>>320792316
Um, you guys can use this thread to argue/shitpost whatever by the way.

You don't have to be the person in the OP I'm replying to. I hope he sees it tho

Are there many more shitposting threads currently? I didn't check the catalog but It's a honest question.

You aren't casuals are you? Multi-thread shitposting is the new hardcore

>>320792316
>Well those games are what they are.
That is a bad excuse and a disingenuous way of admitting I was right and gameplay is king.

>When a game is seriously held back by it's hardware
No game is being held back by hardware. What are you even getting at, what is your point? Did you miss when I replied to the other guy saying that nothing, so far, has beaten Crysis Reality? That is probably the most photo-realistic game there is. And what is the point? Sure it looks amazing, but it would be nothing without the gameplay. No game today is being held back by hardware, hardware today is at a point where games can look amazing, but developers don't care because they know that what makes a game, is the gameplay. The majority of the most popular games on PC, contrary to what most will have you believe, doesn't require monster rigs. They are League of Legends, CSGO, DOTA 2, WoW, TF2. Even Valve and the giant that is Blizzard makes games that are able to run in any hardware.

What actually needs improvement today is not graphics, but more variety in aesthetics, AI < this one is extremely important and knowing how to make a good challenging game without implementing artificial difficulty, and of course better writers. Genres today such as RPGs, still haven't reached their true potential.

>>320794451
>Did you miss when I replied to the other guy saying that nothing, so far, has beaten Crysis Reality?
That was me actually. I don't think Crysis is all that is cracked up to be. Spoiler I didn't like it's gameplay and prefer other shooters. But I have played games with bad performance sub par visual from what is intended and it has had detrimental effect on my experience. That is why I know that anyone who has ever experienced muddy upscaled visuals, terrible fps drops or inconsistent visual fidelity with earlier parts of the game hint-hint: Dark Souls 1.

To me Lost Izalith wasn't so bad in it's gameplay as it was in it's visual representation and aesthetics. The thing that bugged me more than the Bead of Chaos fight was the missing ground texture over the ledge of the fog door or the lack or same detail and love they put in earlier versions.

ENB in one of his recent videos said that Miyazaki wished he would have done a better job on Duke's Archives and he didn't really understand why since it wasn't so bad gameplay wise for him but he could see that it was rough around the edges in Christal Cave. So if he was correct that Miyazaki meant visuals as well as other things that just means that of course like you wouldn't find hard to believe developers also care about their game's graphics so why shouldn't gamers? A game doesn't necessarily have to be held back by hardware. It could be other things.

>No game today is being held back by hardware, hardware today is at a point where games can look amazing,

To be honest I don't think that is true and if it is it is only until current gen gets outdated.

>>320795480
>>320794451

Sorry about the typos my head is killing me. My cold seems to be getting worse.

I agree completely on the better AI. I've seen gradual improvements in AI and it makes a big difference even if you take stuff like enemies taking cover and rushing you in Fallout 4 or the improvement to AI in DaS from DeS (although I think DaS just uses better use of scripted actions or something Idk.

I hope you realize AI is also in a way tied to hardware. Evrything that isn't pure gemeplay design and control mapping/configuration can be tied to hardware and visuals.

>. The majority of the most popular games on PC, contrary to what most will have you believe, doesn't require monster rigs.

You are coming back to the current master race PC crown problem. I just ignore them. They are no different from console fanboys. Even tho I have give my preference to people who like hardware. Still annoying tho.

>>320795480
>I didn't like it's gameplay and prefer other shooters.
This pretty much confirms that you might not be the best person to judge what good gameplay is. The amount of versatility and play style that you can do with Crysis is great.

>But I have played games with bad performance sub par visual from what is intended and it has had detrimental effect on my experience. That is why I know that anyone who has ever experienced muddy upscaled visuals, terrible fps drops or inconsistent visual fidelity with earlier parts of the game hint-hint: Dark Souls 1.
This in general just seems like you have played bad unoptimized console ports. Even <PS2 era games were 60FPS.

>ENB in one of his recent videos said that Miyazaki wished he would have done a better job on Duke's Archives and he didn't really understand why since it wasn't so bad gameplay wise for him but he could see that it was rough around the edges in Christal Cave.
ENB usually deals with graphics, and Miyazaki is talking about gameplay. What is the point here?

>So if he was correct that Miyazaki meant visuals as well as other things that just means that of course like you wouldn't find hard to believe developers also care about their game's graphics so why shouldn't gamers?
I didn't say not to care, you can care if you want. And that's some developers, can graphics help in immersion? Sure. And like I said, the giants of PC gaming doesn't even care about high graphical fidelity.

>To be honest I don't think that is true and if it is it is only until current gen gets outdated.
Why wouldn't it be true with current hardware? You saying two 980s and Pascal next year that we aren't capable or great things? What about Skyrim mods? Come on, now you are just talking nonsense.

