Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Melissia wrote:
The only distinctly review-like writing I can remember making was where I mildly defended Duke Nukem Forever a while back. Granted, I claim no ability to write good reviews, myself, but that doesn't mean I can't spot a bad one

I think you'd do a better job than the current crop of video game reviewers.

 Trondheim wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Lotet wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
It should be easy like somebody saying 'Hey guys spread out and die less!' Seriously AoE would be infinitely easier to handle if that was a thing.

I'm pretty sure AoE2 and AoE3 both have that. Loose formation that is.

Oh I didn't mean 'Age of Empires' I meant 'Area of Effect' type attacks. Also I was referring to starcraft 1 and 2's lack of a loose formation.

I am quite sure he understood what you meant, and he replied accordigly.

Nah, I misinterpreted it, I thought he meant Age of Empires.

 Sigvatr wrote:
movie cinematic gameplay

You say this like it's a good thing.

It is, for a huge amount of people.

 Melissia wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
movie cinematic gameplay

You say this like it's a good thing.

I think you cut off the "high quality" that was in quotes before that quote.

I am curious about that statement.

It would be easy to respond "You say that like it is a bad thing.", is it?

I have been amused by the cinematic experience as well as many consumers so I am unsure where that critique is going.

I feel like video games in general are doing pretty well, short of a few glaring exceptions (looking at you Battlefront), and for me at least there's plenty to look forward to even if its not completely revolutionary or generation defining. With mods and the various indie companies going about with things like Undertale there's a decent amount of diversity to keep things relatively fresh.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
movie cinematic gameplay

You say this like it's a good thing.

I think you cut off the "high quality" that was in quotes before that quote.

I am curious about that statement.

It would be easy to respond "You say that like it is a bad thing.", is it?

I have been amused by the cinematic experience as well as many consumers so I am unsure where that critique is going.

they can be really bad. take the first lego star wars and trying to do the pod race. you had to win each leg of the race to keep going and in the middle of one was a cut scene. so after being forced to watch it a few to many times, and being unable to skip it, it got old fast.

when used properly they can be really good and help move the story along, but when used improperly they suck the big one. Good or bad, they all should have a button to skip them.

sirlynchmob wrote:
they can be really bad. take the first lego star wars and trying to do the pod race. you had to win each leg of the race to keep going and in the middle of one was a cut scene. so after being forced to watch it a few to many times, and being unable to skip it, it got old fast.
when used properly they can be really good and help move the story along, but when used improperly they suck the big one. Good or bad, they all should have a button to skip them.

Ah! You might be confusing actual "cinematics" vs. "cinematic quality" where if the pod race is dramatically portrayed on the screen with great looking graphics, there should be little need for breaking immersion with a "cut-scene".
Where it could get bad is if dramatic looking points of view are created that could disorient the player during play.
I have seen my fair share of "pants on head" moments where I wanted my viewpoint control back.

 Talizvar wrote:
I have been amused by the cinematic experience as well as many consumers so I am unsure where that critique is going.

I feel that the "cinematic" experience is unimaginative and doesn't make the most out of the interactivity of gaming.

As for "high quality", a lot of games might have "realistic" graphics, but still manage to be boring to look at, while games with "lower" quality graphics just as frequently end up having a unique style that makes them interesting to look at. And that's just the graphics. Developers that end up thinking that graphics are the end-all be-all of gaming, or even near the top of the list of importance, are frequently trounced by games like Minecraft which focus on gameplay-- because games that focus on gameplay make the most out of the medium.

If I was pressed for examples? I'd say Psychonauts has better graphics than, say, Grand Theft Auto 5. Yes, GTAV has better quality renderings... but it's boring and samey and has nothing that really stands out. Psychonauts is visually interesting and has its own style that stands well and above. GTAV will age and age poorly as time goes on and quality gets better, but Psychonauts will always be interesting.

 Melissia wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
I have been amused by the cinematic experience as well as many consumers so I am unsure where that critique is going.

I feel that the "cinematic" experience is unimaginative and doesn't make the most out of the interactivity of gaming.

As for "high quality", a lot of games might have "realistic" graphics, but still manage to be boring to look at, while games with "lower" quality graphics just as frequently end up having a unique style that makes them interesting to look at. And that's just the graphics. Developers that end up thinking that graphics are the end-all be-all of gaming, or even near the top of the list of importance, are frequently trounced by games like Minecraft which focus on gameplay-- because games that focus on gameplay make the most out of the medium.

If I was pressed for examples? I'd say Psychonauts has better graphics than, say, Grand Theft Auto 5. Yes, GTAV has better quality renderings... but it's boring and samey and has nothing that really stands out. Psychonauts is visually interesting and has its own style that stands well and above. GTAV will age and age poorly as time goes on and quality gets better, but Psychonauts will always be interesting.

