Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
Luther3000 wrote:
Dota 2 or HoN.
Dota 2's graphics aren't any better than LoL.. LoL's graphics are cartoonish, but it doesn't make them worse. Artstyle =/= graphics. Having good graphics does not mean photorealism.
I guess you were right, you can't reason with ignorance.
Canoas wrote:
@Searz
Why exactly isn't Skyrim good? It was the game of the year for a reason.
Typing out a huge rant and refreshing this page when I see this^
It's pretty, it plays decently enough and it was heavily anticipated. There's no reason why people wouldn't have voted it well. Nostalgia for Oblivion and Morrowind overcame so many people.
Thank you to jhoijhoi for the sig, and all the dividers in the guide.
You shouldn't argue with ignorant people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Please, please butthurt eachother with this as inspiration <3
- Really though: Chill dafuq out, both of you ;o You're both somewhat right. There can never be an end to arguments like this.
Please, please butthurt eachother with this as inspiration <3
- Really though: Chill dafuq out, both of you ;o You're both somewhat right. There can never be an end to arguments like this.
Check out my comprehensive guide for Jax !!
-
Make sure to hit that +Rep button if I helped you out, and you feel I deserve it! :)
-
Make sure to hit that +Rep button if I helped you out, and you feel I deserve it! :)
Canoas wrote:
@Lugignaf
So the new megaman are exactly the same game as the old ones but the better graphics make them worse? Hmm, didn't know that.
Megaman 9 and 10. 8-bit. Released on Wii. Still great.
Megaman 7 and 8. The graphics added nothing. Absolutely nothing. It could have been 8-bit and it still would have worked out other than the changing market at the time. Someone even went so far as to make 8-bit de-makes of both 7 and 8 for PC. They're great, lemme tell you.
Anyway, long rant, not 10 paragraphs because I over-exaggerate in everything I do.
I'm going to go to my classic argument and one of my favorite game series for points of reference. Megaman. Limitations: Large things had to be part of the scenery, couldn't have more than 3 colors in an image because of hardware limits. What did this mean exactly? they had to be creative in how they integrated things. Megaman's 4 colors(black, white and his 2-toned weapon color) was actually a trick of the designers as you could only have 2 colors like I said earlier.
Going on to today's games, they just slap **** in and call it good. Sure they make fixes but, there's no pressure to make things innovative if everything just works without any additional effort on the part of the design team or the art team. Shadow of the Colossus? Let's just slap the biggest things ever in there! No problem!
Now were going to shift into the "This is the same game just reskinned" area.
Megaman series, Call of Duty series, Pokemon series. What do they have in common? Barely anything changes between them.
CoD is still a war game and you're still shooting the bad guys. You still have people online calling you a ******. Can you believe you paid 60 USD for this?
Megaman series. Jump-n'-shoot man! Lastly, you're still going to try to catch them all in Pokemon, aren't you? Only thing that changes are the faces, names and places. Now obviously a series has to stick with a formula or else it won't be established as what it is. When someone says "Halo series" you think "FPS" almost every time. Then came Halo Wars. It was different and people were... put off by it.
When it comes to the "I prefer old games to new games" argument that you touched on, old games were innovative. Only because they were new and they were the first of their kind. People still play Counterstrike. Does it look good? Not really. Does it play extremely well? I bet it does. When it comes to old games for me though, I enjoy the graphics for 1 reason. It's very easy to convey things and so many things were assumed. White triangle thing that glistened occasionally? Probably a death spike in old games. Black section at the bottom of the screen? Death pit in old games.
Shiny thing? Maybe it's a power-up, maybe it's a lever, maybe it's... slime in new games. Black pit? Not sure if it's a death pit or the lighting at the bottom just doesn't reach that far up...
I also have every kind of emulator that I can. I love old games with a passion and they bring a lot of inspiration for my drawings and other things. I also never said "I will only play old games because they are vastly superior," did I?
To end this "rant" I'm simply going to say, you are the worst kind of arguer. People are giving you opinions and you are restating them as hard facts. Why? I dunno. Have fun with doing your thing. Whatever it may be.
EDIT: As an aside, someone is making a SNES game to be released in 2013. Not styled like an SNES game but, actually on SNES. Using the cartridge and everything. They're only actually "printing" 600 copies of the game. IT's region free and going for about the current standard of a new game. 68 USD in the states and 75 USD internationally. I think that proves that some people still prefer older games.
Sig courtesy of GrandmasterD. Go get your own sig from them. :D
Lugignaf wrote:
Megaman 9 and 10. 8-bit. Released on Wii. Still great.
Megaman 7 and 8. The graphics added nothing. Absolutely nothing. It could have been 8-bit and it still would have worked out other than the changing market at the time. Someone even went so far as to make 8-bit de-makes of both 7 and 8 for PC. They're great, lemme tell you.
Anyway, long rant, not 10 paragraphs because I over-exaggerate in everything I do.
