Do you consider any fifth generation video games genuinely beautiful?

A lot of them.
Nights and Burning rangers have a very nice style.

Tron Bonne, Spyro, Crash, etc

OoT, MM, or Mario 64.

File: open1.jpg (19KB, 379x258px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 379x258px

Yes. If you account for what they managed to achieve with their polygon and texture limitations, they get even more beautiful, and can appreciated a lot more than the HD remakes

File: lostvik2.png (100KB, 640x240px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 640x240px

>>2922970
Any?
It was crazy time. What used to be drawn, almost everything went pre-rendered. I don't like this time, but it's history now, we aren't going to see those CGIs once more.

File: giphy.gif (2MB, 640x448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x448px

>>2922970
Yes

2D ones, yes. The rest aged badly.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (112KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 1280x720px

You just gotta get used to it.
(this isn't a hack, btw, bloody roar 2 natively supported widescreen )

Assuming you're strictly speaking about 3D games (cuz there are a lot of beautiful 2D ones), then the ones who have aged well are those with pre-rendered backgrounds. FFVIII have some of the nicest towns ever, even though I don't like the game. But if you want to get even more restrictive and you want me to chose from those games that were fully 3D, then it gets complicated. I guess some of my choices would be:

-Vagrant Story, still beautiful to this day despite the muddy textures. Illumination and architecture makes the visuals very appealing.

IS Internal section: not "beautiful" per se but rock solid graphics that look almost like a PS2, helped by abstract, futuristic graphics, the then "hi-res" definition of the game and the 60fps.

-Lots of ported arcade SEGA games to the Saturn, but that's because I immensely enjoy that SEGA aesthetic, blue skies and summer.

-Speaking about SEGA, Panzer Dragoon titles hold somewhat well to this day, beautiful scenery.

-Mario 64 still looks good to me due to the vibrant colors

-Ridge Racer Type 4 not only has great graphics that have hold well, but it's also pleasant looking; moody colors, lush horizons, nice urban sorroundings

File: 2294583769_b04914a3aa.jpg (155KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 500x375px

Kirby 64 still looks good today.

Any art direction can look good regardless of the technical side.

If your concept of "beauty" is the number of polygons and pixels there are on the screen at once, then no.

This is a problem with gamers, a standard established by pro reviewers: they try determine the concept of beauty by looking at numbers. That is wrong.

File: FlutterVsGesellschaft.png (36KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x480px

The MML series really knew how to make the most of low-poly graphics.

>>2923065
It still does surprisingly. Kirby is a series that looked very similar because of how simple it looks.

File: silent-hill-school-door.jpg (103KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1440x900px

>>2922970
yes

Generally any games with high quality pre rendered backgrounds can still look great today, like the 5th gen resident evil and final fantasy titles. Special shout out to the first two oddworld games though. The art direction is really strong, the FMVs still look great and the 3d models fit in particularly well with the backgrounds, maybe because they're smaller on screen than the zombies in RE and the lack of detail is disguised.

>Asking this on a site where the majority like fucking pencil drawings.

Of course many are beautiful.

For realistic games, not really.

For the style of games, dozens: OoT/MM, Banjo games, Conker, Nights, Rayman games. I could go on and on.

>>2923065
wow, those are some smooth spheres. I guess they put a lot of work into it because that is what you would stare at the most.

File: CRASH-BANDICOOT-2-IMAGE.png (523KB, 585x379px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 585x379px

>>2922970
The Crash Bandicoot games look pretty good.

As for PC games during that time, Unreal takes the cake.

>>2922970

Yes.

Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask
Metal Gear Solid
Silent Hill
Final Fantasy IX

There are many others that I consider to have great graphics, (most Rare games for instance) but those are the ones I consider beautiful.

>>2923030
>The rest aged badly.

They've always been the same. My opinion has not changed on the graphics since when those games were new. The same goes for many others. Don't try to shit up this good thread. If you don't agree, don't post here. Simple as that.

File: 3out.jpg (186KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 960x720px

>>2922970
yes

>>2923672
God, that aliased low poly aesthetic gets me rock hard

>>2923647
But the majority of these games look shit. Except Crash Bandicoot though, those graphics aged well.

