The One and Done
Member
Gears and Call of Duty.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Games no one would care about without the pretty visuals?
- Thread starter IcyRhythms
- Start date
SolidSnakex
Member
The reality is that if you just go by the OP is asking then every game that looks good would qualify
If you take away visuals then that's going to automatically knock down a lot of the graphical powerhouses like Crysis, Uncharted, Gears etc. with critics. And without those visuals they never would've received the hype (which lead to nice sales) that they managed to garner. So basically you can just list any game that looks good and you'll have a right answer in this thread.
Ops, wrong thread
But answering your question, Killzone.
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.
NullPointer
Member
So we're talking about hype? Not quality?
By "nobody would care" are we talking about the press? Marketing? Or people who have actually played the game and judged it for themselves?
By "nobody would care" are we talking about the press? Marketing? Or people who have actually played the game and judged it for themselves?
Riposte
Member
You think no one cares about CoD?
universalmind
Member
Main changes:
It's up to you, but I'd buy it or at least Warhead so you have a new campaign on a steam sale for a few dollars solely to play it with k/m and mods. Even just modifying the AI config yourself makes the game so much better. Speeds up the game and those nanosuitninja videos aren't so difficult to pull off. The skill ceiling becomes a lot higher which is a lot of the fun to me.
Ironically it's one of the most requested features for c3 lal.
Yep! Loved the game, but without it's atmosphere, it's sort of a sub-par action adventure game.
MyAbsolution
Member
Without a doubt uncharted.
Strip away graphics and specatuclar set pieces and you have bare bones gameplay with QTE thrown in.
Strip away graphics and specatuclar set pieces and you have bare bones gameplay with QTE thrown in.
Video games are a visual medium.
The graphical presentation makes up a rather important part of the entire experience.
Art design is key, however.
Uncharted, even if it didn't have, say, all that polygon pushing going on, the art design is still top notch. However, a part of what makes Uncharted, Uncharted, is the level of detail Naughty Dog puts into everything, both big and small. Nathan's character animations are part of what makes him so endearing. It not only grounds him in the environments, but it also tells you quite a bit about his character by visual cues alone. His gait when running, jumping, and swimming, his body language when being shot at by enemies or falling through a floor; it all serves to enhance the experience of playing as that character.
So, I don't think it's a question of people suddenly not caring about the game because the pretty visuals are gone, but what the pretty visuals are adding to their end user experience beyond just eye candy.
If Uncharted could keep its superb art design and animations, even without the high polygon count, it'd still be a fun game.
Same goes for games like Killzone 2 (see the original Killzone. Compared to the PS3 iterations, the graphics are poor, but the actual gun play and level design is pretty solid, if not dated by today's standards. Then again, I'm one of those folks that didn't fall into the "Halo Killer" hype back when KZ1 first released, and I simply enjoyed the game for what it was, and how different it was from Halo; and I loved the original Halo back then. Still do).
I think the only game I've played, where without the visuals I was underwhelmed was Crysis. Back in the day, I played it on one of my old computers with a weak graphics card, and I couldn't run the game on anything but low settings. I figured, the hell with it, graphics don't make the game, but man, I found Crysis to be a mediocre FPS at best without all those bells and whistles.
On the flip side, I also had bought F.E.A.R. around the same time, and had it installed and running on that same computer. I also had the graphics settings turned down low, but the game play experience was still awesome and satisfying to me. Then, when I finally bought a new video card, I was able to run F.E.A.R. at max settings, and I was like, "Oh, wow, this is much better, but I still had a great time with the game." I definitely enjoyed the prettier version a bit more (so much atmosphere and little details just made it that much more immersive that second time).
It's all subjective, I guess, but I'm one of those people that thinks that graphics and game play are not mutually exclusive. I think they often serve one another. I think a better phrasing is "Art Design & Game Play." Art design that serves the tone and intentions of the developers, coupled with quality Game design is the magic combination, whether that Art design is 2D sprites, Cell Shading, or high quality 3D.
The graphical presentation makes up a rather important part of the entire experience.
