The lost GAMER by SirLink & jiu-jitsuGOD

No doubt, same here lol. I just need to get more games for mine. Atm all I have is Final Fantasy 3, Metroid Prime:Hunters, and Brain Age. Oddly enough out of those 3, the one I spend the most time with is Brain Age lol. Sudoku FTW.

 

I soo want the new super mario bros...

Very good ideas and thoughts here guys... I think you guys get what we were trying to convey here... :grin:

 

Well, I'm not sure that you know this, but nvidia and amd don't make jack off of their high end video cards. All the money comes from the mid and low-range products they offer. The high end products are supposed to show who is better overall, but they usually don't.


BTW, I didn't even get into Tales of Phantasia and Chronological Trigger until a year or so before the gamecube came out. So they weren't top notch graphics when I got involved.

 

True... But the point being that they both try to enphisise you need the best of the best in video cards to get the best graphics...

 

Heh, I still play Starcraft and Baldur's Gate for example. It's just pure fun

 

Im going through metroid prime hunters at the moment and it is a great game, the last one i completed was "Hotel Dusk room 215" if you ever get a chance to relax and enjoy a good novel/game this is it, there will allways be 90% crap games and 10% good ones, also btw i played a xbox360 yesterday on my friends TV and i played a few games, it feels more fun gaming on a console than a pc to me for some reason, but not FPS nothing will ever beat a keyboard and mouse for those games, unless thay come out for consoles, btw im pissed at the moment.

 

Well with that first sentence I don't agree, people care about speeds and performances because you NEED it to play a game, how can it be fun playing a game that looks like crap and plays like crap because your PC can't handle it?

Look at my specs, not exactly shabby yet I can't run games like Oblivion and CS:S with medium settings, again how do you expect people to enjoy a game that runs like crap?

It's hard to explain, I did enjoy some games on my xbox because they always looked good and played good but the games lacked any real quality apart from Oblivion.

Plus the fact I expect too much and I'm never happy with anything, and also take into consideration the scope of games, imo, is poor, what does Stalker bring to the table in an FPS sense? nothing that I seen anyway.

To have fun with a game there are alot of different aspects, you can't just buy a game and have fun with it, whether it's on a PC that runs it smooth, a pc that runs it poorly or an xbox 360.

People like my dad enjoy every game because there level of expectation is very, very low, like a kid in all honesty, but people like me who have spent the last 8 years constantly playing games expect more, yet I don't know about everyone else, but it doesn't happen too often.

I loved Shenmue, I loved Mafia on the PC and I loved Oblivion on the xbox 360, yet those are the only 3 games that stand out in terms of single player, 3 games in about 8 years, all the games go for is better graphics, what about the gameplay? as good as GOW looked, it was a pretty crappy game and boring at the same time.

 

1st) then you have something seriously crippling your system. Oblivon and especially counter strike should run fine.

2nd) pc specs are apart of the game and is a totally separate issue.... I wont go into this because its not what this thread is about. the thread deals with issue from not having fun because we look in other directions besides the fun factor.

3rd) the fact that you said GOW was boring means.......well I dont KNOW because thats the first ive ever heard that. but one thing I do know is that it blows shenmu and mafia away. but to each his own .. maybe you just have a particular style and taste for games. and until more of your type of games comes out then your stuck....but I must admit im baffled by some of your logic..

 

I've never played GOW, so I'm biased, but I fail to see how any shoot-'em-up could ever appeal to me more than Mafia. The game was absolutely phenomenal. It was atmospheric, and had a great plot. It's one of those games that I list high up there with Deus Ex, Max Payne and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. Even though I'm a big fan of Far Cry and Unreal and etc. I would never even consider adding them to the same list as the four aforementioned. It's all subjective though, as for me, the atmosphere matters more than anything else.

 

Yeah my system feels like it's being crippled but the temps are great so I'm stuck.

But in the first post you mentioned gamers worrying too much about specs etc, didn't you?

How does it blow Shenmue and Mafia away? I'll tell you why you don't know why I said GOW was boring; opinion.

My opinion is that, Shenmue and Mafia > GOW and you disagree, which is obvious, but as you also stated we like different types of games, I know people that love FIFA and I know people that love PES, even though they are both football they are both very different.

I think CS is still one of the best games out there today, yet graphically it sucks, but does that matter? GOW had stunning graphics yet gameplay wise it sucked.

Graphics mean nothing, just ask the millions that play CS each and every day and have been for the past 10 years, all I'm saying is, if developers put more time into the gameplay aspects of games rather than the graphical element the games would be alot better.

