Gamer Rant

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Lycan Queen, Mar 4, 2012.

  1. You know, I consider myself a fairly logical person. I often consider both sides of the argument and try to come up with a meaningful solution that will work for both parties involved. I like calmly thinking about things and deep consideration of complex issues.

    However, there's another side of me, a feral side made of indignant fan-girlism and righteous fury. Today I would like to vent that, and bring out one particular part of the gaming community that annoys the fuck out of me. Feel free to disagree, but be warned that this is not logical. It is not calm. It is a rant in the purest sense, as I feel strong enough that this perspective hasn't been said enough.

    Now I love games and video gaming. I love my fellow gamers, and I love how the gaming world is growing and evolving. But there's one thing I can't stand more than anything.

    People who complain about textures.

    I know it seems petty, but I HATE them with a burning passion. In my mind, they just come off as lifeless scum who just want to show off their e-peen with running games on high resolutions even though every other part of the game sucks. If it's not HD, it's ugly garbage to them, and I fucking HATE it.

    To me, textures and graphics are at the very VERY bottom of what makes a game good. Story and gameplay are on the top, and then art design is right underneath it. There is a clear difference between design and graphics in my head, and it's something that I find so many gamers mix up. Art design is the sum of stylistic choices such as color, shading, character design, world, ect. It creates atmosphere and tone, and for that, it doesn't have to be photo-realistic high fucking resolution.

    Cartoon graphics is an artistic design, not graphical.

    Creating your world using blocks is a stylistic and game design, not fucking graphics.

    I can't STAND most modern first person shooters because they have high graphics, but very poor art design. Red, brown and gray EVERYWHERE. I don't give two shits if the fucking gun looks exactly as it does in real life. I don't care if the textures take a second to pop in. Generic soldiers in generic arabic city shooting things, or another post-apocalyptic shooter with grey aliens (why grey? They're fucking ALIENS) should not be considered good games because they have 'good graphics'.

    I have been swept away by the large, gorgeous landscapes of Minecraft. Whether I'm looking at a large mountainous region just as dawn hits the hills, or I'm standing atop the highest tree in the jungle, looking down at the vast world around me. I think that game is fucking gorgeous, and I'm sick and tired of people calling it ugly. I find that Minecraft, in all its blocky glory, is far more beautiful than your Call of Duty Clone HD any day.

    Expand your mind, look at some art, and realize that if all you care about is 'getting the most out of you're computer's $500 graphics card', then you seriously need a life.

    THERE. Man that felt good! So Iwaku, I'm prepared for the masses now. Tell me, just how wrong am I?
     
  2. Yes.
    YES.
    This is very, very true.
    Graphics in a game aren't what make it - yes, they help, but on their own, they can't do anything.
    Look at Terraria. Doesn't look much better than an SNES or GBA game, but it's still great fun. Then there's the BIT. TRIP series - immensely addicting, with graphics you'd laugh at on sight.
    Even the original Super Mario Brothers - considered to be one of the greatest 2D platformers, the Virtual Console version scored 96% percent on its review by ONM. 96%, for an 8-bit game.
    And it's still better than Call of Duty.
    I've also been a firm believer that games should also look as UN-realistic as possible. I play games to escape reality, not delve back into it. It's one of the reasons I prefer TF2 over CoD - it's over-the-top, insane, and has a unique art style. Considering it was released in 2007, and is still going strong, that's one hell of an achievement where graphics were only fixed and tweaked in updates.
     
  3. Yeah, you have all my approval there. Even 'bad graphic' games are awesome. Anyone who tries to say ay Legend of Zelda game is 'bad' because of the gaphics will get a kick to the teeth. You can't say Majora's Mask is 'bad' because of the graphics, that's just incredibly dumb. Also, there are 16bit(32 bit? hell if I know) games today that are pretty awesome (yume nikki, .flow) but would possibly be ruined by 'realistic' graphics. Imagine if Mario Sunshine had 'realistic' graphics!
     
  4. Very true I fully agree with you on this. Waaay too many people are worried if graphics are good or not. "Oh no did you know I grew up in an era where graphics were the last things on my list" (insert gasp from graphicwhores here).

