Topic: It's about the ideas not the graphics...

Hey folks, please share your opinion on this. Trying to give a short introduction. 2D artstyle, fancy coop gameplay (ever anyone checked out BroForce?) and impressive artistic visuals - that seems to be the way the indies like their games, and I do too. While the PS4 and XBONE announcements were both not THAT impressive SO far I had a few good conversations with a few mates, we are all in our 30ies and we all share one idea, agree to one thing:

If games just improve visually we're not impressed.

See we grew up with our beloved SNES and Gameboys and loved our PC gaming enjoying titles like Battlefield 1942, Ufo, Xcom, Syndicate etc...

All the genres we have in place today, especially shooters, have been done countless of times, with basicly all the same features and a basicly on-par visual representation. So then come people like that Minecraft guy and become an internet-legend in a very short time. I think this is a clear sign of things that need to change. I think that if enough people vote with their wallets we will see a second advent of videogames very soon. What do I mean? I mean that developers finally will realize that the games have to improve in FEATURES, GAMEPLAY and IDEAS to further impress people. Let me give you 3 examples:

1) The other kind of shooter. Imagine a game thats a bit like minecraft, with simple visuals, there are teams, 10 players each. When a match starts, they all spawn in opposing forts and have 15 minutes of preparation time. They all can use a limited amount of ressources to dig holes to hide in, construct turrets, research weapons, construct barracks that will automatically spawn computer controlled bots fighting for your team, etc... the whole world is destructible. It doesn't have to look super realistic, just make the possibilities happen and create the opportunities, then paintcoat the engine as good as possible to make it look good, if it looks like a lego game fine. Then the game starts. Imagine this new kind of teambased shooter, with truly evolving landscapes and randomly generated maps and then further modified by the players before the battle starts, the dynamic, the endless opportunities for gaming-gold-moments in such an environment. Who would really care for the next super realistic modern warfare shooter that still puts you in the same old boundaries? I wouldn't`? Whats your take?

2) A new kind of strategy game. Strategy games - even though rarely seen on consoles - mostly have been all the same the past years. Build base, rush to attack, defend if necessary. What if that same formula was expanded. Into a coop-strategy game. Take a familiar game like command & conquer or warcraft and give each side 3 players. One player just commands the troops, he is the one that is the best tactician and is good with all that micro management of troops (Im not). Then there is another player, he runs construction and ressource management, he likes to build stuff, enjoys sim city and thats basicly what this game feels like to him. And then there is the third player, it's a rogue player who has a special set of units (of course provided player 1 and 2 make a good job) and he is set to infiltrate the enemy, sabotage their ressource collectors, steal technology, for him this would play like splinter cell - if the engine allows, even in first person. Now imagine this setup with a game of 4 nations (each with those 3 players) raging for dominance. See, old genre with fresh ideas that would appeal to many different kinds of players. Whats your take?

3) Simple. Why change something that was not broken. Why remove BOT support in shooters nowadays. Where is my COUCH coop when I need it? I mean its still better to concentrate on gaming concept that always worked well instead of creating sequel after sequel with just a new slab of paint on it. Granted, COD sells like hotcakes but I dare to say its because those people don't have any other alternative. Anyways, what I mean is, google for BROFORCE, its a retro-style FUN over-the top game (for PC) and you can test the current alpha build. It's 4 player coop, sidescrolling shooter and can be really tricky and hard, random generated levels, boss fights, blood, special skills, unlockables, you name it, they have it. It basicly has everything that made a sidescrolling shooter of yore good. Soundtrack is awesome and it is a sure thing to get your ridiculous gaming moments out of that one. If you can't create something truly new, then create something that has everything that worked well in the past.

See its just 3 examples of things that I think should happen in the gaming industry. Just upping the resolution won't cut it. Sure many people argue "yes that extra power is not only going into graphics it can also be used for more destructive environments and more cars on track" - yep it could, but I really doubt it will, it will just go into graphics, because graphics sell games. Thats my bet at least.

