Are you basically calling us all grumpy old men ? 😜

rgart wrote:

Are you basically calling us all grumpy old men ? 😜

Aren't we? 😵

Modern graphics may look nice but the 'wow' factor wears off fast. And after that wears off, the gameplay will come under the spotlight. And if that too is not good or not sustainable, then there's nothing more that's left of the game.

I just wish developers concentrate on bringing out games with the best and involving gameplay experience as possible, rather than try to make the next best " graphics tech demo showcase".

I just wish they stop chasing after graphics and pushing the limits of graphics capability of a system when the current tech is underutilized, and make use of what's available at hand to bring out the best gameplay in each genre.

My opinion is biased, since I'm very much influenced by the classic Dos era games, and sentimentally and nostalgically attached to those. But when I think about it, I wonder why I was able to get immediately hooked to the games that came then, and was constantly awed by the games, despite of the poor graphics resolution and capability at that time when compared to current standards, and not with the current generation games.

Games like Lemmings, was different. Adventure games were very memorable, some of which I still re-play again and again, and the graphics never seemed "old" for me - for e.g. - the original Secret of Monkey Island or King's Quest V. Wargames and tactical overhead strategy games are rare release now, if ever. Paper&Pencil type of deep RPGs were aplenty.

I'm also happy that I still can enjoy 16-colour EGA games now, and didn't get "corrupted" with the latest games. And well, if the game supported only CGA, it's also playable - Sokoban and Karateka come to mind, mostly because that's what I remember playing in the beginning.

Flight Sims are also getting rare nowadays - maybe because there's nothing more to simulate once it's done. Flight Sims is one area I wouldn't mind the developers bring out the best in the graphics department - photo realistic scenery, graphics that scale real time to show the details of buildings and nature landscape as you descend, etc., but sadly, it's the action games - read FPS *cough-* *cough* Call of Duty *cough*...- games that are being milked dry nowadays.

However I don't dismiss all new games, since I also seem to be playing some new games. Just that new games do not leave a lasting impression on me like how those old Dos games did, even comparing graphically.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

I have a different view. I can't blame the developers / publishers / industry. Whenever they did make a decent game, not enough people bought it. Heck people talk about Crysis as the "last proper PC game" but when it came out everyone was talking bad about it, pirating it because it wasn't "worth the money".

Most of us here are older and what we need to understand is that the current games aren't for us but for our kids and they love these games. It's like we listened to our parents how much better pac man or space invaders was compared to doom and how those games took real skill, no save games, cheats and all of that and how Doom takes no real skill.

It has all happened before 😀

This is all the same bullshit again. Why did I start coming back to old games since I was 11? Was I old by then? Most of my friends are younger than me, around 14-18 (I'm 20 for 2 months now), and they always keep coming back to CS 1.6, GTA: SA, FEAR 1, and League of Legends. Just because some obese USA/Australia 12 year old brats play CoD all day does not mean that kids "love" these games. Maybe kids born after 2003 who never played anything different. As a kid I liked some games that "internet comedians" make stupid videos in the style of "worst games ever" now. You know why? Because I didn't have many games, plus my brain was not massaged by reviews telling what it is OK and not OK to like. I know a kid who likes the obscure FPS Vivisector, for example. Most people I know only dream about playing the latest games, and when they get luck and play them, they just play through them one time and then move on.

As for us being "old", I don't know about anyone around me personally who plays games and is over 25. The generation of my parents does not have nostalgia towards Pac Man because at the time when you played Pac Man there was a communist regime here and computers were incredibly rare outside schools, and in school they taught programming, not playing Pac Man. Where I live, computer games are pretty much the realm of people who grew up from 90s up till today because in the 80s "gaming" simply wasn't a thing here.

You need to chill out a bit and not take things personal based on your circumstances 😀

Kids DO love games like COD, that's why they sell so much. You can't blame the publishers when the masses actually PREFERS COD over games like Crysis. Why on earth wouldn't they make games people actually want to play and are happy to pay for? Your friends play CS and FEAR because that's what they grew up with (can you see the trend). People's norms are largely based on what they know when they grew up.

Customers are ALWAYS the driving factor and there is no reason to get upset once you realise that what you like doesn't reflect the majority of gamers. Retro gaming is a niche and there are GOG.com and other ways of obtaining these games. So I am not sure what you're complaining about?

If you want another space quest, why don't you make one, try selling it and see how you feel when hardly anyone buys it.

Me personally, I embrace the new generation of games and also enjoy playing old ones. Every generation has its art, music, games and they deserve to enjoy what THEY want just like we did.

If you missed out because of circumstances, I am sorry, but don't try to make others feel bad for this.

Grew up with? Except that they are still growing up, I don't consider 16 year olds "adults" (although I don't feel like an adult either, I don't feel any more mature honestly then 3-4 years ago).

