Wii U

meiyuki posted...

Blobs_ posted...

Ok, everyone is entitled to their own opinion man. I understand if you don't like skyrim, because some people don't. BUT, most people do because of its epic story, the open world, the good music, wide range of customization, and smooth gameplay. Not to mention the overall feel of adventure that only games like Legend of Zelda and Dragon Quest have been able to give a player.

There's two problems here, first popularity is a bad metric for measuring quality, and skyrim is objectively a step, or a leap, backwards from previous entries in the series.

The problem with popularity is you run into mob mentality, the psychology of conformity, fads, and mass manipulation. The thing is people like to conform, and things can take on a life of their regardless of quality. This isn't conspiratorial but marketing is all about mass manipulation, and so if we're going to us popularity as a measure of quality you run into the problem of a perhaps superior product failing, or being quite less popular because of lack of marketing budget. Sure marketing doesn't always work, and you usually need some measure of quality to become popular, but if you can't get a fad started, or get people to want to conform to your crowd you could very well stay far less popular despite being vastly superior. Are you really going to argue that spongebob and jersey shore are the kind of quality shows tv should aspire to, was the pet rock the ultimate in toy making? Likewise with video games.

To the second point, as ES graphics have increased gameplay has decreased. Skill have been removed, story depth is reduced, dungeons are more linear, freedom has been reduced, weapons are gone, and the world is less open and more shallow. Morrowind had levitation spells and the world was designed around the idea of using them add a true third dimension to much of the world, something largely missing from oblivion and skyrim.

Skyrim really reinforces both points, you can reduce quality(ie game play) and gain popularity, which also shows that increasing graphics does not necessarily increase game play.

Sorry mister. I wasn't thinking about previous games because I had never player a previous game in the elder scrolls series. From my experience in skyrim, I had fun. Please don't accuse me of having "mob mentality" or "conforming to a fad." I just played a game, and had fun with it due to it being a good game. I didn't play any other previous games, so I have nothing to compare it with. I'll take your word in previous games being better, but it doesn't mean that I didn't have fun with skyrim.

Also, I wasn't saying that popularity was equal to quality. Dear god no, that exactly what I was trying to not say. I'm saying that all these ratings and popularity are redundant, because the imaginative "rating" of a game is based on a player's experience.

Also, if I had played the previous games then I'd probably agree with you about the whole "decreasing quality but increasing graphics" thing, but since skyrim was a completely new experience to me I wouldn't know.

Really, I think a good majority of "popular" games now aren't really that good. For example, the surge of generic FPS titles. Also, many hyper-popular phone games seem overrated to me. That doesn't mean that all "popular" titles are bad though. There are many "popular" games that I really enjoyed playing. And to me, that's all that really matters. I'm not conforming to the crowd, or trying to be "in" or anything. I'm just playing games to have fun. That's all I'm really trying to say.

Sorry for not being organized and rambling.
---
The Gelatinous, Squishy, Tasty Blob of the Kid Icarus: Uprising Board.
I am a blob. Please refrain from eating me.

People are still ignoring the debate at hand.
---
I'm not man enough...to be human.

Super Smash Brothers > Super Smash Brothers Melee/Brawl

Another problem with all of this is that you can't analyze all this in a vacuum. Graphics cost money, dev costs go up exponentially with graphical increases, devs don't have infinite money, so something has to give. Most games simply would not be possible with higher graphics, and is why gameplay is always cut, Skyrim being the most simplistic with the most gameplay and story cut in the ES seriers while being most graphically intensive, FF13 is also the most simplistic with the most cut in any FF, MMOs are constantly losing more gameplay as their graphics increase, and plenty more.

Do you think if the developer of cave story had to go out and secure a multimillion dollar loan to make his game it could have ever existed?

So question should be stated would these games be more fun with higher graphics but the necessary sacrifices to get the game in with the same budget?

Pokerkid777 posted...

megax11 posted...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I agree with you TC. Whoever said that is full of ****. Just look at Hallway Fantasy XIII. The only FF game whose world is one long hallway.

Graphics bring down the potential for great gameplay.

and yet the best games for the wii this generation also had best graphics for the wii.

But those games were fun to play because of the gameplay. Compared to the HD twins the graphics were sub par. That reply of yours made no sense
---
PSN:jmanup85
"Saying all JRPGS need to evolve to be more like FF is like saying we need to evolve to be more like Trilobites." - methosagain