games that can rival any single player experience. IMO only games that are made for multiplayer should have it.

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="Yangire"]

If you want long games I suggest playing RPGs, if you want short games continue creating rants about the games that your playing.

Wow...now I really know you have no idea what you're talking about.

FF13 clocks in at 30-40 hours minimum.

Online matters way more than single player for me. Videogame story telling sucks for the most part anyway. I really don't even play single player games anymore, unless they are fantastic.

Im Just Like Single Player Game...

Better to Playing Online no story...

To say first off you can't blame Graphics, Graphics only enhance the experience and there one of the largest factors that makes games enjoyable. I'm not talking about technical aspects specifically, but just making a game look attractive is 40% of what makes it fun.

davidkamayor

So what, you have fun by looking at the graphics?

Lots of mainstream games are this way

But there are loads of games still out there catering to the other markets.Shouldn't be tough to track down more than you could play I'm sure.

[QUOTE="davidkamayor"]

To say first off you can't blame Graphics, Graphics only enhance the experience and there one of the largest factors that makes games enjoyable. I'm not talking about technical aspects specifically, but just making a game look attractive is 40% of what makes it fun.

So what, you have fun by looking at the graphics?

[QUOTE="davidkamayor"]

To say first off you can't blame Graphics, Graphics only enhance the experience and there one of the largest factors that makes games enjoyable. I'm not talking about technical aspects specifically, but just making a game look attractive is 40% of what makes it fun.

Yangire

So what, you have fun by looking at the graphics?

I wouldn't say "fun", but they can be moving. Example, SOTC.

[QUOTE="davidkamayor"]

To say first off you can't blame Graphics, Graphics only enhance the experience and there one of the largest factors that makes games enjoyable. I'm not talking about technical aspects specifically, but just making a game look attractive is 40% of what makes it fun.

Yangire

So what, you have fun by looking at the graphics?

[QUOTE="Yangire"]

[QUOTE="davidkamayor"]

To say first off you can't blame Graphics, Graphics only enhance the experience and there one of the largest factors that makes games enjoyable. I'm not talking about technical aspects specifically, but just making a game look attractive is 40% of what makes it fun.

i5750at4Ghz

So what, you have fun by looking at the graphics?

ASCII, and I'm not saying graphics are not needed I'm asking who has fun just by looking at graphics.

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="Yangire"]

So what, you have fun by looking at the graphics?

Yangire

ASCII, and I'm not saying graphics are not needed I'm asking who has fun just by looking at graphics.

[QUOTE="Yangire"]

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"] All gamers do.... Without graphics you would have nothing to look at period.i5750at4Ghz

ASCII, and I'm not saying graphics are not needed I'm asking who has fun just by looking at graphics.

As I said, you can look at ASCII.

[QUOTE="davidkamayor"]

To say first off you can't blame Graphics, Graphics only enhance the experience and there one of the largest factors that makes games enjoyable. I'm not talking about technical aspects specifically, but just making a game look attractive is 40% of what makes it fun.

So what, you have fun by looking at the graphics?

The people who buy them are killing games...

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="Yangire"]

So what, you have fun by looking at the graphics?

forza420

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="Yangire"]

ASCII, and I'm not saying graphics are not needed I'm asking who has fun just by looking at graphics.

Yangire

As I said, you can look at ASCII.

The people who buy them are killing games...

mitu123

I Like Role-Playing Game my favourite game is on PS2 :

Persona 3 Fes

Persona 4

Kingdom Hearts Final Mix+

Kingdom Hearts Re:CoM

Kingdom Hearts 2 Final Mix+

.Hack Infection Part 1

.Hack Mutation Part 2

.Hack Outbreak Part 3

.Hack Quarantine Part 4

.Hack//G.U Vol.1//Rebirth

.Hack//G.U Vol.2//Reminisce

.Hack//G.U Vol.3//Redemption

Genso Suikoden 3

Genso Suikoden 4

Genso Suikoden 5

Genso Suikoden Tactics

[QUOTE="forza420"][QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"] All gamers do.... Without graphics you would have nothing to look at period.i5750at4Ghz

im talking about cutting edge graphics.

i can enjoy a game even if it doesnt have Uncharted 2,alan wake or crysis 2 graphics

[QUOTE="davidkamayor"]

So what, you have fun by looking at the graphics?

Yangire

I already said it, FF13, part of the FF saga, probably the most famous saga in the RPG world, having games which usually last 20 hours+, has now joined the "lets last 8 hours" bandwagonlightleggy

:D

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="Yangire"] All gamers do.... Without graphics you would have nothing to look at period.Chickan_117

I already said it, FF13, part of the FF saga, probably the most famous saga in the RPG world, having games which usually last 20 hours+, has now joined the "lets last 8 hours" bandwagonlightleggy

:D

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

The people who buy them are killing games...

gamebreakerz__

Gamers will always complain...

[QUOTE="i5750at4Ghz"][QUOTE="Chickan_117"]

:D

Chickan_117

What on earth are you talking about? Stop trolling. I said the quality doesn't overly affect the amount of fun I have I didn't say I wanted to somehow play games without any visuals.Chickan_117

One I'm not trolling, and two all my posts deal with the question; "So what, you have fun by looking at the graphics?" posted by Yangire. The question simply being all gamers do. i5750at4Ghz

We are saying that the quality of the graphics doesn't affect the amount of fun we have in a game.

You retort(twice on the one page) with a statement that graphics are required for games otherwise we'd look at nothing.

You are deliberately taking what we say out of context and starting an argument. Unless you honestly think our opinion is that graphics are not required for a game in which case [self moderation applied :)]

So, for the sake of closing this argument, I am not saying that I do not think graphics are required for a game. I am saying that the quality does not affect the amount of fun I have playing that game. As with Forza470, I thoroughly enjoy older games like Tetris of Mario 1 as much as current gen games so the quality of the graphics does not affect my experience.