Well.. You're wrong. Psychonauts has a far more interesting aesthetic, that doesn't make the graphics better.

 Soladrin wrote:
Well.. You're wrong. Psychonauts has a far more interesting aesthetic, that doesn't make the graphics better.

Yes it does.

Something that's boring to look at has bad graphics. It doesn't matter how high quality the graphics are if they're dull and uninteresting.

 Melissia wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Well.. You're wrong. Psychonauts has a far more interesting aesthetic, that doesn't make the graphics better.

Yes it does.

Something that's boring to look at has bad graphics. It doesn't matter how high quality the graphics are if they're dull and uninteresting.

Graphics and aesthetics are not interchangeable.

 Melissia wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Well.. You're wrong. Psychonauts has a far more interesting aesthetic, that doesn't make the graphics better.

Yes it does.

Something that's boring to look at has bad graphics. It doesn't matter how high quality the graphics are if they're dull and uninteresting.

No it doesn't.

Graphics =/= visual style.

The latter is the term you're looking for. Graphics can be objectively assessed in terms of technology, polygon count etc. Visual styles are subjective, and in fact I'd be more inclined to agree with you if you said Pscyhonauts has the more interesting visual style.

Edit: Aesthetics is a more accurate term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Well.. You're wrong. Psychonauts has a far more interesting aesthetic, that doesn't make the graphics better.

Yes it does.

Something that's boring to look at has bad graphics. It doesn't matter how high quality the graphics are if they're dull and uninteresting.

No. A game can have fantastic photo realistic graphics, but still look boring. And a game can look very interesting and striking, but with terrible graphics.

I'd say Battlefield 4 and Minecraft are examples of each.

I look to games as I do with books: for immersion.
The graphics, style, challenge and theme/story must all add up to a certain level to be "good".
Darkest Dungeon I swear is sprite graphics but it is a whole lot of alright on all the other elements, it helps that I like dark themes.
I am sure Starview Valley is a great game but the graphics are just low end enough to give me pause.

I think a deliberate style chosen can dictate the look and play of a game, it lends it some coherency.

Plus would I be a bad person for being happy to see "The Day of the Tentacle" remastered?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No. A game can have fantastic photo realistic graphics, but still look boring.

Which means its graphics are bad.

Boring is by far the worst, most insulting thing you can say about a video game.

@melissia: Most insulting thing? How about your game sucks, isn't fun and the mechanics work together worse than the 'tin man' in the wizard of oz before he got oiled joints.

Thanks to steam greenlight there are a lot of crappy games out there, But overall there are a lot of good games available, Although in my opinion there is too much focus on FPS games.

 Melissia wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No. A game can have fantastic photo realistic graphics, but still look boring.

Which means its graphics are bad.

Boring is by far the worst, most insulting thing you can say about a video game.

Well no. When people say "Graphics" they're typically talking about graphical fidelity Graphics are the technical merits and polish of the effects, models, textures, lighting and animations. However there is more than graphics to how a game looks, and general aesthetics stand distinct from graphics. Art Design & Direction, the use of color, architecture and atmosphere to create something visually interesting and engaging. You can't just lump everything regarding appearances into "Graphics" because the distinction captures the difference between real and important elements of a game. A high budget modern grey/brown military shooter is going to have very good graphics: Highly detailed textures and models, smooth animations, crisp accurate lighting & water effects, and realistic dust, smoke and fire. However one might be fair in finding the appearance to be bit boring, uninspired and tiring to look at. By the same token a game could suffer from dodgy animation, low res textures and draw distance issues and still have interesting character designs, inspired environments and distinctive palette that still come together into something stimulating and enjoyable to look at it.

 Melissia wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
No. A game can have fantastic photo realistic graphics, but still look boring.

Which means its graphics are bad.

Boring is by far the worst, most insulting thing you can say about a video game.

No it doesn't. FFS Melissia, we've literally spelt it out for you. Have you actually bothered to read our responses?

You are conflating two separate terms, Graphics and Aesthetics. You are by far the most dogmatic member on Dakka Dakka that I know of.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
What do you base "high quality" on? CoD has "high quality" movie cinematic gameplay.

Yet terrible repetitive mechanics.

It is possible to gauge quality in entertainments, not quantitatively of course but its very difficult to gauge the quality of anything quantitatively. There will always be a degree of subjectivity but meh.

Which is the better film, Aliens or Alien 3. The better burger, MacDonalds or Five guys? The better game, Daikatana or Doom?