    Yeah anyway I have a friend at school that I wish I could punch in the face so much sometimes. He's "oohing" and "awing" over the new Halo 4 graphics, while I'm sitting beside him in my Senior Sem class listen to Kirby's Dream Course (SNES game if you didn't know :p), one of the best mindless video games we own here. There's also others (Online now) who are complaining that the Legend of Zelda Skyward Swords Graphics were terrible, and it wasn't the graphics they meant I'm sure. I loved the art style but more importantly I adored the story and I absolutely fucking loved the soundtrack. When I heard the first few tracks i knew I was going to love the game, low and behold it was epic as hell
     
  5. Gunna play some devil's advocate here. Creating those "realistic HD Call of Duty Clones of yours" isn't exactly a simple task of copy and pasting a picture of Whofigesafuckinstan into a program and calling it a day. Some people did work their best to recreate those 'generic Arab cities'. And as much as I don't care for it much either, brown and bloom is an artistic decision. It derives from when war movies were made back in the day, just replace Europe's gray with the middle east's brown. Creating the dusty and dry atmosphere of those places and making them work in a medium that the creators have to take in considerations that players are moving through these places takes work.

    And let's be honest. Graphics are important. Those old games that seem so simple today? Those WERE baller HD graphics of yesteryears. Those WERE the pinnacle of pushing your machine to the limit. The first Mario brothers, Legend of Zelda blew people's minds when they came out. Also, those "$500 graphics cards" don't just push realistic graphics. They let artists create just about anything and in a lot of cases, things closer to their vision. Not pushing forward graphics technology is like saying all a painter needs is three colors and his fingers. If we didn't push forward back then Minecraft, Zelda, Mario and the like wouldn't be around today.

    So I'mma have to disagree on you. Video games are a form of entertainment. And it's now entering a stage where their graphical abilities CAN create these realistic worlds. People are taking advantage of it. Look back to the SNES and Playstation days. For every Zelda, there were 50 Zelda wanna-be with a sword and shield nobody trekking though a generic dungeon. For ever Final Fantasy, there were 800 we-can-do-it-to with a spiky-haired douchbag and his rag-tag team of Whogivesashits. And good god, just how many millions Mario clones were and are STILL being made today? There are trends and there always will be trends. You all are following one that has come and gone but see it fit to scoff at those who have picked up the current one.

    Take it from a guy who gets off on hitting "Ultra settings" setting on Crysis and playing without a hitch and then goes to play a game from 1998 when he's done; Gameplay is the most important of a game, yes. And good graphics can only make it better.

    Remember, escapism comes in many forms. Mine is fear and tension. The thrill of the hunt. The joys of battle. F.E.A.R., S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and C.R.Y- I mean, Crysis are some of my favorite games in this regard. And yes, they rely on realistic graphics. And I don't think they would have had the same impact with the style of Team Fortress 2 or Wind Waker. But I love me the shit out of some Wind Waker.

    PS: Don't ever, EVER make me defend Modern Warfare again. I will come to your home and eat your family.

    Also Modern Warfare doesn't suck because of graphics. It sucks because of OVERLY linerar level design, sloppy and boring gameplay and one-size-fits-all weapons that makes the whole "Only carry two weapons" bullshit pointless and the focus on set-pieces and cinematic nonsense over what should be the tense and unrelenting environment that is a WAR TIME BATTLEFIELD.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. So. When it comes to game graphics, I think it's okay to want something that looks beautiful, especially when it comes to a game that's suppose to be realistic, but I certainly agree that just because a game doesn't have immensely nice graphics, does not mean it's a horrible game. I would say it's more of a plus when the graphics are good.

    Though I am a lover of the retro 8-bit games, as well as all the previous console games, I can truthfully say that when it comes to a video games I base my love on the storyline.

    Take Borderlands for example. Yes, the graphics are not up to par with all the other video games that were created at the same time as it was but the storyline was phenomenal, plus it was a roleplaying/ first person shooter. An awesome combination if you ask me.

    I think if you're only looking for games with good aesthetics, and you don't care too much for the storyline, then lovely for yeh but at least learn to appreciate things before you judge 'em.