What do you mean my logic? explain...

 

No you don't... That's the whole point! You don't NEED graphics to make a good game...

If your honestly asking that question then you are playing games for the wrong reason... It is very easy to enjoy a game if it looks like crap, as you say, as long as the other elements are in place...

That's the misconception, that if you can't run the game on full, your not going to enjoy it as much... Its the idea of the thread that if your SO focused on getting the best graphics, your not going to enjoy the game as much...

Exactly! So which is the better game? :grin:

 

well I agree that the developers these days seem to spend way more time than necessary implementing graphics and lighting and leave too little time for gameplay but I also think that it's the people who bitch and moan about any game that doesn't have the latest and greatest graphics who are to blame for it. For instance, I personally thought Morrowind was a great game but when it came out forums were full of "the graphics are lame" complaints and also a lot of people actually complained about it being too difficult with comments like "i don't know what to do or where to go" and "i never was able to finish it". So in a classic example of "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" Bethesda responded to the complaints and the result was Oblivion with graphics that nobody could run on high and a dumbed down konsole kiddie interface and the follow the stupid arrow gameplay. So i dunno who to blame for this...users who complain or developers who listen to the complaints. Normally you would think that a developer who listens to what the users want to have is a good thing but again it just seems to me that the one squeaky wheel gets the grease and they ignore the fact that the other three are happy.

I'm not very impressed with all of the game reviewers on the web who place an emphasis on graphics in their rating systems either.

 

Gear of war had awesome gameplay .. its 1 of the most played online multiplayer games out today. everything is subjective to the person .. thats not good or bad it just is..

the logic comment was maybe taken a little more aggressive than it should have been. what I meant was maybe your mentality of what games should be like for you. almost like you have your own personal niche on YOUR TYPE of game for it to be entertaining for your unique taste. im very much the same way i find about 75% of games i never finish. God of war 1. everyone told me how great it was... and they werent lying i thought the story was really good but didnt like the "beat em up " game play so i canned it. plus the graphics were not appealing to me. I loved the story just could force myself to keep playing it.

 

I completley agree with the fact that graphics dont make the game, it's 2/3's game play 1/3 graphics for me. Even though my PC is far capable of displaying decent graphics, the hardware is never going to make Beneath A Steel Sky, Day of The Tentacle or Full Throttle any better is it. I enjoy those old classics because of the game play back then. I would actually prefer the graphics to be like that, then to have new characters with SM3 etc. I very good thread this is and it's been interesting reading everyones points.

 

Me neither... I find reviews almost useless now a days... The only good they are is to watch the game play footage they show (or screen caps for web/mag reviews) and make up my mind for my self... :O I mean xplay does a review and all I hear is "it looks like crap, its ugly, lame graphics", ect...ect...

 

C'mon graphics are overrated, give me a "Hell Yeah" for Final Fantasy 7 on the PS1, still a stunning game.

Another one for the old PS1 was Bass Landing, with that fishing pole controller it was more fun than the real thing.

 

Know what you mean... I still love syphony of the night on ps1...

 

I completely agree with this thread.

games have turned into a bunch of whining. I enjoy a lot of games people complain about. That is not to say that some games are inherently crap, like when EA milks its product time after time. But besides that, I think people's standards are so high in the wrong areas that the industry goes that way.

 

I think the term "good graphics" is something that has become rather shallow over the years. It seems the measure of good graphics has really come down to technical merits, like how advanced the shader or lighting effects are, or how photorealistic a scene is rendered. While true, both of those can provide quality visuals, but are they really the only way to provide a "visually pleasing image?" Personally I have found that many games that are considered "good graphically" (by the above definitions) to be rather bland and unappealing visually. I suppose this comment also fits the "Mario thread," but would a Mario game for instance really be better off graphically if Mario was rendered extremely photorealistically? I find games visually appealing based upon the visual style and content, as opposed to the technical merits of the graphics engine.

On a side note, I wish there might be more cel-shaded games (for the PC anyways) in the future, as it really offers an alternative to everything being photorealistic these days.

I think one of the reasons for the possible lack of interest in games by more long time gamers is somewhat related to to the evolution of the industry. The gaming industry (if you really still want to call it that) has grown a lot, and modern games with high production values require large budgets as well. Of course in order to justify those budgets, they need to appeal to a larger audience to maximize potential sales. This of course leads to the problem that games start to seem more generic due to this.

 

Me too... I loved how they did WW cel-shaded, and wished they would do more games that way...