surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Heres one I have trouble with is Rule of Rose, great story and graphics, but the gameplay, for me at least is almost unplayable.
It's the same reason why you would rather play a NES game from 1985, like Punch Out or Megaman 2, and not touch a first generation PS1 game. Graphics will always age, but gameplay will last forever.
I love a beautiful game, but I love beautiful gameplay better.
This from someone who recommended the first Killzone for a Bargain Bin Laden. lol. I didn't agree with you then.
Considering that most media that game developers share with the public is of the visual affair, perhaps it's a trend that extends itself far beyond Killzone 2. How many clips do we have of Trailers and nary a hint of gameplay?
Quite a few.
I agree gameplay should rule above all else, but isn't that what everybody highlights or touts first?
This from someone who recommended the first Killzone for a Bargain Bin Laden. lol. I didn't agree with you then.
Considering that most media that game developers share with the public is of the visual affair, perhaps it's a trend that extends itself far beyond Killzone 2. How many clips do we have of Trailers and nary a hint of gameplay?
Quite a few.
I agree gameplay should rule above all else, but isn't that what everybody highlights or touts first?
I found Crysis to be a generally great game all around. I've played it through I don't know how many times now. The gameplay is fun and excited, and it's the single best looking game on any platform.
Yes, gameplay > graphics, any time, but there's not reason a game can't both look great and play great. My favorite game ever made is System Shock 2, and that was built on the Dark Engine (Thief 1), and at the time the Dark Engine was old! SS2 may not look that great, but it's got the best gameplay I've ever experienced in my 24 years of gaming.
Yes, gameplay > graphics, any time, but there's not reason a game can't both look great and play great. My favorite game ever made is System Shock 2, and that was built on the Dark Engine (Thief 1), and at the time the Dark Engine was old! SS2 may not look that great, but it's got the best gameplay I've ever experienced in my 24 years of gaming.
"This from someone who recommended the first Killzone for a Bargain Bin Laden."
The first Killzone is worth five bucks. Doesn't mean I think it's amazing. Just average.
The first Killzone is worth five bucks. Doesn't mean I think it's amazing. Just average.
Crysis is nothing but graphics. The gameplay sucked and i have no idea why people were freakin' out about it. The story line was boring and the people saying the game was non-linear... c'mon. Do you need a dictionary? If that's non-linear, what the crap is GTA 4? Real life?
Um, Crysis was a very good game. Better than Halo 3, CoD4, Mass, Effect, or Assassin's Creed easily. God mode + inf. suit + inf. rockets FTW.
Anyway, I'm sure this game will be solid. The PS3 can do shooters just as good as the 360(unlike the PS2 imo). I don't see why this game won't be that great. I'd like to compare Killzone 1 with Fable 1. The first ones were over-hyped and were average in reality. The sequels look like what the original should have been.
Anyway, I'm sure this game will be solid. The PS3 can do shooters just as good as the 360(unlike the PS2 imo). I don't see why this game won't be that great. I'd like to compare Killzone 1 with Fable 1. The first ones were over-hyped and were average in reality. The sequels look like what the original should have been.
I agree. I'm currently towards the end of playing Deus Ex for the first time. It looks like shit, but it's one of the funnest SP games I've ever played.
"So we assume it will suck?
ass, you, me."
You must be replying to the wrong article, because I cannot for the life of me see where I said Killzone 2 will suck. I do remember saying that talking about graphics over gameplay gives off the impression of a shallow game, but I am trying so hard to see where I said Killzone 2 will suck. I must have a blind spot for it or something.
ass, you, me."
You must be replying to the wrong article, because I cannot for the life of me see where I said Killzone 2 will suck. I do remember saying that talking about graphics over gameplay gives off the impression of a shallow game, but I am trying so hard to see where I said Killzone 2 will suck. I must have a blind spot for it or something.