Here comes the Wii U into play. Many people will pick one up at least as secondary console to a PC or any other console and if Nintendo keeps getting good indies on board the Wii U could prove truly the console thats focused sorely on gaming. The power of the Wii U might be limited, but will it really matter if the games bring fresh ideas the big publishers cannot come up with sorely because they are too lazy, greedy or cannot risk to piss of shareholders with an "experimental new iP" that doesn't sell.

I just am curious about your take on this. What is it? More of the already good library of indie games on NIntendo platforms with fresh ideas and new concepts or only triple A titles that are the same every year only look slightly better visually each iteration?

We've had many threads like this; all of them ended in violent brawls.

That said, I think you can use graphics to convey emotion. The most recent Mystery Dungeon game does this very well when it zoom out to reveal the glacier and everyone standing afar.

1 Sounds a bit like Ace of Spades, that's still on my wishlist!

It's about the fun, and the execution of new OR old ideas.

I agree for the most part.

Raw hardware power is still essential to push innovation in gameplay forwards. It's just a shame it's often wasted on muddy textures and post-processing effects.

Yep Ive been around those threads...
and yes youre right about this use of graphics. Im not saying you have to make ugly games, but I am saying seldomly have modern games moved me, caused emotion in me as much as games like Indiana Jones Fate of Atlantis or Chrono Trigger. I think if you're clever you can create emotion and epic moments in any kind of media, even books can do it and most of the time, even do it best without ANY graphics!

I totally agree that it is about the fun, why else would you play a game, I just say that with 20+ years of gaming experience I run into the "same old same old" and "too much casual, corners cut, too wide appeal" thing too often for my taste. When I look at the release schedule of whole 2013 (what we know so far) I see only a handful of games Im even interested in, across ALL Systems. Interestingly enough most of those I'm interested in are on a Nintendo Platform!

@Scollurio

Obligatory spoiler tag:

There.

Absolutely. Have you seen the teasers to Battlefield 4? Or the "new" call of duty engine during the XBONE reveal? There was absolutely nothing that impressed me. Call of Duty looks more plasticy and Battlefield 4 looks exactly like Battlefield 3 with a few added blooms and dirty lensflares. The whole focus of their demonstration was "more birds flying around" and "cloth is waving more realisticly in the wind". Uhm hello? If they announce 128 vs 128 servers on consoles, the return of battleships (like in Battlefield 1942) and further improved destructive environment I might be remotely interested. But to be honest, I can't stand modern warfare military shooters anymore. Im tired of them. Bring back WW2, Vietnam and Korea!

Beautiful. I haven't played it but it looks like a prime example to me that clever "gamemaking" beats "up the resolution". It's even fun that the 16bit artstyle of the old days is coming back as own art style that is hip and retro. Sometimes games even look better in pixels.

Idea 1 sounds like a cross between Battlefield and Star Hawk and one of them has fantastic graphics. Having a great game with new ideas and great graphics is possible, it's not one or the other and I hate it when people act like it is.

Another prime example of today's AAA-game-making is "Army of Two - the Devils Cartell" - I got it for my 360 to play it with my pal on weekends. It's a "coop shooter". We've been playing the series since the first game and gradually it grew worse, like so many things (not only games) these days. It had less weapons/upgrades than the previous games, the "coop" aspect was basicly just running to an obstruction or corner and wait for the prompt saying "press X" and then you pressed X and your character helped your pal's character over the edge, over the gap or what have you. I wonder why even bother with that prompt instead of just going into a cutscene. This is not coop or teamplay. It's tube-maps with predefined "buddy moments". That sucks. But hey it looks pretty and had frostbite 2.0 destruction - even on the bodies...