Art design is key, however.
Uncharted, even if it didn't have, say, all that polygon pushing going on, the art design is still top notch. However, a part of what makes Uncharted, Uncharted, is the level of detail Naughty Dog puts into everything, both big and small. Nathan's character animations are part of what makes him so endearing. It not only grounds him in the environments, but it also tells you quite a bit about his character by visual cues alone. His gait when running, jumping, and swimming, his body language when being shot at by enemies or falling through a floor; it all serves to enhance the experience of playing as that character.
So, I don't think it's a question of people suddenly not caring about the game because the pretty visuals are gone, but what the pretty visuals are adding to their end user experience beyond just eye candy.
If Uncharted could keep its superb art design and animations, even without the high polygon count, it'd still be a fun game.
Same goes for games like Killzone 2 (see the original Killzone. Compared to the PS3 iterations, the graphics are poor, but the actual gun play and level design is pretty solid, if not dated by today's standards. Then again, I'm one of those folks that didn't fall into the "Halo Killer" hype back when KZ1 first released, and I simply enjoyed the game for what it was, and how different it was from Halo; and I loved the original Halo back then. Still do).
I think the only game I've played, where without the visuals I was underwhelmed was Crysis. Back in the day, I played it on one of my old computers with a weak graphics card, and I couldn't run the game on anything but low settings. I figured, the hell with it, graphics don't make the game, but man, I found Crysis to be a mediocre FPS at best without all those bells and whistles.
On the flip side, I also had bought F.E.A.R. around the same time, and had it installed and running on that same computer. I also had the graphics settings turned down low, but the game play experience was still awesome and satisfying to me. Then, when I finally bought a new video card, I was able to run F.E.A.R. at max settings, and I was like, "Oh, wow, this is much better, but I still had a great time with the game." I definitely enjoyed the prettier version a bit more (so much atmosphere and little details just made it that much more immersive that second time).
It's all subjective, I guess, but I'm one of those people that thinks that graphics and game play are not mutually exclusive. I think they often serve one another. I think a better phrasing is "Art Design & Game Play." Art design that serves the tone and intentions of the developers, coupled with quality Game design is the magic combination, whether that Art design is 2D sprites, Cell Shading, or high quality 3D.
I can think of some incredibly ugly/visually offputting games that I absolutely love because of the gameplay.
Yu Yu Hakusho on the Genesis is incredibly fun, and I really love that game, even though I think it has really offensively awful graphics.
SuperSonic1305
Member
This is the worst thread of the year so far.
IcyRhythms
Member
and yet here you are posting in it
Your post as almost as poorly thought out as when people see a thread title, enter it, post and say "who cares" lol clearly you cared enough to click the thread
Uncharted doesn't even have QTEs, have you played it?
SuperSonic1305
Member
I don't see how my posting here makes it any less true. The thread may have had value for discussion at one point but has devolved into nothing but baiting responses and trolling. Posting popular games just to get a reaction.
Battlefield 3's single-player, especially any sort of on-rails segment.
Like the jet mission or the high-altitude drop were pretty fucking amazing sequences, but if they looked like NES Top Gun they'd be non-factor, and the rest of the campaign was just middling-to-poor from a gameplay perspective (I liked the cheesy story but I get that I'm in the minority).
Like the jet mission or the high-altitude drop were pretty fucking amazing sequences, but if they looked like NES Top Gun they'd be non-factor, and the rest of the campaign was just middling-to-poor from a gameplay perspective (I liked the cheesy story but I get that I'm in the minority).
ii Stryker
Banned
Apparently the literary references are waay beyond your comprehension. Also, the tonics and plasmids let you fuck with the AI any way you see fit. It's a sandbox game with an excellent range of toys to play with.
So tell me what's it feel like to be wrong? Hhhmmm?? =p
The Horror the horror
Banned
Every Rare game post-Perfect Dark.
It has plenty, especially the first game.
The close quarters combat is QTE.
The endboss in U1is a QTE.
Agent Ironside
Member
Skyrim's awesome landscapes kept me through. Had it not been for the visual appeal, I might of quit early.