Jim, being a known jerk, I must say: right-o! You really hit a topic I truly care about and 100% agree with.
Shiny graphics will always ensnare that subculture of gamers (see early 360 titles) but the graphics pimps are pretty much always the same group of developers and its always the same style of game. Where the graphics line needs to be drawn now we're in a situation where graphical differences are becoming harder to spot to the casual eye is between games like Killzone which focus on that quasi-realistic style and games like Okami and Jet Set Radio which go for a completely different graphic style which might not appeal to those graphic whores but who's graphics will continue to look good as the generations move on.
If developers don't say "in-game footage" everyone accuses them of being liars about what their game is like, so you can't blame them for using the term all the time.
Graphics and gameplay are equally important to me.
I liked Crysis as a game. It was fun. I liked having the nano-suit and being bad-ass. I liked how the scenery actually blurred and whoosh!'d by when I used Maximum Speed. I liked how the building I just threw that enemy into actually broke apart in a realistic way. I liked how the grass and trees looked real. I liked the weapon customization. I thought it was a good experience.
If the technology was worse? If there was no cool blur effect when I ran? If the building just shattered ala half-life crate when I knocked a baddie into it? Doesn't make me feel as powerful or awesome as it did with the eye candy. The experience is lessened.
But it works both ways. If the combat was boring, no amount of motion blur or bloom is going to make it fun. If the levels were boring, no amount of ambient foliage was going to make it more interesting. If the environment didn't react realistically, no amount of enemy flinging or vehicular madness is going to make it feel alive.
It's a balance. Just because a game had great graphics doesn't mean it's got shitty gameplay.
People judge pretty games harder than they judge average looking games, or games with novel art styles because "it's a graphics-whore's game" is an easy stance to take, and one that people jump on board quickly.
I liked Crysis as a game. It was fun. I liked having the nano-suit and being bad-ass. I liked how the scenery actually blurred and whoosh!'d by when I used Maximum Speed. I liked how the building I just threw that enemy into actually broke apart in a realistic way. I liked how the grass and trees looked real. I liked the weapon customization. I thought it was a good experience.
If the technology was worse? If there was no cool blur effect when I ran? If the building just shattered ala half-life crate when I knocked a baddie into it? Doesn't make me feel as powerful or awesome as it did with the eye candy. The experience is lessened.
But it works both ways. If the combat was boring, no amount of motion blur or bloom is going to make it fun. If the levels were boring, no amount of ambient foliage was going to make it more interesting. If the environment didn't react realistically, no amount of enemy flinging or vehicular madness is going to make it feel alive.
It's a balance. Just because a game had great graphics doesn't mean it's got shitty gameplay.
People judge pretty games harder than they judge average looking games, or games with novel art styles because "it's a graphics-whore's game" is an easy stance to take, and one that people jump on board quickly.
Amen, Jim. I forget where I read or heard it, but some game developer or industry insider was talking about this exact issue. In most cases, devs strive for good graphics to draw people in (“hey, that looks awesome”), but things like the control, gameplay, and story are what will keep them ensnared.
You also have to realize that marketing gameplay makes for boring ads.
"Oh man, or analog stick sensitivity is off the fucking chain in this game, man is it accurate."
How to you put into an ad that you've spent a lot of time working on your games controls? How do you show someone who isn't playing the game that your controls feel great?
"Oh man, or analog stick sensitivity is off the fucking chain in this game, man is it accurate."
How to you put into an ad that you've spent a lot of time working on your games controls? How do you show someone who isn't playing the game that your controls feel great?
"I agree with everything you said, but I just don't understand why Killzone 2 is your example. Neither am I accusing you of bias, I just am confounded as to why Killzone2 spurred this article, and not most of the games that have been coming out since this generation started. "
I explained in the article. Like I said, plenty of developers do it, but Guerrilla is one of the most up-front and obvious, and the recent Killzone 2 spurred the article. All people talk about with that game is the graphics, and it's made all the more apparent that this game barely talks about gameplay when you remember why -- the first Killzone was all looks as well.