I remember taking on 64 enemy bot soldiers with that same mate in Battlefield 1942 always applying different tactics and approaches in the HUGE open maps, one time we'd just defend a capture point dug into our holes, the other time we loaded a jeep with TNT and let it drive (by jumping out) into a group of enemy tanks and blew them up or we just got into a few aircraft and dropped tha bomb on the enemy. Everytime it was different. Everytime it was an awesome teamplay-buddy-experience. Running down a tube, guns blazing, waiting for the prompt to press a button is not. And yeah the story sucked too, overly violent with no sense at all.

Just for emphasis and maybe warn one or the other of you to NOT pick that game up...

It most of the time IS one or the other because big studios make visually impressive games because they sell and are easy to market. It is the SMALL studios, indie devs that take risks because there are no politics and shareholders involved so they are more free, hence the name. Most of the time those people don't have the ressources or the desire to go all graphics.

And yes while it would be technically possible to have both its also hardware limitations factoring into this. As an example: rainbow six vegas 2, in my opinion a very good tactical shooter with lots options, customization and an awesome coop-campaign-mode even in splitscreen mode so you can play it couch-coop. They had to cut back the graphics (Unreal Engine 2 I think) a whole lot and leave out some detail to make it work in splitscreen. Im glad they did. If they tried to achieve the same graphics like in pure single player there wouldn't be a splitscreen mode because the console couldn't handle the graphics rendered basicly twice. I rather have the splitscreen mode with like 20% worse graphics than no splitscreen mode at all.

So, just to get to know your taste a little better, can you name me 3 blockbuster triple-a titles of the past year or so that you'd say was graphically impressive AND fun/innovative? For your taste i mean.

I just want to throw a saying into the ring, just for consideration:

A good game that is 20 years old is still a good game,
a bad game will always be a bad game no matter how good the graphics are.

That's generally how I feel. I haven't been a fan of BF since the beginning, but the joy in that game comes from how chaotic it gets.
I think Bad Company 2 nailed on the consoles as the maps were smaller so the action was almost always just around the corner.
Battlefield 3 on the other hand was too big and it didn't support enough players to fill out the maps appropriately.

The CoD engine BS that was shown during the Xbone reveal made me chuckle. All this talk of little details like cuts and dirt under the finger nails, it was all already possible. There's nothing special about that.
Same with motion capturing a dog, big whoop! It's not the first game to mo-cap an animal and again, mo-cap is already present on current and last generation systems.

Yeah we seem to have gotten the same impression really. And yes I also thought that Bad Company 2 on consoles was the highlight this generation. I also liked that Battlefield 2 Modern Combat thing that was ported over from XBOX to 360 with HD visuals. It felt really "consoley" compared to PC Battlefield 2 but I liked the maps and had some gold-gaming moments in that game. Same in BC2 though.

I really wonder if I will see anything at this years E3 that can again wow me like something 10 or 15 years ago. Graphics don't cut it for me, I want fun with my buddies, if that fun looks good as well, Im a happy camper, if its 16 bit artstyle Im just as fine.

Agreed nothing about the new cod impresses me "WOAH FISH SWIM OUT OF YOUR WAY WHEN YOU GO NEAR THEM!!!" that happened 20 years ago I mean c'mon also I agree on what you say Bring back WW2 Vietnam and korea they're awesome the greatest shooters have been medal of honor series but the early ones on ps2!

Why not both?

@Scollirio hmm, that's a slightly hard question to answer because I don't play M games and most of those games are M, but I'll try to give it a go anyway. Batman: Arkham City, Transformers: Fall of Cybertron (not sure if this counts as a triple A blockbuster or not though), and Portal 2. (And if I may, two games that fit the bill, but I haven't played are inFamous 2 and Dishonered.) (I also feel that Uncharted's cinimatic stlyle is innovative, but I'm not about including Uncharted 3 since it's a sequel that continues if you catch my drift.)

Blah blah blah Metroid prime
blah blah blah Fire Emblem
Blah blah blah watch this thread disappear right before your eyes!