>>2923697
Your opinion is shit period.

>>2923708
It's like saying an Atari or NES game had good graphics. It just didn't happen. 2D graphics didn't get good until the 16-bit era, and 3D graphics didn't get good until the seventh gen.

File: PSOGL008.jpg (173KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1280x960px

>>2922970

File: goemon-screenshot.jpg (81KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 640x480px

both N64 Goemon games

>>2923714
So many PS2 games were ugly muddy shit though. I'd take the visuals of MML over a lot of PS2 games.

File: 06.jpg (274KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 640x480px

>>2923721

>>2923725
That's why I said seventh gen.

File: 41.04.jpg (130KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 640x480px

>>2923728

>>2923714
>until the seventh Gen

I'd say 6th is when they got good. Lots of GameCube, Xbox, and Dreamcast games still look great. Can't say the same for PS2 games besides the Tekkens, Metal Gears, and a bunch of platformers.

>>2923725
I don't understand why people underrate the PS2. Especially the whole "muddy" thing. I feel like that is a stereotype of the console that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.

The games ran at a higher resolution than PS1, the textures were better, way more polygons, and no jiggle, warp or order glitches. There is no way the games should look worse than PS1 whether technically or artstyle wise.

I'm guessing it's because people have been sharing cherry picked emulator screenshots.

>>2923787
I think it's because of the more popular games on PS2. When I think of the PS2, I think of GTA:San Andreas, and while I enjoyed that game, it was one of the first "let's make everything brown and orange" games that I know of.

>>2923787
I believe half of that could be due to the dev kits suffering from the same key mistake as those of the Saturn and N64s - being hell to work with.

File: Sketch17014213.png (587KB, 1280x750px) Image search: [Google]

587KB, 1280x750px

>>2923787
Exactly.

Compare & contrast.

>>2923714
>It's like saying an Atari or NES game had good graphics.

I played a bunch of Atari and early arcade games for the first time as a part of a collection on PS2 and I was actually wowed by the graphics. Some of the effects they use are just plain awesome and very appealing aesthetically. Graphically, one of my favorite games of all time is actually the arcade version of Defender.

I'm not underage, I'm in my 20s, but I didn't grow up with Atari or early arcade games before anyone wonders why I played them so late.

>>2923730

Why are you even on this board? Did you just come here to talk shit on old games?

>>2923761
>still look great.

Are you implying that someday, they will change and not look as good?

>>2923818

That's one of my all-time favorite games. You should play the OG Xbox version. It's the best version and it looks amazing. They updated many of the textures, improved the draw distance, etc. It's certainly not brown and orange.

>>2923849
Sure, why not?

>>2923846

He's probably the same kind of person who goes to church just to make fun of Christians. He's insecure and needs a reason to feel superior.

>>2923846
What makes you think that? I have a SNES, Master System, Mega Drive, Dreamcast, Playstation, and I have a Saturn on the way. Just because I enjoy the games, doesn't mean I have to think primitive 3D looked good. I personally enjoy the charm of early PS1 games and stuff, and appreciate how cool they were at the time, but being honest, if I showed footage of a fifth gen 3D game to any normal person today, somebody who's not into old games like us on /vr/, they would say it looks like garbage.

>>2923714
It's funny how you mention Atari or NES because apart from a few NES games, I also don't like the NES graphics very much, I much, much, much prefer SNES standard. It's just something subjective, I can't help it. I can see why people would find those graphics beautiful.

Again, we're not talking about "good graphics", we're talking about "beautiful graphics". You seem to be leaning back towards as if there's some technological achievement to it that we have to consider when we already clarified that's not what we're doing at all. We're going on visuals. And yes, fifth gen graphics could be beautiful, particularly N64 games. PSone graphics aren't my cup of tea so much, but N64 graphics most of them are incredible. To this day, the crocodile kremlins in Donkey Kong 64 and the bosses and environments in Turok 2 jump out and hit me as being perfect and beautiful.

File: hqdefault.jpg (22KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x360px

>>2922970
Sure.

File: 2108070248_c59e08e7d0_o.gif (41KB, 300x220px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 300x220px

>>2923881

You should really stop thinking of things as subjective. If you've come here from /v/, fine, but try to adapt to this board's culture. We try to be much more friendly towards one another here. We respect one another's opinions.