I explained in the article. Like I said, plenty of developers do it, but Guerrilla is one of the most up-front and obvious, and the recent Killzone 2 spurred the article. All people talk about with that game is the graphics, and it's made all the more apparent that this game barely talks about gameplay when you remember why -- the first Killzone was all looks as well.
"How to you put into an ad that you've spent a lot of time working on your games controls? How do you show someone who isn't playing the game that your controls feel great?"
That's not the point.
Look, you tell me that Echochrome didn't have trailers that showed off great gameplay in lieu of amazing graphics. I rest my case.
That's not the point.
Look, you tell me that Echochrome didn't have trailers that showed off great gameplay in lieu of amazing graphics. I rest my case.
I think gameplay is a matter of the gamer willing to get used to certain controls, Rev Ant, and I believe that. So does it suck because your not comfortable with it? Or is it the gamer not wanting to adjust?
"Just seems like Crysis would've brought this on first."
Probably would have, but I'm not a PC gamer.
Probably would have, but I'm not a PC gamer.
May I be granted the permission to reproduce this for publication on my own page? This is something that has bothered me for ages.
"Just seems like Crysis would've brought this on first."
The difference is that Crysis was a new IP, and it did showcase the variety of ways you can tackle missions and alter your suit... whereas we've been down this road with the Killzone franchise before. They tried wowing people with eye-candy and superlative descriptors of their game. And it turned out ass. Cold Winter is the best FPS on PS2, by the way.
Thank you Jimbo for this article... over the past two or three years I've been nauseated with how shallow 70% of gamers have become. You'd think they'd never owned a console before 2006....
The difference is that Crysis was a new IP, and it did showcase the variety of ways you can tackle missions and alter your suit... whereas we've been down this road with the Killzone franchise before. They tried wowing people with eye-candy and superlative descriptors of their game. And it turned out ass. Cold Winter is the best FPS on PS2, by the way.
Thank you Jimbo for this article... over the past two or three years I've been nauseated with how shallow 70% of gamers have become. You'd think they'd never owned a console before 2006....
I agree with this blog whole heartedly.
Anyway, fuck Killzone, Halo, Gears of War, God of War, etc. The best game ever created is already out: Earth Defense Force 2017!
Anyway, fuck Killzone, Halo, Gears of War, God of War, etc. The best game ever created is already out: Earth Defense Force 2017!
Jim, I could not agree with your overall point more. Of course gameplay is more important than graphics.
But I think it's okay to get a little excited over pretty visuals in the early stages and then form a more intelligent opinion about the game once more info is revealed.
I would never support someone that loved a game for just being pretty, but I also wouldn't lambaste someone for just getting excited over a cool-looking trailer.
I think Killzone 2 is a strange exception since the developers feel like they have something to prove after all the controversy from a couple of years ago.
Great article, though. Like always, you are amazing. :)
But I think it's okay to get a little excited over pretty visuals in the early stages and then form a more intelligent opinion about the game once more info is revealed.
I would never support someone that loved a game for just being pretty, but I also wouldn't lambaste someone for just getting excited over a cool-looking trailer.
I think Killzone 2 is a strange exception since the developers feel like they have something to prove after all the controversy from a couple of years ago.
Great article, though. Like always, you are amazing. :)
Thanks for a well-written article that carves the sensible middle ground. The debate shouldn't come down to graphics vs. gameplay like Nintendo fans like to argue. Nor should we knock a game because it's graphics aren't as good, as many Sony or MS fans are apt to argue.
A nice balance of the two is required. No one wants to play some PS2 port to the Wii with PS1 era graphics. But, nobody really wanted to play Lair either.
A nice balance of the two is required. No one wants to play some PS2 port to the Wii with PS1 era graphics. But, nobody really wanted to play Lair either.