As for customers, well, the average age of the buying gamer is around 35 if I am correct. Buying trends are not really a good indicator, at least if my experience is correct, because most people I know buy a game maybe 1x a year and pirate the rest. Most kids and teenagers in the world don't have the money to buy latest consoles or PCs nor 60 Euro games. Add to this that Slovakia, the country I live in is a RICH country compared to most of the world, and you get the real picture instead of the first world picture. Maybe in America mommy will buy Jake a 60 Euro game, here you just ask a friend to torrent it and bring it to you on an USB key. So what do the sales tell? That kids from really rich countries like CoD, it does not tell anything more.

Space Quest? Well, I don't play games THAT old (I'm more of a 1993-2005 gaming guy), but I am sure a Space Quest-like adventure with modern graphics and 3D would sell to quite a lot of people. Why should games be aimed at 12 year old brats anyway? It is not like they actually have the money to buy CoD, it is their parents who listen to every whim of their kid who buy them one.

The kids aren't even legally allowed to buy these games 😀

Their parents to that.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

The kids aren't even legally allowed to buy these games 😀

Their parents to that.

Is that actually enforced in the Western world? I often bought games with a big red 18 on them even when I was quite a few years below 18.

Those people I know who bought games had to do it out of their pocket money usually, even if they were 13. I was one of the few kids whose parents bought them games sometimes and those were PC games, quite bit cheaper than console games.

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

rgart wrote:

Are you basically calling us all grumpy old men ? 😜

Aren't we? 😵

But of course we are! 😜

Malik wrote:

Flight Sims are also getting rare nowadays - maybe because there's nothing more to simulate once it's done. Flight Sims is one area I wouldn't mind the developers bring out the best in the graphics department - photo realistic scenery, graphics that scale real time to show the details of buildings and nature landscape as you descend, etc., but sadly, it's the action games - read FPS *cough-* *cough* Call of Duty *cough*...- games that are being milked dry nowadays.

Share the same sentiment here. The problem with today's flight sims that they're too realistic for their own good, alienating casual flight simmers like me. When Secret Weapons Over Normandy came out, I was full of hope, wishing that it would be the modern version of Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe or Strike Commander. Turned out it's nothing but shooter on the sky.

forgot this post

DracoNihil wrote:

Can I have that software renderer without the coloured lighting but keep the transparent water?

There's 3 software engines that can do water translucency:

Engoo
Makaqu
QbismSuper8

I agree with mau. M1so's posts are almost always full of hate and I just can't really agree with him on most stuff. He is exactly my age but we have a completely different view on things.
Saying that modern graphics in general are shit is a generalization. I think this whole topic tries to reflect on modern games and the industry as a whole, not just a the graphics. Limitation can be a good thing. It drives imagination and creativity. As such, the 80s and 90s saw some amazing games. The NES, although primitive nowadays, still has a ton of games you can pick and play and truly appreciate even today. Same thing on the PC and possibly every other game system.

I call such games timeless, classics. You can always appreciate them for what they are. However, such games, much like today, were few inbetween clones of other games. For example, Doom set a standard. Everyone copied Doom. Some outright copied the formula and either succedeed but are kinda forgotten or just failed. Others took the formula and changed it, took it a step forward.

The same thing happened with the RTS genre. Dune 2 came out, took everybody by storm and then we had clones. Thanks to Dune 2 we got the Warcraft games ( I would argue that we got the entirety of Blizzard Entertainment) and then some other masterpieces like Command & Conquer, Starcraft ( which really really took the formula forward with amazing storytelling and very different gameplay style for each race), Total Annihilation...
There was some major shit in between though. Anybody remember Dark Colony?

These were just two examples. I don't know about you but I usually only like to remember those games that truly offered something (or at least made me have fun). As such, I don't remember too much of the bullcrap. That's part of nostalgia. You see, the NES and PS1 were awesome consoles. They had a ton of bad games too though. We just pick out the really good ones from the shit pile 😀.

As for nowadays, I think the situation is far better than it ever was. There is a market for everyone. Like mau has discussed before, Steam is amazing. It has a ton of titles and they are available at very very low prices on special sales. Online distribution may have imposed such crap as DRM on us, but it has also managed to drive down prices on online games and retail games.
But the greatest gift it has bestowed upon is CHOICE. Look at kickstarter. A lot of arguments about it, but you know what? I've been dying for a sequel to Tex Murphy and I'm finally getting it. So did Larry fans and so forth...

Sure you may hate CoD and its clones (I actually rather like Medal of Honour 2010's Multiplayer, I've had a lot of fun playing with a friend 😀 ), but I don't see why you should whine when you can get other games and support other developers 😀. There are still small teams (indie) making awesome games and you can support them directly.