If you don't like NES graphics, then hey, that's fine. But don't insult those who do or act like they are objectively shit. There are many people who love the NES aesthetic and indeed find it beautiful.

File: Little-Samson-201301020642256.jpg (29KB, 256x240px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 256x240px

>>2923941

Little Samson also has pretty good, elaborated spritework that I think still looks good today.

But also many simpler NES games I think still look good due to art direction. Kirby, SMB2 and SMB3 are timeless in that regard.

File: 126366-the-lucky-dime-caper-starring-donald-duck-sega-master-system.png (5KB, 248x192px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 248x192px

>>2923958
The worst NES had is NES lacked proper yellow color.

>>2923941
>If you've come here from /v/, fine, but try to adapt to this board's culture. We try to be much more friendly towards one another here. We respect one another's opinions.

I've been here since the board opened, and it's the only board I visit regularly. In the past couple years, however, this board has just become /v/ 2, so the way I see it, if you can't beat em, join em.

>>2923989
This is the craziest, rudest and stupidest place I visit on the internet, based on his description I can only imagine how bad /v/ must be.

>>2924003

It's really, really bad. It's nothing but an endless amount of reposted threads and mindless insulting.

>>2923989
>if you can't beat em, join em.

This is a really bad philosophy. Don't you miss the way /vr/ used to be? You should try to stimulate quality discussion instead of furthering /vr/'s downfall. I'm really confused at why you would purposely shit up the board.

>>2924085
I do miss the way /vr/ used to be, but now that /v/ has found it, the process is irreversable. It will always be a shithole now, whether I'm shitposting or not.

>>2923989
Fucking idiot right here folks.

For me the only game that holds up from that era graphically is NiGHTS: Into Dreams. Whenever I show people the game they don't believe me when i tell them it's almost 20 years old.

File: Yoshi's Story (U) (M2).png (111KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 320x240px

No.

Honestly, I really hated the rise of 3D during this time because it looked so ugly in comparison to 2D games, which were starting to look really nice.

>>2924112
>which were starting to look really nice.
I disagree. We've already saw the full potential of 2D games around the 4th gen. In my opinion, I thought it was the most apt thing to start experimenting more with an element that has already been tinkered around with a little since the early 80's (at least for video games). Anyways, 3D games started hitting that sweet spot around the end of the 5th gen.

>>2923021
What is this good dragon game?

>>2924164
>full potential of 2D games around the 4th gen
Nah, we saw the full potential of 2D with arcade games at the end of the 5th gen with Capcom, Taito, Sega, Konami.

>>2923054
>Vagrant Story
>muddy textures
What the fuck? Are you playing it on an emulator with filters of something? It has a pixelated aesthetic, and if was rebuilt from the ground up on modern hardware, with no shaking, no warping, no shitty texture-scaling that makes everything in the background pixelated as fuck, and a high resolution, it would look fantastic.

>>2922970
2D sprite games with 3D cutscenes and FMVs for the PS1 and Saturn. So much space to make a game when you aren't throwing random polygons around all willy nilly.

>>2923141
The thing about MML is how the characters have aged well. The cutscenes are full of charisma.

>>2923851
>You should play the OG Xbox version.
Not him, but I never knew such thing existed.

>>2924164
>>2924689

You're both crazy. 2D games have not reached their full potential. In fact there will always be room for improvements what 2D platformers can do.
Even in recent times 2D games have been getting major advancements compared to previous generations, such as the Retro Studios DKC games, Rayman Origins/Legends, Yoshi's Wooly World etc... I know this is /vr/ but you still have to admit we couldn't have gotten 2D games that looked this good in the 5th gen.

>>2924696
Maybe they are referring to the fact that Vagrant Story has a rather brown look to it.

>>2923724
I must have spent at least $100 renting this game from the video store.
Never even finished the game.

>>2924784

Getting a memory pak for the N64 is totally worth it just for the Goemon games.

>>2922970
Banjo Tooie and Donkey Kong 64 are beautiful games. I just like the graphics from the fifth generation in general.