It makes sense that they want to prove themselves that they can deliver outstanding visuals after their first mistake (CGI without CGI warning to make internet crowds discuss their games). And when you have the best graphics in the bunch (that's of course my opinion), and that you can't let people play the game to show off the gameplay, it is understandbe that they underscore the extremely good graphics.
Also, the in-game footage does not only serve to boast the graphics, it also displays immersive player animation, the duck&cover while staying in first person perspective, the player and NPC interaction, the incredible physics effect, all which help an immersive gameplay experience. And of course, after their first big mistake, they have to remind that these are actually in-game, for a change. This also reduces further confusion and speculation. (Yes it doesn't look good as the first CGI, but is this also a CGI to lure more people to their game?)
Also, the in-game footage does not only serve to boast the graphics, it also displays immersive player animation, the duck&cover while staying in first person perspective, the player and NPC interaction, the incredible physics effect, all which help an immersive gameplay experience. And of course, after their first big mistake, they have to remind that these are actually in-game, for a change. This also reduces further confusion and speculation. (Yes it doesn't look good as the first CGI, but is this also a CGI to lure more people to their game?)
I don't need Crysis level graphics, but I do expect some level of quality in most games. I'm beginning Morrowind right now and enjoying it much less than Oblivion. Most of my dislike is caused by its complicatedness and much less useful interface, but the ugly graphics do add something. It's still a great game though.
"...deliver something of substance, or get the fuck off my radar."
Quote of the year. This is why I don't give two shits about most previews and trailers. It's all hype and bullshit.
Quote of the year. This is why I don't give two shits about most previews and trailers. It's all hype and bullshit.
I always wait to play a game before I draw any conclusions about it, but dammit I can get fucking excited over graphics!
Has anyone played Little Big Planet? (for example) Maybe the whole game is done through the use of Sixaxis, now wouldn't that suck balls? Don't get excited though....
You can have a fucking hot chick who sucks at sex (as if there is bad sex) or you can have a fat ugly chick who can turn your crank in 30 seconds....hrmmmm
That comparison was pretty useless but I chuckled a little bit in my head when I thought about so I decided to share it.
Has anyone played Little Big Planet? (for example) Maybe the whole game is done through the use of Sixaxis, now wouldn't that suck balls? Don't get excited though....
You can have a fucking hot chick who sucks at sex (as if there is bad sex) or you can have a fat ugly chick who can turn your crank in 30 seconds....hrmmmm
That comparison was pretty useless but I chuckled a little bit in my head when I thought about so I decided to share it.
Yep, honesty. It's all we're asking for. If you gotta lie about your game's potential or hide it with buzz and hype, take a new direction in your development or stop making games.
what's wrong with crysis, i thought its an excellent FPS with excellent graphics. i'd much rather play crysis then Halo, if they got the same online treatment (ie xbox live)
@ The Wrath: "What does gameplay matter if you don't like what you're looking at? Gameplay is a supporting cast member."
The hell? Gameplay shouldn't be the most important thing in a video game?
The hell? Gameplay shouldn't be the most important thing in a video game?
Yep, honesty. It's all we're asking for. If you gotta lie about your game's potential or hide it with buzz and hype, take a new direction in your development or stop making games.
i agree with the article, but using killzone as an example of marketing hype, bad gameplay etc, etc. is getting tired. nobody took a big dump on halo 3 when it came out and i'm sorry, but that won the all-time marketing hype award and for what? if we are going to crap on killzone, halo 3 did nothing substantial to change gameplay from version 1 and 2. having such a long time and massive amounts of $$$ and all we got was re-hashed gameplay. bungie threw in a bubble shield and every 14 year old creamed their pants to get hold of it. face it many videogame developers are guilty of many sins, some in graphics department, some in the gameplay department.
i agree with the article, but using killzone as an example of marketing hype, bad gameplay etc, etc. is getting tired. nobody took a big dump on halo 3 when it came out and i'm sorry, but that won the all-time marketing hype award and for what? if we are going to crap on killzone, halo 3 did nothing substantial to change gameplay from version 1 and 2. having such a long time and massive amounts of $$$ and all we got was re-hashed gameplay. bungie threw in a bubble shield and every 14 year old creamed their pants to get hold of it. face it many videogame developers are guilty of many sins, some in graphics department, some in the gameplay department.