I'm going to go to my classic argument and one of my favorite game series for points of reference. Megaman. Limitations: Large things had to be part of the scenery, couldn't have more than 3 colors in an image because of hardware limits. What did this mean exactly? they had to be creative in how they integrated things. Megaman's 4 colors(black, white and his 2-toned weapon color) was actually a trick of the designers as you could only have 2 colors like I said earlier.
Going on to today's games, they just slap **** in and call it good. Sure they make fixes but, there's no pressure to make things innovative if everything just works without any additional effort on the part of the design team or the art team. Shadow of the Colossus? Let's just slap the biggest things ever in there! No problem!
Now were going to shift into the "This is the same game just reskinned" area.
Megaman series, Call of Duty series, Pokemon series. What do they have in common? Barely anything changes between them.
CoD is still a war game and you're still shooting the bad guys. You still have people online calling you a ******. Can you believe you paid 60 USD for this?
Megaman series. Jump-n'-shoot man! Lastly, you're still going to try to catch them all in Pokemon, aren't you? Only thing that changes are the faces, names and places. Now obviously a series has to stick with a formula or else it won't be established as what it is. When someone says "Halo series" you think "FPS" almost every time. Then came Halo Wars. It was different and people were... put off by it.
When it comes to the "I prefer old games to new games" argument that you touched on, old games were innovative. Only because they were new and they were the first of their kind. People still play Counterstrike. Does it look good? Not really. Does it play extremely well? I bet it does. When it comes to old games for me though, I enjoy the graphics for 1 reason. It's very easy to convey things and so many things were assumed. White triangle thing that glistened occasionally? Probably a death spike in old games. Black section at the bottom of the screen? Death pit in old games.
Shiny thing? Maybe it's a power-up, maybe it's a lever, maybe it's... slime in new games. Black pit? Not sure if it's a death pit or the lighting at the bottom just doesn't reach that far up...
I also have every kind of emulator that I can. I love old games with a passion and they bring a lot of inspiration for my drawings and other things. I also never said "I will only play old games because they are vastly superior," did I?
To end this "rant" I'm simply going to say, you are the worst kind of arguer. People are giving you opinions and you are restating them as hard facts. Why? I dunno. Have fun with doing your thing. Whatever it may be.
My favourite Megaman was ZX Advent and the Megaman where they added Axel(or what the name of that Copyguy was).
Canoas wrote:
@Searz
Why exactly isn't Skyrim good? It was the game of the year for a reason.
See this is your problem, you don't know what an opinion is, even if he was wording it as a statement, it was worded as a statement because he was adamant about his opinion, which is fine even if I would disagree. Just because a game gets game of the year, doesn't mean it's a great game in everyone's eyes, those accolades don't mean ****. You're blissfully ignorant, so don't try and push your ignorance onto others.
Thanks to Koksei, The_Nameless_Bard,JhoiJhoi, LaCorpse, JEFFY40HANDS and myself for the signatures! I am also a certified gangster.
Beeswarm17
<Member>
<Member>
Canoas wrote:
I never said that graphics are everything. My opinion is the same as yours actually. However, one cannot say that graphics are irrelevant to the game and it would be stupid to expect people to disregard the fact a game has 20 year old graphics and is black and white.
That's true; I guess you didn't. I agree that graphics are not completely irrelevant. Graphics have the important role of conveying the interaction between the player and the game. Without graphics, there is no game. I'm not taking out that part of the equation. And with that as my perspective on graphics, I still don't see the point in saying the original games graphics are terrible, when at the time, they were fine.
There's not much point reviewing older games based on the current quality of graphics unless they have done work to improve those graphics. It's a straight port of a very old game. To me, there's not much point rating the graphics of a 20 year old handheld whose graphics are going to be behind on the consoles even when it was new. There's no way it will measure up to the standards of current console gaming.
My point with this is that it honestly just seems silly to me for these reviewers to be surprised by the fact that it is black and white. These reviewers didn't even bother to look at the game that they were buying. Most of the reviewers just didn't think, and then hammered out poor reviews. While that may be their opinion, it's hard for me to give it any credence when I'm forced to question their intellectual capability from the start.
I don't think that anyone is disregarding the fact that the game is 20 years old. Some of us just feel that it's an unfair standard to judge old games by modern standards when they just didn't have the technology we have today.
Canoas
<Member>
<Member>
@Lugignaf
What proof do you have that today "they just slap **** in and call it good"? Do you really think that a game company doesn't give their best when creating a game? Improving the graphics isn't just slapping an image on top of another like they did in megaman, now it has to do with complex algorithms that allow for things like having the clothes move according to the environment or the character actions. It's very easy for you to say that because you have no idea how hard such things are.
The games do change. Better graphics, different playability, more options/weapons/etc. That's why people buy the sequels instead of just sticking to the old ones. If the sequel was worse do you really think people would play it? No, they wouldn't, like what happened with CS. CSS got "better" graphics but they screwed up on the playability, so most people kept playing 1.6. However, if 1.6 came out now I would still ask why it has such ****ty graphics. While it was fine back then it isn't good by 2012 standards. However, most sequels do improve on the game, they don't just reskin it.