>>320796189
>I hope you realize AI is also in a way tied to hardware. Evrything that isn't pure gemeplay design and control mapping/configuration can be tied to hardware and visuals.
Hardware today can support that.

>>320796483
>This pretty much confirms that you might not be the best person to judge what good gameplay is.
I just didn't like it's controls. They were far too console like for my taste or modern or something. Circular item sellect (I don't remember what it was, guns?) just screams analog stick to me. I prefer older shooters where I select from 1 to 9 weapons. That is my heavily biased opinion on the type of shooters I played when I was young. Then the cloak power was far too short. I prefer constant cloak until you fire like in the Alien vs Predator games.

>and Miyazaki is talking about gameplay. What is the point here?

Are you sure though. I went on limb but why would he mention Duke's Archives/Christal Cave specifically, when it was the least unfinished. Even so the later areas suffered graphically not only in gameplay. Compare them with the DLC areas. I know it's logical to make the DLC pretty to entice people to buy it but still.

> PC gaming doesn't even care about high graphical fidelity.

Those aren't real giants. Those are a blight. You said yourself, I assume you are the same person, that your problem is with current PC users and they aren't the same group of people as before.

>Why wouldn't it be true with current hardware? You saying two 980s and Pascal next year that we aren't capable or great things? What about Skyrim mods? Come on, now you are just talking nonsense.

No. No. Not that it's not true that they can look amazing. My head is really starting to hurt I didn't express myself correctly. I meant that I know off current or modern games that got held back by their hardware. You know how much Dark Souls looks better with DSfix, right? Those high res textures are in the base game but you can't see them when they are 720p upscaled. That game got held back coming late in a console gen when the hardware was old. If it wasn't a transition to better hardware it would have never realized it true visual potential.

You cannot have a game without gameplay. It's physically impossible.

>>320796483
I mean even now you see people wanting Dark Souls/Demon's Souls remaster for PS4. Everyone realizes there so much potential that you can't see in the 7th gen versions. If Dark Souls can look so much better with DSfix imagine Demon's in 1080p on PS4. Sure it's not the end of the world but still.

>>320792316
Gameplay

Demon's Souls didn't have the best graphics but the gameplay was so addictive that you could not put it down

>>320792316
Gameplay obviously.

That doesn't mean it's ok to release a game with subpar graphics though.

A game with superb gameplay but shit graphics is still going to get fucking panned by everyone.

i.e. Fallout 4: greatly improved gameplay from Fallout 3, but it had shit last gen graphics

>>320792316
A game with graphics better than gameplay is for buying, a game with gameplay better than graphics is for pirating.

>>320796678
Yes but still developers aren't utilizing it. I blame lack of skilled programmers because AI development is hard and the industry is getting flooded with mediocre programmers currently who at times only know how to rig a game in a pre-made engine with some custom models and textures.

>>320798038
That is a given. But I am more trying to establish that visuals are just as important. I've seen "Graphics are irrelevant only gameplay matters" far too often here. Which doesn't really sound right to me. I explain it as a knee jerk reaction against assumed PC master race graphics whores or something. You can't have a game without visuals either. I mean there has to be something on the screen at least. Why all the bias towards gameplay?

Hmmm. I remember now I was watching a blind person play Zelda on youtube just with audio cues so I don't know. It disproves me completely but if you put audio design next with visual design you realize it's amazing that the audio is so on point. Sloppy audio like sloppy graphics would prevent that.

>>320799101
I pirate both fampai

>>320797927
>I just didn't like it's controls. They were far too console like for my taste or modern or something. Circular item sellect (I don't remember what it was, guns?) just screams analog stick to me. I prefer older shooters where I select from 1 to 9 weapons. That is my heavily biased opinion on the type of shooters I played when I was young. Then the cloak power was far too short. I prefer constant cloak until you fire like in the Alien vs Predator games.
Seems like you were just having problems with the interface. I don't remember much about the UI, but I don't think it was that bad. And like I said, it was the gameplay that still stands today to be amazing. Even easily surpassing FEAR. I can't find that video with that Ninja guy who had some amazing gameplay footage. No it's Tetra Ninja, his channel was pretty obscure and had great gameplay videos. Like most good youtube channels nowadays.

>Are you sure though. I went on limb but why would he mention Duke's Archives/Christal Cave specifically
Balancing issue or maybe he'd figure a better way to tackle or implement new enemies, see how different weapons respond, etc.

> Even so the later areas suffered graphically not only in gameplay. Compare them with the DLC areas. I know it's logical to make the DLC pretty to entice people to buy it but still.
I agree with this, however, we are in the age of patches, DLC and so on. He could have easily implemented a new version for people to switch back and forth. If it was graphical, it wouldn't have been a problem for him to make a patch. It had to be obviously gameplay, then again, what I said is also opinion, we will never know.