I don't understand the people shitting on the Gears series. I could understand complaints with the first game (the gameplay was a bit unrefined)but Gears 2 and 3 had by far the best tps gameplay of the generation. Crysis takes the cake for best fps gameplay (after Borderlands 1-2).
I disagree. The only thing lacking in FF XIII was the story and the pacing, the gameplay, visuals, and music were spot on.
I disagree. The only thing lacking in FF XIII was the story and the pacing, the gameplay, visuals, and music were spot on.
IcyRhythms
Member
Just because people have opinions on popular games doesn't mean they're just looking to get a reaction. Try taking the time to read the posts and leave your bias for some of these games out of it.
FreeMufasa
Junior Member
Real talk? da mario galaxy games. But I don't think it's just graphics. Da whole presentation too. Da beats, graphics, fps, colours, etc.
It tricks ppl into thinkin it has good gameplay
It tricks ppl into thinkin it has good gameplay
cartman414
Member
The handheld games were a spinoff of the original, which were well received mostly because of the graphics. Not to mention the handheld games got a bit of a middling reception.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
I've seen a few people saying Okami, but I don't buy it. If that game had come out on the PS1 as a trilogy, there'd be knife fights between Zelda and Okami fanboys in the streets to this day.
Muramasa is a good example. The combat is flashy but shallow and the level design features a lot of repeating corridors and wandering around lost for no purpose. I LOVE the visuals, but the gameplay was pretty weak.
Another one I think wouldn't hold up would be Tales of the Abyss. If the game didn't leverage the anime cutscenes like it does, nobody would remember it outside the skit system.
I'm going to also go ahead and say Braid.
Muramasa is a good example. The combat is flashy but shallow and the level design features a lot of repeating corridors and wandering around lost for no purpose. I LOVE the visuals, but the gameplay was pretty weak.
Another one I think wouldn't hold up would be Tales of the Abyss. If the game didn't leverage the anime cutscenes like it does, nobody would remember it outside the skit system.
I'm going to also go ahead and say Braid.
Kabuki Waq
Member
Ico
Take away the art and all you have is a Giant escort missions with block puzzles and horrible combat.
Take away the art and all you have is a Giant escort missions with block puzzles and horrible combat.
NintenDOMG
Member
This.
I took the 'Land' games into consideration when I said DKC.
I would like to recant my declaration of Donkey Kong Country, though, based on the music alone. Some of the best on all of the SNES, a system known for its music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQd3n8sqBo4
We'll talk about the gameplay in another thread.
Unless the games you're playing are completely abstract, graphics make up a large part of what people consider "gameplay." Visual feedback is part of what makes a game satisfying.
The only examples I can think of are Dragon's Lair, Myst and their ilk. Games that trade purely on how gorgeous they looked (at the time). That doesn't make them bad games though.
The only examples I can think of are Dragon's Lair, Myst and their ilk. Games that trade purely on how gorgeous they looked (at the time). That doesn't make them bad games though.
BadAss2961
Member
Before GAF of recent weeks, I was completely unaware that there's a section of people who think Uncharted doesn't have good gameplay.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but DKC GBC received 9.0 critic ratings and sold well despite having much worse sound, physics and even screen visibility than the console counterpart, ergo it is factually wrong to say DKC for the title of this thread. Not to mention DKC was rated as Nintendo's 21st best game here on Neogaf last year with DKC2 not far behind, and I doubt graphics alone would warrant something like that, otherwise we might as well knock Yoshi's Island for the same thing (being a platformer with good, atmospheric graphics).
Of course that is more an answer to the thread's title than the actual OP. If we use the OP than every game in existence would be listed.
Truly the only suggestion I also agree with. I dont even have to name why, but I forced myself through this and would be amazed after I climbed up to a viewpoint amd stared down at the city. Take away that, and its a repetitive L1 +x game filled with running away and hiding. Damn it was tedious.
Journey.. . Well, i didnt understand that game to a level that others did. Nothing stood out to me from it. Just seems overrated but from what I can see is that graphics were just the icing. They would signicantly damage its reputation if you remove that factor, no denying it.
