Realm Reborn = downgrade?

[KiriA500]

How realism and believable movement factors into the fun factor of a video game is really.., beyond you?

OH HEY GUYS LET ME POST A PICTURE OF A BAD GAME TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE!!!

Is Final Fantasy XIV the first game you've ever played?

I hold Phantasy Star Online in much higher standing than this game, and it's far from a gorgeous game with perfect animations. To this day, I still toss it on my GameCube and play it because of how much fun I have playing it. Never once did I sit back and think "Man, this game would be fun if it wasn't for these awful animations!"

People like you are everything that is wrong with gaming. I'm not talking about "I have an opinion, therefore I'm wrong." I'm talking about "THIS DOESN'T LOOK GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!!!" As a gamer of the late 80's/early 90's...I can say that I have never not had fun in a game because of the graphics...I didn't have fun because the game itself wasn't fun.

[Starlord]

OH HEY GUYS LET ME POST A PICTURE OF A BAD GAME TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE!!!

Is Final Fantasy XIV the first game you've ever played?

I hold Phantasy Star Online in much higher standing than this game, and it's far from a gorgeous game with perfect animations. To this day, I still toss it on my GameCube and play it because of how much fun I have playing it. Never once did I sit back and think "Man, this game would be fun if it wasn't for these awful animations!"

People like you are everything that is wrong with gaming. I'm not talking about "I have an opinion, therefore I'm wrong." I'm talking about "THIS DOESN'T LOOK GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!!!" As a gamer of the late 80's/early 90's...I can say that I have never not had fun in a game because of the graphics...I didn't have fun because the game itself wasn't fun.

Sometimes, when people give up.. they resort to pictures to hide behind like a scared little kitten who lost his way o.o.

[Nemy]

Sometimes, when people give up.. they resort to pictures to hide behind like a scared little kitten who lost his way o.o.

Or to lies, to support their false accusations.

[IveraIvalice]

Sometimes, when people give up.. they resort to pictures to hide behind like a scared little kitten who lost his way o.o.

Or to lies, to support their false accusations.

you both got to chill, im not telling you guys to get along but we already got a warning about closing this thread, this is a big discussion and i would like to keep it relevant

[Arcell]

OH HEY GUYS LET ME POST A PICTURE OF A BAD GAME TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE!!!

Is Final Fantasy XIV the first game you've ever played?

I hold Phantasy Star Online in much higher standing than this game, and it's far from a gorgeous game with perfect animations. To this day, I still toss it on my GameCube and play it because of how much fun I have playing it. Never once did I sit back and think "Man, this game would be fun if it wasn't for these awful animations!"

People like you are everything that is wrong with gaming. I'm not talking about "I have an opinion, therefore I'm wrong." I'm talking about "THIS DOESN'T LOOK GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!!!" As a gamer of the late 80's/early 90's...I can say that I have never not had fun in a game because of the graphics...I didn't have fun because the game itself wasn't fun.

Agreed on every count, especially PSO. The game has a lot of really stiff animations and few actual transitions that are well blended but it's still fun as hell. The attack animation transition especially is practically non-existent for most weapons lol.

My main concern is ARR being fun to play, not the pinnacle of transition animations.

[Nemy]

OH HEY GUYS LET ME POST A PICTURE OF A BAD GAME TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE!!!

Not only did you not understand my point, you did so IN CAPS. Kind of emphasized the fail there.

My point was, if realism and believable movement was not factoring into the fun in video games, then why do games even bother to evolve in that department, from this :



to this

[Arcell]

Not only did you not understand my point, you did so IN CAPS. Kind of emphasized the fail there.

My point was, if realism and believable movement was not factoring into the fun in video games, then why do games even bother to evolve in that department, from this :

to this

Quite simply because they could. Why not advance if you have the option? The transition from 2D to 3D especially opened up tons of options for game developers to better tell stories or display a world at least. Not to be confused with the general quality of the graphics themselves which have little bearing on how good a game actually is.