I choked on what I was drinking when I read the water effects comment. I always found it funny how no what genre, or even if water is so scarcely seen in the game, it being pretty is always a pissing contest.
Graphics are an easy springboard to promote a game because there has been such a leap between generations. Its clear most current gen games look better than last gens.
Other areas of gaming haven't come forward so noticeably, like the AI that seems to always get promised, but not delivered on, and a lot of stale plot devices like 'moral decisions' and 'non-linear, do whatever you want' gameplay.
Of course, physics engines seem to have come a long way, but I don't think advertising a game on its use of physics engines is likely to attract buyers who weren't already thinking about it.
Personally give me a game that plays well, and doesn't look horrible, rather than a game that looks gorgeous, but is made from the same cookie cutter as everything else on the market.
Other areas of gaming haven't come forward so noticeably, like the AI that seems to always get promised, but not delivered on, and a lot of stale plot devices like 'moral decisions' and 'non-linear, do whatever you want' gameplay.
Of course, physics engines seem to have come a long way, but I don't think advertising a game on its use of physics engines is likely to attract buyers who weren't already thinking about it.
Personally give me a game that plays well, and doesn't look horrible, rather than a game that looks gorgeous, but is made from the same cookie cutter as everything else on the market.
IGN previewed it, and said it played well, kind of like cod4.
TRY AND PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR REAR JIM. Just because you are not a real gaming journalist who makes stupid claims like this. Killzone2 will be good. revolutionary? i doubt it. but good.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/872/872009p1.html
At least those guys are for real. I wish you could of posted this again with out killzone 2 being in the middle of it. Then it would make more sense.
Killzone 2 will look amazing, but play kind of like cod4 knock off. If that is the case, sign me up.
TRY AND PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR REAR JIM. Just because you are not a real gaming journalist who makes stupid claims like this. Killzone2 will be good. revolutionary? i doubt it. but good.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/872/872009p1.html
At least those guys are for real. I wish you could of posted this again with out killzone 2 being in the middle of it. Then it would make more sense.
Killzone 2 will look amazing, but play kind of like cod4 knock off. If that is the case, sign me up.
Know what game you should of used? LAIR!
That is the perfect example to this rant of yours. Not Killzone 2.
That is the perfect example to this rant of yours. Not Killzone 2.
@hexfix "Just because you are not a real gaming journalist who makes stupid claims like this." -- What does that even mean? Jim's giving his opinion on what he prefers in his gaming, go over to Heretic's blog if you want to bash someone who's giving his opinion on a specific game.
Also, I don't want to play a prettier "cod4 knock off", and if you do you need your head checked. Not to mention that COD4 is good-looking enough as is, developers should be striving to make something better than what's already there, not just copy/paste gameplay with a graphics upgrade. I hope Killzone 2 is amazing, so I can finally buy a PS3 for something other than MGS and FF.
And Dan CiTi... Crysis... I don't give a damn about Halo, but better than CoD4 and Mass Effect...
You silly, silly man.
Also, I don't want to play a prettier "cod4 knock off", and if you do you need your head checked. Not to mention that COD4 is good-looking enough as is, developers should be striving to make something better than what's already there, not just copy/paste gameplay with a graphics upgrade. I hope Killzone 2 is amazing, so I can finally buy a PS3 for something other than MGS and FF.
And Dan CiTi... Crysis... I don't give a damn about Halo, but better than CoD4 and Mass Effect...
You silly, silly man.
follow