The people who recommended shadow of the colossus need to have a medical examination, the graphics never defined that game. It was the isolation experience and the way it managed to do something unique that no other video game provided. Clinging for dear life on a colossi's hairy back for one. Lol, but seriously it isint the graphics. It is the immersion in that game. Graphics never affected it, especially considering I just finished the game this september for the first time and herdle it as my goty (it doesnt count since it released in 2005 but It was the best game I played this year).
As for all the uncharted suggestions, the graphics NEVER stood out for me. I was always suggested the games by friends because it played like an amazing TPS with great gun controls and went through like a movie. AKA an amzing campaign. The graphics never defined the games (maybe for uncharted 3) but the cinematic like experience is why the uncharted series reached such critical acclaim. Taking out the graphics from uncharted would certainly do some damage but it would have still stood out much more than if crysis lost its graphical appeal. I played crysis by the way. The gameplay was good, "MAXIMUM SPEED" and Im not saying its bad. Its a good refreshing take on FPS games, but it would have never stood out for the gameplay alone. Graphics is what got it that following behind it.
As for killzone, after a recommendation from a FPS veteran on /v/ who strongly recommended it to me claiming killzone 2 was the best FPS in recent years for him. I finally decided to take a chance on the trilogy.
The first game is a mess, its really mediocre, bad graphics, story, everything. Plays out like a tactical FPS. You have to take things out in a specific order and way to survive each level (atleast for me, I set it to maximum difficulty so its really tedious). Templar is a bore, but I dont see the appeal in this game at all. Graphics cant be the appeal, infact there is none. I just cant see any praise for this game. Its a generic FPS.
Killzone 2 on the other hand... Hmm. The gameplay is phenomenal, and the graphics are so out of this world for a 2009 title on a console that it still blows me away. I just tried it today as well. I didnt get the chance to try out the singleplayer but jumped into the the multiplayer for a few hours and after watching the intro, the graphics certainly do make a impact on the game. Removing them would make have a detrimental effect on the series.
But, after playing the main mode, it was so incredible. Nothing like black ops 2 or other games that provide one objective in a game. I probably have been missing out on this, but it was amazing fun to have a new objective every few minutes. Changing from defend a base, capture the flag, team death match, set bombs, in a certain time limit to advance your team's percent to winning. Not sure if other game multiplayers have that but it was fun. Whoever brought that out first needs a pat on the back, because its the best gameplay mode I have tried so far. Avoids the repetition of one thing and avoids getting stale. Starhawk would benefit from this.
User 73706
Banned
Halo 4.
MrChocolate
Member
Final Fantasy VIII
Other than "ZOMG TEH INTRO CGI!!!" it might be one of the lowest points in the series.
Other than "ZOMG TEH INTRO CGI!!!" it might be one of the lowest points in the series.
I now understand why I'm enjoying recent FPS's less and less... If even on a forum like this there are still heaps of people who think Crysis was a boring game and who need everything to be spoon fed to them, I've really got no hope for the future of the genre.
And wtf at the guy saying that STALKER belongs in the thread.
And wtf at the guy saying that STALKER belongs in the thread.
I don't know about VI, but VII was marketed in the US entirely on its visuals.
I agree.
Nothing but cheap shots at a lot of games with a lot of redeeming values.
Felix Lighter
Member
I really find the numerous Crysis mentions disappointing. As has been mentioned and shown in this thread, it's an FPS that did some ambitious things with character control, enemy encounters and scope. Of all the derivative FPSes out there, Crysis is being labelled as all style no substance. I don't get it.
I will go with this....wich sadly is almost the same answe as "practically every modern game."
Main problematic games :
FF13 and Heavy Rain
...So .. nobody said a wii game ? xD
Pains me to say it, but I'd say Final Fantasy VII. As an answer to this quote in the OP, not the thread title. It definitely wouldn't have been nearly what it was without the stunning, magnificent cinematic/visual presentation and upgrade it was over its predecessors and contemporaries.