Aliens 3 is a good film, in its way just as good as Alien, but it doesn't make any sense without already having seen Alien and Aliens. The three films are part of an overall story arc.

Five Guys is better than McD and twice as expensive.

Doom was better than Daikatana, which suffered terribly from an overlong development period and badly inflated expectations.

Call of Duty is repetitive because there are very few variations possible in the basic scenario of modern soldiers running around and shooting each other. Tomb Raider tried to innovate its mechanics as the series went on, and one or two versions were bloody terrible as a result.

 Chongara wrote:
Well no. When people say "Graphics" they're typically talking about graphical fidelity

The term "graphical fidelity" exists specifically to differentiate from "graphics" as a whole. "Graphics" is more than just "graphical fidelity".

 Melissia wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Well no. When people say "Graphics" they're typically talking about graphical fidelity

The term "graphical fidelity" exists specifically to differentiate from "graphics" as a whole. "Graphics" is more than just "graphical fidelity".

I have to agree that "graphics" applies to both functional and artistic.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graphic

I really liked the Infinity Engine games of that era but feel no need to dust off that old interface: it is painful to use now... dated.
Sure, dust off some old games and make them good again, but let us adhere to the creative good elements and not re-create the limitations of the hardware or bad interface design from that time.

Man, if I had known my love for older rpgs had such bearing on current generation game design I would have been more upset about how bad The Old Republic was.

Thank you for opening my eyes, off to post various inciteful messages on other boards so my favorite designers know that they're doing it wrong.

 Melissia wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Well no. When people say "Graphics" they're typically talking about graphical fidelity

The term "graphical fidelity" exists specifically to differentiate from "graphics" as a whole. "Graphics" is more than just "graphical fidelity".

"Graphical Fidelity" isn't even a term used in casual conversation on games, and only rarely in reviews and other more formal discussions. I only used it here to avoid the redundancy of when saying something like "When people say graphics, they mean the graphics". In the specific realm of video games (well, computers more generally) "Graphics" really is more often to described what might be thought of technicals, rather than art direction. Just contrast the definitions of "Computer Graphics" and "Graphics" and you'll see the difference in framing. The (or at least a) commonly understood usage of "Graphics" in the context of video games much closer to "Computer Graphics" than the more general dictionary definition of "Graphics"

Even if I just concede the point and say he was using the term incorrectly, the point he was making was still totally clear: "Game looked good on technical merits, design was flat and uninspired:"

Video games don't suck. You've just outgrown them.

It is unfortunate that in many ways as we get older we can spout-off about the "good old days".

It is easy to dismiss a "new" game as just some other "me too" version of a game that came before.

It really can be an opportunity to expose a new generation to prior game concepts we valued.

I still have mixed feelings of the label "Rogue-Like" but it's connotation for me is ASCII graphics, it was hard and all and I played it on a mainframe but really now.

I still love Fantasy games, just dusted off the updated "Divinity: Original Sin Enhanced Edition" and liking it, "Pillars of Eternity" may get another go.
Heck, I will say this quietly but I now actually like Diablo 3 with the gazillion changes they made (took long enough).
"Grim Dawn" may be next on the list (my second cousin Eric Sexton got to work on it, yay!) which I hear is a different style than "Path of Exile".

Where was I going with this?
There is a whole lot of awesome out there and current comparisons with programs that came out within the last 5 years would be a good start.

I am so happy programmers do not need a big developer name to get their programs out.
Darkest Dungeon I am very happy with, heck "Space Pirates vs. Zombies" is a fine guilty pleasure for me (SPAZ2 soon!).

 Talizvar wrote:


It really can be an opportunity to expose a new generation to prior game concepts we valued.

Exactly!!!

I still enjoy video games, but not the same ones I enjoyed 20 years ago. My kids on the other hand think Pac-Man is the shizz!

Mdlbuildr wrote:
......is the shizz!

That sounds nasty.

I have Final Fantasy on my ipad for long air plane rides. I also have Bubble Witch Saga 2.

I have all the video games I'll ever need.

This might be bad but... I do not recognize any of those games you mentioned except for 1

I have 2 kids and a wife so time for video games is better spent sleeping. I do not think I followed a new franchise except for blood born since 1999....... I just dont have fun with most games.

The biggest problem with modern games is this time needed to be good. Back in the day you could play for a hour and be the best. Now they make you need to play and pay 600 or more hours to get the gun that can kill 6 people in the same time the one you start with takes 12 minutes to do. It makes sense tho kids now a days dont want to get better just spend more time/money and then think they are better. I dont get it from a player perspective but from a buisness one ya pay 6$ and get the better gun lol