Would you be content if graphics stopped improving?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Real-life doesn't have lens flares :no:

---

Flares are making a comeback! :w00t: Sorry another Colt fashion faux paux..:ermm:

Photo realistic games would be good though... if a little disturbing, I mean will there come a time when you can't tell the difference between reality and a game? Maybe by the time we reach that stage PC's as we know it will be obselete and we will be gettting our kicks from some kinda Matrixesque type of realistic VR.... where you are 'plugged' into the game ...or whatever.. reminds me of the Jude Law film ExistenZ

I do believe though that in recent years game developers seem to be going for the, "lets make it look as good as possible" route and have neglected the game play aspects of their games.... Good AI or lack there of, in games being such an example. But convincing AI is extremely difficult to pull off... due to the fact that what I perceive as good AI, maybe percevied as too difficult or not difficult enough depending on the player.

I used to do a lot of beta testing in the early Half life years for a chap developing a bot (Rho-Bot) AI for a Half Life mod and it truley is no mean feat... adaptive or learning AI seems to be the way forward, where the AI would start to learn the maps (choke points etc) after a while and store that info and be able to use it again, This requires them to be trained first though.... Most devs just use a waypoint and node system, which is just pish but it saves time and is less CPU intensive. :noes: :yup:

Hopefully, in the future games will indeed look amazing... but just as long as the play as good as they look, then I won't have a problem! :ph34r:

Quote:

---

True, but I doubt that the teams working on gameplay, storyboard & musical scores, haves as much time and $$ allocated than visual devellopement team.

---

But the problem isnt so much about money but risk. Gameplay changes are quite risky. You dont know if they will work. While better graphics are a sure win.

People dont like change. There have been insane games with awsome gameplay, yet they never caught on. Every now and then you get games like The Sims, which even though they are different, they become a huge success.

IMO, it isnt so much about how much money companies invest on gameplay but rather how willing companies are to change gameplay. They simply dont want to change it. And this is very understandable if you consider the economical risk of having an AAA game failing to sell simply because its gameplay was too different.

And this is where wii might come in. Wii showed to the developers that being different can work. So developers might start taking bigger risks.

Content? Yes.

In fact, I'll go one further: I would be happy for graphics to stop improving if it meant that gameplay actually got better. I'd much rather play a game that looks like a steaming pile of vomit but which is utterly engaging than one that takes a monstrous machine to play but, frankly, sucks.

The two games I've spent the most time playing recently have been Battle for Wesnoth and Geneforge, neither of which are ever going to win any design awards. But damn, are they engaging.

Much more worth the ever-decreasing gaming time I have than OMGFragathon Version 17.5.

I gotta have it all.

It's like having great lyrics and music.

I like Geometry Wars on XBL. It's quite engaging all a dat.

However, there are engaging games to play with a decent amount of eye-candy so I'll stick with those.

To slack in gameplay or graphics is a disservice. Some games like Tetris can get away with that with no problems.

However, a FPS, platformer, etc. needs to have it's A game.

I would not be content if graphics stopped improving. There are many games that flourish in all categories right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kaosfere

The two games I've spent the most time playing recently have been Battle for Wesnoth and Geneforge, neither of which are ever going to win any design awards. But damn, are they engaging.

---

Those games look interesting, I've got Geneforge on the download now. The last couple of weeks I played the Puzzle Quest demo to death, damn that game is good. Probably one of the best games out this year imo (well, it's not out for PC just yet...).

I want continued improvement in graphic quality but I (like some of the other posters) would rather have better gameplay and story then prettier leaves on the trees...

Well, with the exception of the Wii, what single-player gameplay innovations do the PS3 and X360 have over their predecessors? Are visuals the only major upgrade you'd find in next-gen games, or are there any gameplay elements that simply can't be achieved with PS2 and Xbox?

well for starters, theres a lot more power to be used in next gen systems. This should give developers what they need for more advanced AI. Now weather or not they use this extra power for anthing besides more graphics is beyond me (they probably will only use it for graphics IMO)

Yes, but i haven't yet played much on the next-gen. I've never played a 360 or a PS3, who are obviously the two whos graphics are best. Look at first-tier PS1 games comp-ared to the final releases. Do it for PS2, too. The PS3/360 will improve with their graphics even more in the next 3-4 years.

I'm still playing PS1/PS2 games, so even if graphics stopped 'improving', i probably wouldn't care until I bought one of the new systems in a few years.