>>2924678
Legend of Mana.

>>2922970
They have their charm. The Dreamcast has my absolute favorite "level" of 3D graphics. Advanced enough to offer nice textures and decent models, but still nowhere near the uncanny valley that the rest of the 6th gen and 7th gen kicked off. Makes it easy to see why Dreamcast is considered /vr/ when you look at it like that.

>>2923647
Hold up there, I'm not OP or whatever, but obviously anyone can have his own damn opinion.

File: Spyro.png (1004KB, 1364x612px) Image search: [Google]

1004KB, 1364x612px

No game will ever beat how beautiful and surreal the environments/general graphics in Spyro 3 look. Every last level looks more magical than the last

>>2923045
>Jenny the Butt

>>2925103
nice try that's from enter the dragonfly on PS2, not from spyro 3

>>2923021
Ah man one of my favorite games. I do a yearly or every 2 years playthru of this game. So many different things to find and see. Still got my save from years ago.

File: tumblr_nha1aazRs41taxp4po1_1280.png (828KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

828KB, 1280x720px

>>2925231
Shit. Youre right, I shoulda checked that. But I stand by my point. I found it hard to get any images of Spyro 3 landscapes, but heres lofty castle from spyro 1

>>2925439
although it doesn't really show how it appears in-game because that emulated shot has disabled LOD

typically the stuff in the distance would be lower poly and untextured

File: 1374606833746.jpg (26KB, 435x326px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 435x326px

>>2923989

>everyone else is rude so I'll be rude too

Underage please fuck off.

Also PS1 graphics are the GOAT. Games now have too much detail in them; for me, there's some kind of polygon/small scale to comfiness ratio that no modern games can ever achieve.

>>2923818

it's a shame that San Andreas is the one everyone remembers/talks about when Vice City was so much better.

>>2923881
>if I showed footage of a fifth gen 3D game to any normal person today, somebody who's not into old games like us on /vr/, they would say it looks like garbage.
I know at least one person, showed them Tomb Raider 1 and Tomb Raider Anniversary. They really liked 1, but didn't like TRA, saying TR1 looks like a video game, but TRA doesn't, it's "too realistic". That person is definitely not representative, but there are people out there who associate a certain "artificial" look with games, and are kind of annoyed by modern development

>>2923881
I don't think people would care. Most mobile games look worse than gen 5 games desu. And that's what people play now.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (124KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1920x1080px

>>2923672
The only thing I don't like about this game is the soundtrack.

>>2923941

>We try to be much more friendly towards one another here. We respect one another's opinions.

The words of someone who hasn't been paying attention to anything. This place is at least as bad for trolling and shitposting as /v/ is. Sometimes it's actually worse.

>>2925501
> Most mobile games look worse than gen 5 games desu
Depends on what you mean by worse, no V gen consoles was able to show in the resolutions what are standard for phones now.

>>2922970
3d games? No. Doesn't make them any less fun.

>>2925501
Most mobile games are made by tiny teams of people compared to most "big name" games that got full boxed releases. Of course most of them aren't going to look as good. Expecting some ground of 10 dudes in an office somewhere to make graphics on par with 90's era Square or Nintendo is crazy.

Also, when did things flip from everyone saying "graphics aren't important, all that matters is the game" for years and years to "that looks like shit, so it's shit" that we get today.

>>2925554
>when did things flip from everyone saying "graphics aren't important, all that matters is the game" for years and years to "that looks like shit, so it's shit" that we get today.
Since the publishers decided that games should be prettier over functional.

File: vp4.jpg (22KB, 400x227px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x227px

>>2922970
Pic related

>>2925816
We're not publishers.

That said, the modern gaming market is oversaturated, and the vast majority of the market is happy enough with basic gameplay. That has two consequences. One, gameplay is not being developed. In fact experimental or new gameplay is avoided as a risk factor. Established gameplay is heavily reused, and occasionally tweaked a little. And two, the player's time is still limited. Combined with the increased number of games that means the competition for the player's time is increased. Since publishers decided demos are evil, the only way to get into the wallet of the player is through marketing. That includes screenshots, which hence need to look good.