Now I want to talk specifically about the graphics. Computers drew me in a lot because of video games. I wanted to know how they work. I think once you set your mind on that and generally realize how computers work or have coded something, you start looking at things differently. I realize this when I play the same game as others. I notice things and patterns that others don't. I understand how it generally works 😀.
The dawn of 3D truly pushed the boundaries. I remember looking at the first pixel shader enabled games and having my jaw drop on the floor. It looked amazing.

Nowadays, we have reached a certain point where current consoles are hindering development. There are still games that wow me though. And the future looks great, with new consoles and new developments. Gameplay wise, the market will find a new trend much like CoD and Gears of War and follow it but we will still have the option of selecting.
I am particularly looking forward to Watch Dogs, if it reaches the levels of interactivity it promises we may be talking about a really really amazing game.

One thing I'd like to say about COD 😀

Now I'm 30+ and I can buy whatever game I want. I have both consoles, but still a huge PC gamer at heart. On the console I like third person games like Unchartered or Splinter Cell. On the PC I love my FPS games.

Now I used to only play Battle Field on the PC. 2142 was my main drug, then I switched to Bad Company 2 which was awesome and then Battle Field 3. But I was a bit over it and it felt like you always had to look for the fight and there wasn't much action but rather lots of running around. I never looked at COD and would say it's for kids and men play Battle Field.

Then I pre-ordered Black Ops 2 because I wanted to see what's it like from day one. And as soon as I played it I was hooked. I sucked at first but quickly became better and in the end quite good actually, able to keep up with young snappers. I will never be able to play COD on the console with the little sticks, but on the PC I have my surround sound, decent graphics card, screen and mouse and that helps quite a bit.

What I like about COD is that the action is right there. No need to run around an epic map and look for action. It's great to relax at night, kill a few noobs and go to bed.

But the main thing for me, and this is something pretty much ANY classic / cult game has is the golden rule of gaming:

Easy to learn, hard to master.

And COD is exactly that. There is not much to it. Run, shoot, reload, learn the game modes. But it is hard to get really good at it and end up on top of the leaderboard, learn all the maps and spawn points, balance the unlocks, avoid areas when you are at a disadvantage and all of that.

And that is why I believe COD is such a hit. It allows ANYONE to get into it and have fun and with time if you commit to it you will become better.

I got to prestige master and not playing anymore but I will get Ghost on pre-order, pre-download it if possible and try to kill noobs from day one and have a blast 😀

I think publishers are a bigger worry than graphics stuck at a standstill.... Microsoft making DLC production mandatory for their cut is the biggest detrimental influence. The "play it safe" regards to game design innovation, the publisher specific DRMs with REALLY BAD policies (GFWL, Origin and uPlay), the war against the secondhand market, the lack of PC demos, the exclusivity to stick to the Windows platform, the overinflated profit projections and the massive layoffs that occur if they don't exceed them 300%, the screwing over developers after years of producing up to the point of a beta...

I've actually thought graphics were getting a bit boring for years. It was when the landscape in NFS4 looked the same as Tomb raider that came out about same time. 2 different games, engine, company, everything. but that's what you get when something becomes a standard. pre Direct X developers had to write everything from scratch so games looked so different. Think Warcraf2 compared to C&C or Rott compared to Doom

I prefer NFS3 graphics over NFS4, it has more character both are based on the same engine but the damage model wouldn't have been possible which adds better gameplay, so sometimes developers can get whats important right

"Saying that modern graphics in general are shit is a generalization. "

This is true. If good graphics go along with a good game then I don't mind it but when they try to tart up a shitty game with pretty graphics and think that it makes up for all the shortcomings of the actual gameplay (or lack thereof), that's when I have a problem with it. They should put more money into making a good game first and then worry about the graphics later. Duke Nukem Forever, anyone?

A nice example? Saints Row The Third vs. Saints Row 2.

The Third looks a whole lot better and runs fast, but they took out several gameplay features like some activities, and improvised combat. also a smaller less memorable map with less landmarks.

What about the programmer that has to code everything to make the graphics look better? We've been at a stage for probably 10 years where graphics have been getting better in small increments and the more detailed graphics become the longer it takes to produce the art & graphics to go with it, I personally believe its more to do with the complexity of producing accurate models and refining light/physics than lack of effort.

To me the biggest wow factor is how accurate hair behaves in modern games, thousands of strands of hair moving and looking the way it should behave in real life, unbelievable, in the 90s hair was a static shape look at how far we've come.

dirkmirk wrote:

To me the biggest wow factor is how accurate hair behaves in modern games, thousands of strands of hair moving and looking the way it should behave in real life, unbelievable, in the 90s hair was a static shape look at how far we've come.

Lara's hair with TressFX activated looks really nice in Tomb Raider. It's impressive!

The challenge with graphics is that we have reached such a level that little improvements have a very high computational cost.

The difference between high and Ultra is barely noticeable but can cut frames in half.

I still feel good games that appear every now and them sell well, despite its graphical qualities. But yes, I agree there is too many copycats nowadays.