General Discussions

You know what the problem is that PC gaming is sort of going toward a downslope? Well I have the answer.

Graphics.

No, I don't mean exactly that, I mean that every developer looks at the game and says 'realism'. Now I know this is not the case with EVERY game. But most mainstream games end up having 90% of the budget and time spent on the graphics for making them realistic, and not 'well we should have it like this.'

I like games with a unique and aesthetic art style (Mass Effect has a certain feel to it.), and does everything correctly that it advertises it does, not SupCom saying 'Look! This is the next best RTS story EVEEEEEEEEEER!!!!!!!!111'

Yeah, but high memory graphic cards can be found!

its not about high-end graphic cards or graphics. its about substance. a low tech game can be more fun than a high-end mega release. i think that's what 'alimarin' is trying to say.

And this is the problem with the children who play consoles. All they are about is how the game looks. And this is why a ****ty game like MW2 can be so insanely popular--because it's pretty. Even though the gameplay is ****e and the story is horrendous and the general quality is shockingly poor.

But surely developers of PC games are aiming at an older audience? Aside from thirteen year old girls playing The Sims, I doubt most PC gamers are below 16. After which point you should have seen and played enough to have the common sense to know that graphics aren't worth **** if the game sucks.

A favourite example of mine, is the Final Fantasy series. While Square have always delivered the best possible graphics, the games are timeless. The older games are still playable despite the graphics being poor next to current next-gen releases.

Compare this to Halo 3. Pretty graphics, pretty effects. Shame the game has barely any replay value save for multiplayer and achievements. Neither of those is particularly fulfilling.

It would make more sense to input more time into the gameplay and storyline of PC games and less into graphics. Left4Dead on PC could have had more campaigns or something, and the console gamers would still be happy with their handful of them on Xbox. Mainly because most next-gen gamers have ridiculous standards as to what makes a decent game and have forgotten their Nintendo/PlayStation roots.

I would settle for content over graphics anyday. Sure realism is great but content extends gameplay time, I would be content with content instead of extremes of extreme realism.

very true. people seem to focus more on looks than actual content. for me substance always takes precedence over looks.

I was actually trying to get two points across, you do need to find a a balance between graphics and content. But my other point is that EVERY game has to have 'realistic' and not 'good' graphics. I am not sure how to exactly explain it in words. Lets take... Mad World. I thought it was an excellent game because the developers achieved exactly what they wanted, gruesome violence with grotesque white black graphics. The game might not have been extremely popular, but I think it deserves credit for doing everything they had planned to do, CORRECTLY.