So obviously people are still airing their grievances with some of the visuals, animations, and detail. On the other hand, Andromeda seems to be delivering a lot of content with its MP, dozens of planets to explore, hubs to visit, crafting, RPG elements, dialogue, romance, character creation, etc.
So which do you value more in this regard? If you value Visuals more, would you cut a lot of this game's content out, just to get graphics and animations on par with Uncharted? Or are you pleased with the visuals and animations, that are acceptable by today's standards, so long as the game has boatloads of different things to do?
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition, Dragon Age The Veilguard Posts: 12,981 Likes: 21,014
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda, Anthem, Mass Effect Legendary Edition, Dragon Age The Veilguard
Content. If anyone is acting like a few animations or appearances that seem off or not perfect enough is going to ruin their experience, then they are going to miss out on a lot! Then again, I'm a woman who grew up with FF games where the tiny sprites had more character in them than the realistic ones of today.
I can't split them up. The specific reason I play video-games rather than read books, is because I want a full immersion in a gorgeous world with characters that look the part. Arcanum was a game that appealed to me on every level, but I could not play it, because graphics was so bad. One of the many, many reasons I do not own Inquistion is that I do not like how the world and characters look. In Blade and Soul, I felt continuously irate because the monetizing outfits and character creator were completely at odds with the gorgeous landscape art, the very best Korea can offer (they've also hired cheap hacks instead of writers), lol.
I do not just value the digital mastery of the environments and cc, I value the artistic unity of the game, and its unique recognizable style. To me, the writer and the visual arts teams (along with the combat team) need to be in sync to produce an exceptional game that utilizes the best resources available to it.
I love it that BioWARE always aims for it, even though they sometimes cannot deliver. Those three or so times I tried a non-Bio game, I saw plain as day why I should not have.
Post by Giant Ambush Beetle on Feb 21, 2017 18:02:10 GMT
In this day and age graphics have become so good that even mediocre graphics is pretty damn impressive, so now content and story are more important than ever.
Gameplay will always take precedence, but in these realistic open-ish world RPGs, the greater the fidelity, the creativity in the environments, character models, lighting, colour palettes, binaural audio, etc., the more I can immerse myself. So it is almost equally important to me. I want that visual *WOW* factor in these kinds of games.
I think Photogrammetry will be that next step up for BioWare...
Both. ME's story was definitely the reason I fell in love with the game, but let's be real here, it's 2017. No, I don't require Uncharted 4 level graphics, but I don't see why Andromeda's graphics wouldn't be on par with, say, Battlefield 4, when they're both running on Frostbite. With that being the case if the footage we've seen so far was created to deceive us (no, I don't think this is the case), and we get a game that looks like XCOM 2 instead, i'm not going to be happy at all.
I think the issue is with the sheer amount of variation and content in ME:A, getting the animations and visuals to top quality would be a colossal undertaking from a budgeting and development standpoint. ME3 and DA:I sold well, but not TW3 or GTA:V well.
Plus I honestly think this game looks beautiful. It's animations are its weak point, but I think for the most part they're fine, with some notable exceptions.
Post by n7ltrobbiesann7 on Feb 21, 2017 19:00:38 GMT
In order of importance: Content > Visuals.
It's like cake. The cake itself must be worth wanting to go back for another slice. The icing, the outer layer of visual appeal, is nice too. But hey, even gold plated turd is still underneath the shiney.
Post by Link"Guess"ski on Feb 21, 2017 19:39:05 GMT
I hate the word content when people use it as an umbrella term for "that... stuff you can do in the game"
There's a difference between just "content" and "good content" vs "bad content". I'd rather have pretty graphics with good content than pretty graphics with bad content.
And there's quantity. I don't just want content for the sake of content. It needs to be well designed, as much of it as possible which is to say, quests, characters, story missions, equipment, weapon-selection, leveling and abilities, it all has to be well made but if that comes at the cost of graphics I'd rather have bad graphics.
When it comes to content as in "the game world + size" I obviously prefer a balance where there's impressive graphics so the world isn't so big that they had to make too big sacrifices or they had to make the world so huge that they ended up making bland level design.
ME1 has some awful level-design, especially in the UNCs, but I still found it to be good content because of the way they controlled it. Each planet's saving grace is how it's slightly more than a color-swap. It also has different environment hazards, usually a completely unique skybox, different terrain textures, sometimes weather effects, and there were around 3-5 objectives usually where 1 or 2 of them are quest/story-related and interesting and the rest is RPG filler. That was good content in my eyes striking a fine balance of quantity/quality and decent visuals.
"A geth wanting emotions would be no less disrespectful a character than a black man who wanted to be white." - L'Etoile
Playing long time ago FFVII I learned to understand that a good game is based on it content, not visuals. That's it. Nowaydays seems like it's more important to see the pore of the skin in a game than a good plot. Sad to be honest :/
Playing long time ago FFVII I learned to understand that a good game is based on it content, not visuals. That's it. Nowaydays seems like it's more important to see the pore of the skin in a game than a good plot. Sad to be honest :/
Amen! I played even the earlier FF games on the SNES and the stories and characters were so easy to love and they were just pixels! You can have the most beautiful visuals, but if the content and character development sucks, I'm not buying it. MEA has both which is a nice blessing but not my reason for buying it. Silent protagonists and dialogue boxes in place of famous voice actors still has a certain charm to me.
Depends on what you define as visuals. Personally, every game these days could look like MGS3 on the PS2 and I'd be fine if they spent the time improving everything else from AI, number of NPCs on screen, and AI.
Ive never had a top of the range Gfx card for my pc. Mid range at best so I never run games with all the "bell and whistles". Narrative is far more important than eye candy...
Some of the best games I've played were not much to look at but as long as the story is strong who cares imo...
I'd say both are pretty important. But, if the gameplay, story etc. is great but the graphics are mediocre, I'll play it and probably enjoy it well enough. If the graphics are incredible but the content is shit, then it'll get old quickly.
If both are great and compliment each other, then you have an amazing game on your hands.
Instinctively I'd say content, content, content, but I'm aware that a large draw for many games is being able to take nice screenshots of them. That said, there are lots of beautiful games I don't play because the content doesn't interest me, even though I would be able to take great shots.
So yes, I think content first, but having good visuals alongside that content has become more important to me in recent years. Bad visuals aren't a deal breaker though.
