| Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Replies:
|
| Grave 393th Post
 
Silver Customer
  
    
|  "Re(1):Poll:Substance over style?"
, posted Wed 2 Jul 11:56
quote:
As many of you have noticed,games are usually all about flash these days. And why shouldn't they be? I mean,after all,the next-gen consoles should be used to the max.
But most of us gamers miss the days of old. Substance over style. Games like SSF2T,DS and Samurai Showdown helped change the genre for fighters,and even helped "upgrade" the fighting scheme,IMO.
After playing games like GGXX(which wasn't fun at all for me,I couldn't get into it) what do you Cafe members prefer?
This poll seems kinda silly to me. I doubt anyone in their right mind is going to admit that, yes, they enjoy bad games, as long as they look cool. If you enjoy a game, you obviously can't find the gameplay that bad, anyway. I've enjoyed my fair share of "bad" games, other people find different things fun.
There's no excuse for developers to be unable to balance both. However, I'm definitely more likely to enjoy a game that plays amazingly well, but graphics can be a turnoff. And I'm not talking bad graphics. Star Fox Adventures had great graphics, however, I hated the art direction. The characters and their glassy eyes scared me, and I absolutely loathed the design of everyone and everything in the game.
And graphics don't have to be cutting edge to be good. I'm playing Circle of the Moon on my Game Boy Player as I type this (the GB-controller is in my lap, paused), and I think the game looks great on a TV. I actually like the fact that the sprite is smaller than in the CVs that followed. The sprites aren't as elegant or as detailed as in the 2 later games, but they look very good regardless. Oh, and one of the few RPGs I've enjoyed in recent years, Dragon Warrior VII, is a mess of polygon backgrounds and SNES-style sprites. And I don't mind the look of it because the game is a lot of fun.
No matter how good a game looks, its gameplay is ultimately what matters. Beautiful graphics can only make up for so much... I don't think anyone will value them over a game they really enjoy.
|
| Kaepora
182th Post
Regular Customer
| "I picked style." , posted Wed 2 Jul 19:20
A game with substance is fine and dandy when I'm playing it, but once I stop, I think of other things. A game with style might be horrible while I'm playing it, but I remember how cool some of the ideas were, or how awesome such-and-such looked or sounded. Style gives me enjoyment after the game; at the very worst, I think of how cool it would have been if it didn't suck.
I suppose I was wrong to assume that an either/or situation like this one wouldn't have any overlap, so the "pros" listed under Style would not apply to Substance. So one would have gameplay and structure while the other has graphics and panache. Also, I classified character visual design and personality (not gameplay) as style. Geese's counters are substance, doing that afterimage arm thing while shouting "Too easy!" is style.
That's what really did it for me, I guess. I'd enjoy a crappy game that has over-the-top, enthusiastic, or otherwise memorable characters (Guilty Gear? Metal Slug? Smash Bros?) and effects more than a game that plays perfectly but has no one more interesting than Karate Guy and Ninja #5.
I like Samurai Shodown 4, but don't like Last Blade 2. Last Blade definately plays better, but SS has the better character designs and presentation in my book. I have more fun playing SS than I do LB.
|
|
|
"Poll:Substance over style?" 
"Re(4):Poll:Substance over style?" 
"Re(2):Poll:Substance over style?" 
"Re(3):Poll:Substance over style?" 
the universe and human stupidity
