Briareos H on 7/10/2009 at 06:46
btw i'm pretty sure that Crysis was pretty much turned down by the "core fps with brains" crowd because it was supposed to be only graphics no gameplay.
Crysis is embodying to a certain extent the graphics whoring that this thread condemns because the game was hyped solely on its looks.
Here comes the hype train again.
scarykitties on 7/10/2009 at 11:54
Crysis was just an example that popped to mind for a high-graphics game. To be fair, I actually enjoyed Crysis a lot. It actually had a functional enough stealth system that I could sneak by enemies if I liked (which harkened back to ye olde Thief days, if not quite the same in execution), or sneak right into their camps and pick them off one by one, or go in Rambo-style and tear everything apart (buildings included).
I felt it suffered on the second half, when it became more of a rail-shooter.
EvaUnit02 on 7/10/2009 at 12:09
Quote Posted by scarykitties
Personally, I really like the low-poly graphics of the early Resident Evil and Silent Hill games (as well as, say, Deus Ex 1 and Thief 1&2). I know that no one makes games looking like that anymore, but I like it as a visual style, personally. I like to see how artists render complex scenes into their most essential and basic elements, rather than shooting for complete photorealism down to every unnecessary detail.
Hey, if you're going to have examples to back up your argument, at least make sure that they're accurate.
At the time of release, Resident Evil 1 & 2 were praised for their graphics (by Playstation 1 standards. Naturally stuff in the PC space ground them into dust, i.e. Quake 1.), their use of pre-rendered backgrounds enabled for higher poly character and object models.
Silent Hill 2 & 3 were also highly praised for their graphics and technical design. To this day many still consider them to be some of the prettiest games on PS2.
Similarly the Dark Engine was pretty cutting edge when Thief 1 was first released. It's shadowing and light+dark/sound detection systems eclipsed what say the Quake 2 engine was capable of out of the box.
Crysis' gameplay had a lot of depth than many people give it credit for, it allowed for plenty of strategic thinking.
scarykitties on 7/10/2009 at 12:48
I'm aware that those engines were top-of-the-line for their time, Eva. My point was that I enjoy the style of the games of that time, as graphics were just nice enough to allow for immersive levels, but not quite enough to make going overboard with detail a worthwhile thing.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed Crysis, too. Maybe I'm just attributing particular fondness to games with that low-poly look because I played/enjoyed so many of them, but whatever the case, I find that simplistic-yet-not-empty design to be compelling even in a modern sense (as opposed to being merely tolerable and otherwise nonimmersive as compared to more detailed games).
Eldron on 7/10/2009 at 16:38
Quote Posted by Thirith
Sure, but most games aren't either brilliant or sucktastic. They're somewhere in between. And I've enjoyed games with mediocre gameplay more because the graphics were evocative and atmospheric. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
I can't deny that, and as a video game art enjoyer, and a video game artist I know that a well polished exterior intertwined with the gameworld can really bring that game forward in feeling.
for me its both audio and visual.