>>320797927
Part 1 >>320799465

Part 2.

>Those aren't real giants. Those are a blight. You said yourself, I assume you are the same person, that your problem is with current PC users and they aren't the same group of people as before.
I meant the PC game companies such as Blizzard and Valve. There seems to be three different demographics on PC. The "super" small minority, which are the old userbase from a decade ago, these people I think have moved on to other hobbies or probably moved to Tabletop games. Then you have another group which is the "elite" hardware PC users, despite them being loud, they are also a minority when you look at the Steam survey charts for hardware. These are the guys that are annoying.

The core audience, even though they buy lots of games, don't play more than 60% of what's in their library.

Then you have the casuals, the League, DOTA2, Heartstone players that have a everyday mom's computer.

Whether they all/or some group shitpost on forums and youtube comments is irrelevant. They are annoying and everywhere. Despite them claiming superiority, they sure do love console ports.

>That game got held back coming late in a console gen when the hardware was old. If it wasn't a transition to better hardware it would have never realized it true visual potential.
Did the DSfix help you immerse more in the game? What is more believable than before? Do the people have more character, better lines of dialogue? Did the gameplay improve aside from it reaching 60FPS. Did you notice any new detail which change your previous knowledge of the world lore?

>>320792316
>taking a stupid discussion on an anonimous board way too personal to the point of making a thread

lol get a load of this virgin

>>320798284
Yes, it would look better. But to me, that just shows me that people only care for eye candy and not what's important.

>>320798790
It improved some things and further ruined others gameplay wise.

>>320798459
Demon's Souls wasn't visual so outdated for its time though. Back it 2009 it wasn't as bad. It wasn't until 2012 and the PC version that I finally realized that it could be far better. Don't you agree with this? >>320798284
At least on the point that it would be even better. I mean you can't just outright say I don't give a fuck. I though the same and tried initially playing Demon's on a CRT with Composit cable. It was a whole different world when I said fuck it and got a 1080p TV a week latter.

>>320799101
Why though?

>>320799465
>Even easily surpassing FEAR
You did not just say that. You did not. Well, an opinion is an opinion. No trouble there.

>I agree with this, however, we are in the age of patches, DLC and so on. He could have easily implemented a new version for people to switch back and forth. If it was graphical, it wouldn't have been a problem for him to make a patch. It had to be obviously gameplay, then again, what I said is also opinion, we will never know.

Someone has to pay for a patch so drastic to be made. You don't expect them to charge money for patche... oh wait. That patch wasn't even priced correctly at 20 bucks What the Fuck Namco? Paying for patches is a new low for the industry by the way.

Anyway there is this idea that going back and redesigning a game already released is a big no-no. It would admit you sold an unfinished product. (hmm another thing the industry doesn't find trouble in doing.) Okay the industry itself is disproving me left and right but still shit big show producer once said that it is his principle to never apologize to the audience. It shows weakness and incompetence. So all the effort and money to fix the later areas would be a big deal. Still developers prefer to pretend there isn't a problem rather than spend time fixing it.

>>320800667
>You did not just say that. You did not. Well, an opinion is an opinion. No trouble there.
Gameplay wise, it is objectively better. What FEAR had going for it was how satisfying it was to shoot the enemy which was made in great with the sound and how enemies reacted when they got shot. Not to mention the game's physics and some of the versatility that you could do like throwing a grenade and shooting it to kill a group of soldiers. Yes it was fun and satisfying. Crysis surpassed this not only doing the same, but also with having more to play with, with the abilities the suit gave you. And with better animation. It truly is a shame I can't find that guy's video to show you how the gameplay truly shines.

>Someone has to pay for a patch so drastic to be made. You don't expect them to charge money for patche... oh wait.
The patches wouldn't probably take more than 2 weeks to make since it shouldn't be that big, it's only 2 areas of the game, it's not like they have to redo Anor Londo.

>Paying for patches is a new low for the industry by the way.
The industry has been in a current state of lows ever since the Xbox was introduced to the world.

> big show producer once said that it is his principle to never apologize to the audience.
That is business 101, that is one of the first things you learn. It says that if you apologize for something to the audience that they would doubt your next product if it was actually finished or not by it's next release. It creates doubt in the mind. However developers revert patches all the time, perfect example is Valve going back into their R38 gun and rifle nerfs. And the community was better for it and actually thank Valve for not going through with it.

>>320799567
>Whether they all/or some group shitpost on forums and youtube comments is irrelevant. They are annoying and everywhere.
I never seem to encounter them because I don't use steam. Don't read youtube comments on videos that are 4 000 000 views those are bound to be idiotic. Some niche channels with 500 subs can have cozy discussion in the comments so I do comment and read sometimes though. It's about the size of a community not the platform they are on. IMO.