If we were to consider the quality of graphics and animations as an extension of how good the game really is then:

This



would be considered better than this

My point being, even back in the day when games had primitive graphics and crude animations, they were still fun and are still considered fun by today's standards. Graphics and animations don't make a game good or fun. Pretty to look at? Sure, but not fun.

[Nemy]

Quite simply because they could.

So? It's still a market. If realism was not a factor, there would be no demand for this aspect.

Why not advance if you have the option?

Because you spend your resources to something that is... not a factor?

The transition from 2D to 3D especially opened up tons of options for game developers to better
tell stories

Stories? I don't think so. The best medium to tell a story is still... pic related. 3D shouldn't be a factor.



And before you mention films, cinema didn't replace books in story telling, its a different medium. And HD films don't tell better stories than VHS.

2D games was intentionally replaced by 3D by 99% though, and story telling had nothing to do with it.

Fun did.

or display a world at least.

Now you come to my words. A believable world, is factoring into the fun. I'm not talking about all games, don't get me wrong. A big percentage of games though, depending on genre, do rely on a believable world, and graphics / animation play a big role. That's why they advance in this area. They don't like to waste their money on something that is not a factor.

Not to be confused with the general quality of the graphics themselves which have little bearing on how good a game actually is.

Well, how good do you think Skyrim would do, if it had worse world design and animation than the previous Elder Scrolls?

Why did they spend all this money and time to make the world more believable, at least technically?

If we were to consider the quality of graphics and animations as an extension of how good the game really is

Nobody, no really... nobody ever said that, not only in this thread, but nowhere, ever, in the history of mankind on this planet.

Like, really, not one person.

Not even once.

Nobody.

Ever.



(What i did say, is that it is, indeed, a factor, to many people)

[KiriA500]

Not only did you not understand my point, you did so IN CAPS. Kind of emphasized the fail there.

My point was, if realism and believable movement was not factoring into the fun in video games, then why do games even bother to evolve in that department, from this :



to this

How did I miss your point? You posted a picture of a crappy Atari game when I mentioned realistic movements and how they shouldn't factor into your enjoyment of a game. I still don't understand how that should make a game not fun to you, which is why I gave an example afterward. That game is just bad, the animation has nothing to do with it.

And it's funny how you bring up Zelda into this. Notice how Zelda II: The Adventures of Link has "better graphics" than The Legend of Zelda, yet it's generally seen as the worse game? That's because it took a great departure from the original and people weren't a fan. It had NOTHING to do with the graphics/animations (which were both better in the sequel, in case you were wondering). The gameplay is the factor in those.

Ocarina of Time was the first 3D Zelda game, and at the time, it was incredible. Every 3D Zelda since then has followed the same formula, but changed some things to fit into it's story (like no horse in Wind Waker). In the many times I've played Wind Waker (my favorite), I can't recall a single time I just suddenly stopped having any fun at all, because of the way Link didn't react to something a certain way, or the way he moved. I was too busy having fun playing the game.

[Nemy]

How did I miss your point? You posted a picture of a crappy Atari game when I mentioned realistic movements and how they shouldn't factor into your enjoyment of a game. I still don't understand how that should make a game not fun to you, which is why I gave an example afterward. That game is just bad, the animation has nothing to do with it.

And it's funny how you bring up Zelda into this. Notice how Zelda II: The Adventures of Link has "better graphics" than The Legend of Zelda, yet it's generally seen as the worse game? That's because it took a great departure from the original and people weren't a fan. It had NOTHING to do with the graphics/animations (which were both better in the sequel, in case you were wondering). The gameplay is the factor in those.

Ocarina of Time was the first 3D Zelda game, and at the time, it was incredible. Every 3D Zelda since then has followed the same formula, but changed some things to fit into it's story (like no horse in Wind Waker). In the many times I've played Wind Waker (my favorite), I can't recall a single time I just suddenly stopped having any fun at all, because of the way Link didn't react to something a certain way, or the way he moved. I was too busy having fun playing the game.

Everything you say, is absolutely 100% pointless, since we both agree that 1 single factor is not going to determine if a game is good or bad.

If you had 2 absolutely identical games, except one of them had amazing graphics and animation, the game with the amazing graphics and animation would be the better game because...

It's a factor.