Note that the gameplay statement does not apply to mobile gaming. Freemium uses a far more sinister model

>>2925816
But that's the opposite of what I'm talking about. That guy was talking about how modern games look ugly. Party line used to be graphics aren't important, gameplay is what matters. Now we get a shit ton of "that looks like shit, so it's shit."

>>2925824
>In fact experimental or new gameplay is avoided as a risk factor.

Only in AAA titles though, and that's always been the case. Smaller games these days are trying all kinds of different things. New genres are developing faster now than ever.

>>2925829
it's pretty well understood that mobile gaming offers no gameplay in any useful sense. So one might as well discuss the only saving grace of these products, their graphics. And they, despite the platform and the developer being capable, are not that stellar.
People have a pretty good sense about the personal investment of developers in a game. If a developer is passionate but unskilled, they can get away with lackluster graphics, because people understand the developer focused on what really matters for the game. If a developer is highly capable, yet turns out mediocre graphics, it smells of a throwaway job, which people don't take kindly, and, often correctly, assume the gameplay is equally shallow

>>2925837
>that's always been the case
Look at major productions from three decades ago. You find a lot of variety and creativity

>New genres are developing faster now than ever
citation needed, or at least some recent examples

>>2925840
>it's pretty well understood that mobile gaming offers no gameplay in any useful sense.

Mobile games are more momentary little games than the kinds of things you would sit down and put your full attention towards. To say their only saving grace is graphics is overly simplistic. You might not like or want to play Peggle or Angry Birds, but they do what they set out for pretty well. The people they were made to appeal to enjoyed them, which is really all that matters.

>>2925842
Mobas, Minecraft (and it's offshoots) and Tower Defense come to mind. Also Dwarf Fortress was born out of roguelikes, but is something else of it's own and now the start of it's own genre.

>>2925862
>they do what they set out for pretty well
They set out to generate revenue. Full stop. That's all they do. Their "gameplay" is a means to that, not more. Be it a "building" game, or a puzzle game, or something MMO, these mechanics are always shallow and adapted in order to introduce waiting periods and frustration. The developers of these games are not innovating in terms of gameplay. They are taking established mechanics, and wrapping them in revenue generating mechanisms. These mechanisms are the focus of development.

>Peggle or Angry Birds
Both not exactly fair examples of Mobile games. One started out as an indie standalone game on the desktop, the other as a flash time waster, also on the desktop. They have been ported to mobile platforms, but they don't follow the mobile typical freemium model, or at least last time I checked, which is long ago, they didn't.

>>2925869
>They set out to generate revenue.
To be fair, that's the basic purpose of every single video game. But as I say, they're not really made for people like you or I who are more interested in sitting down to a full, deep gaming experience. They're made for people commuting or killing time waiting in lines, which is where I see most people playing them.

I don't think a game necessarily needs to be complex or deep to be successful. Solitaire is almost a purely time wasting activity with virtually no real "game" to it, but has been popular for years and years specifically because sometimes that's what someone wants out of a game.

The freemuium model is just their way of selling it. It's easier to give a game for free and then try to incentivize someone to spend some money once they're invested than it is to try and get them to shell out up front.

>>2925893
>that's the basic purpose of every single video game
Heavily disagreed. On top of that, a lot of games used to, or still don't have, any revenue generating mechanisms. There's the initial sale, which is fair compensation for the product provided, but the game itself is not doing anything to drain money from the player, except maybe being a good advertisment for a successor or the developer

>you or I who are more interested in sitting down to a full, deep gaming experience
Don't assume. I like portable games, to the point that I actively do not want to see living room games on a portable system. Mobile games just aren't games. They may look the part, but their purpose is entirely different.

>I don't think a game necessarily needs to be complex or deep to be successful
I did not imply that. I said that any gameplay in mobile games is just the means to further the revenue generating function.

>Solitaire is almost a purely time wasting activity with virtually no real "game" to it, but has been popular for years and years specifically because sometimes that's what someone wants out of a game.
And solitaire without cooldown periods (which can be overridden using money), dead ends (which can be bypassed using money), or constant reminders to buy cards and layouts, is a perfectly fine and fair game. I used to play it for years, unironically.

>The freemuium model is just their way of selling it
Wrong way round. Freemium is the purpose, the business goal.