>Did the DSfix help you immerse more in the game?
Kind off. I mean better detailed wood on shields and stuff made it feel more immersive. Imagine if all the textures get changed with color approximation of what they represent. Wood brown. Metal - Gray. It won't be necessarily bad. There are games like that but it would be a different game with a different vision/design.

>What is more believable than before?

I liked that I could see all the inlines on the armor. All the details on the images on the shields. I wouldn't say it was better than when on PS3 but it was more enjoyable with better graphics, yes, to some extent which is why I support the notion that graphics can improve your time with a game.
>Do the people have more character, better lines of dialogue?
No.
>Did the gameplay improve aside from it reaching 60FPS.
I didn't use 60fps. I'm fine with 30. I just want have a personal preference to sharper images.

>Did you notice any new detail which change your previous knowledge of the world lore?

I have to reach real deep for this one to recollect anything but I don't think so. I wouldn't be surprised if I did. Probably not and it wouldn't be significant in any case.

>>320802031
>I never seem to encounter them because I don't use steam. Don't read youtube comments on videos that are 4 000 000 views those are bound to be idiotic. Some niche channels with 500 subs can have cozy discussion in the comments so I do comment and read sometimes though. It's about the size of a community not the platform they are on. IMO.
Then you can't argue against it. They are real and they are annoying and they are also on /v/. I use Steam Discussions, see them everywhere on youtube and so on.

>I liked that I could see all the inlines on the armor. All the details on the images on the shields. I wouldn't say it was better than when on PS3 but it was more enjoyable with better graphics, yes, to some extent which is why I support the notion that graphics can improve your time with a game.
Alright, fair enough.

Anyways, it was a good discussion for it what it was. In the end, while graphics do matter to an extent, it's for these aspies to yell at other who would prefer to play exclusively on consoles or whatever other platform.

I am pretty much tired as hell so I'm going to bed, but again good talk. Good night.

>>320801452
>Valve going back into their R38 gun and rifle nerfs. And the community was better for it and actually thank Valve for not going through with it.
Aren't those just gameplay though? A drastic visual change could imply what you just said above about the product. It literally does with Dark Souls 2 and how everyone is weary because of it.

Not to mention you run the risk of discovering that complainers were just a loud minority. Imagine droves of people going. "I liked Dukes better before because so and so". It's unlikely but it's possible to happen with anything. Then you would have made even a bigger business mistake relocating resources to it.

Developers only care and make a move only when money is involved. The later areas of DaS didn't really stop anyone from buying it and no one threw a fit over the missing archstone. Dark Souls 2 on the other hand sold worse and I think they noticed. That's why they actually made some moves to fix it but still priced that effort unwisely. They are looking for ways to improve where they fucked up with DaS2 money wise. They tried to replicate DaS 1 with intentionally releasing the PC version later but after it failed to make good sales numbers they trying a new approach with simultaneous release. I don't think they understand why it didn't sell like publishers often don't. They try stuff and see if it goes well. If it doesn't they change it up.

>>320803019
>I am pretty much tired as hell so I'm going to bed, but again good talk. Good night.
I was going to say the same. I am tired and I need to take some meds for this cold. It was fun, anon. Thanks for the discussion/arguing.

Just don't let them get to you or you run the risk of getting yourself corrupted like Artorias. Even if you oppose it you can become part of it without knowing. Don't lose yourself. Don't lose your way.

Fag

>>320792316
gameplay holds up no matter how old a game is, graphics most of the time don't.

>>320803768
That is just not true or you wouldn't have people complaining about this and that mechanic being outdated. You can chalk that up to newer generations but it can happen with whole genre standards like the debate whether turn based is this viable in modern JRPGs

>>320803768
>graphics most of the time don't.
You are right. Not always but there is also the "eye of the beholder" effect where everyone likes different things. Some might call Fallout 1 graphics crap. I like them very much same with other sprite games that don't look well on LCD in bigger resolutions. Usually It doesn't matter if I played them back in the day or recently for the first time

>>320804298
I meant that good gameplay holds up throughout the years, not just any gameplay. MGS1 is still fun to play even though it looks extremely dated because it has good mechanics and fun boss fights, and while it's not as streamlined as more modern games, people today can still enjoy it.
Likewise, games with good art direction hold up, not just any graphics. Infinity engine games still look good in my opinion even though most everything was prerendered, and games like xenoblade and wind waker are still going to look good ten years from now because the art direction is great.

>>320792316
graphics aren't too important, so long as you can see what you're doing with ease and it doesn't look like feces

gameplay is extremely important in a game

>>320805807
True, true. I can't really argue with that.