I honestly don't know anyone else who needs extremely simple graphics to understand what an item or object is, and games usually strive for such things to remain easily distinguishable.
No, I am not restarting opinions as hard facts, I'm telling you that graphics mattering is a fact. That's why people don't buy old consoles and games for them. If graphics didn't matter then production for those consoles would not have stopped. This is not an opinion, it's a fact. What changed from PS and PS3 games? Graphics. How many games are released for PS per year? 0. How many for PS3? I have no idea.
You are the one who's mistaking a fact for an opinion. Even if you think that 8 bit games are better it still won't change the market. People aren't going to suddenly start demanding old N64 and old zelda games to be put back on shelves.
Also, that SNES game thing only proves me right. 600 copies? That's nothing. That just proves that the market does not want such games. It's like saying that people like 100 year old cars because some random rich dude bought one.
@Samoh
There's a difference between not liking something and thinking that it's not good. I don't like sushi, but I wouldn't say sushi isn't good. I know that a lots of people love it and I can actually why they like it, but it's just not for me.
Liking something is extremely subjective but something being good isn't as subjective as you think it is.
@Beeswarm
Well, obviously sites like IGN and gamespot won't review old games, but it's to be expected that people will review them if they're still being sold. If a game is being sold today then you have to rate it according to today's standards, not 20 year old standards. You can't trick the costumer giving it a 10/10 when you know it isn't true. The graphics, sound and mechanisms are outdated, they simply cannot compete with new games. Even games like FF XII and FF X, which to me are the most memorable games I've ever played, would not do well in 2012 and we know this for fact because they're not being bought or sold any more. There's no demand for those games. Is that because the story and gameplay are now considered bad? No, it's because the graphics make a tremendous difference in a game, a difference big enough that no one buys the game any more.
What proof do you have that today "they just slap **** in and call it good"? Do you really think that a game company doesn't give their best when creating a game? Improving the graphics isn't just slapping an image on top of another like they did in megaman, now it has to do with complex algorithms that allow for things like having the clothes move according to the environment or the character actions. It's very easy for you to say that because you have no idea how hard such things are.
The games do change. Better graphics, different playability, more options/weapons/etc. That's why people buy the sequels instead of just sticking to the old ones. If the sequel was worse do you really think people would play it? No, they wouldn't, like what happened with CS. CSS got "better" graphics but they screwed up on the playability, so most people kept playing 1.6. However, if 1.6 came out now I would still ask why it has such ****ty graphics. While it was fine back then it isn't good by 2012 standards. However, most sequels do improve on the game, they don't just reskin it.
I honestly don't know anyone else who needs extremely simple graphics to understand what an item or object is, and games usually strive for such things to remain easily distinguishable.
No, I am not restarting opinions as hard facts, I'm telling you that graphics mattering is a fact. That's why people don't buy old consoles and games for them. If graphics didn't matter then production for those consoles would not have stopped. This is not an opinion, it's a fact. What changed from PS and PS3 games? Graphics. How many games are released for PS per year? 0. How many for PS3? I have no idea.
You are the one who's mistaking a fact for an opinion. Even if you think that 8 bit games are better it still won't change the market. People aren't going to suddenly start demanding old N64 and old zelda games to be put back on shelves.
Also, that SNES game thing only proves me right. 600 copies? That's nothing. That just proves that the market does not want such games. It's like saying that people like 100 year old cars because some random rich dude bought one.
@Samoh
There's a difference between not liking something and thinking that it's not good. I don't like sushi, but I wouldn't say sushi isn't good. I know that a lots of people love it and I can actually why they like it, but it's just not for me.
Liking something is extremely subjective but something being good isn't as subjective as you think it is.
@Beeswarm
Well, obviously sites like IGN and gamespot won't review old games, but it's to be expected that people will review them if they're still being sold. If a game is being sold today then you have to rate it according to today's standards, not 20 year old standards. You can't trick the costumer giving it a 10/10 when you know it isn't true. The graphics, sound and mechanisms are outdated, they simply cannot compete with new games. Even games like FF XII and FF X, which to me are the most memorable games I've ever played, would not do well in 2012 and we know this for fact because they're not being bought or sold any more. There's no demand for those games. Is that because the story and gameplay are now considered bad? No, it's because the graphics make a tremendous difference in a game, a difference big enough that no one buys the game any more.
You need to log in before commenting.
LoL has pretty terrible graphics by current standards dude...
Whatever I don't even know why I'm responding. You can't reason with ignorance.
LoL has terrible graphics? Really? Show me moba/RTS games with very good graphics then. I want to see what you call good graphics if you consider LoL terrible. It must be something mindblowing.
Obviously you can't reason with ignorance, that's why you should get informed.