>It's easier to give a game for free
No, it's necessary to give the game away for free, because the game merely exists to generate desire and impatience, through achievements, unlockables and cooldowns. In order to use all these mechanisms to get money from the user, it's necessary to get the user hooked. Even dealers know that the first hit is free.

>than it is to try and get them to shell out up front.
It's what worked very reliable for decades, and produces games which actually respect the player

>>2925869
There's tons of great full length mobile games. See Riptide, Pixel Dungeon, dead trigger, NFS series, plants vs zombies, baldurs gate, WmW and others.. To simplify it like that isn't fair and a little absurd. Just because there is a lot of shovelware doesn't mean there isn't any great games. There's even plenty of ports of gen 5 and 6 games on Android. Also look at the excellent sonic ports. That said, a lot of games do follow the freemium model. But no one is forcing you to play them, or buy anything in them. To expect them to make a game for nothing is what's absurd

>>2925914
>shovelware
If it was shovelware, it would be fine. It's deliberately user-abusing mechanisms.

>plenty of ports of gen 5 and 6 games on Android
I'm distinguishing between games that happen to exist on a mobile platform (especially ports), and games that are developed for a mobile platform, especially the freemium model.

>no one is forcing you to play them, or buy anything in them
That's a bullshit excuse. These programs are deliberately designed to undermine rationality.

>expect them to make a game for nothing
Where did I do that? I consider the freemium model hostile. In fact I mentioned open support for the regular payment model.

File: 1446552156301.jpg (106KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 640x480px

Tomb Raider 1 still looks beautiful, in my opinion. The textures, the architecture, all of the landscapes you run through. The water graphics and sound design are top notch

>>2925926
I pointed out several franchises that have full length mobile games. And in addition many f2p games play fine without buying anything. Provided you don't play for hours on end. I play a couple of f2p 4x4 games every day on mobile and just go do something else while my turns recharge. It isn't really a big deal, I don't need that instant gratification. You're missing out on some great stuff I'd you don't try it.

>>2925931
good old 16-bit graphics

>>2925906
>There's the initial sale, which is fair compensation for the product provided,

I think both are fair, they're just different. The vast majority of people who play freemium games never pay a dime. They're bankrolled by the small number of people who put a lot in.

If the people I see on the train each morning playing games on their phones are enjoying their time with them, that's good enough for me. I don't want to be playing the games they're playing, but they also probably don't want to be playing Monster Hunter which is more likely what I'm doing. I just see different games made for different people. It's all good to me.

>>2925935
>play fine without buying anything
Well ...
>Provided you don't play for hours on end
Triggering impatience in the player, which can be resolved using money. Yeah, hostile model.

File: final-fantasy-ix-alexandria-party[1].jpg (113KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1440x900px

The character models were hit and miss but Final Fantasy 7-9 had some beautiful backgrounds

>>2925940
Again, just to clarify: I see nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with the game mechanics of these games. I specifically value portable games, which are designed to be portable (short sessions, small context, easy to interrupt or cancel, not subject to shaking or unstable environment). I see a lot, if not everything wrong with the freemium model, as it involves player hostile practices within the game mechanics.

>>2925941
The games aren't meant to be played that way. Just like go outside or get some food. Or god forbid play something different. It's not forcing you to do anything. Even in the most jew of f2p games Candy Crush your lives recharge after 45 minutes and you get some free powerups. Just stop acting like a petulant little child.

>>2925942

7 had great backgrounds, but it really annoyed me how much of the world was actually just narrow paths with junk around it that you couldnt climb on

>>2925947
>It's not forcing you to do anything
It isn't. Just using dirty tricks to strongly encourage you, nag you, make the negativity go away. A game that is deliberately negative, and then offering a solution for money, is bad, no, evil design.

>>2925947
>your lives recharge after 45 minutes
> stop acting like a petulant little child
>The games aren't meant to be gamed

Most gamers aren't going to play shitty casual games that they have to stop playing due to reasons if they have real games available to them

>That stuff might be fine on the toilet or killing time but that's about it, not for actual gaming.

>>2925941
It only triggers impatience in some people. Most just go with the timer or play something else for the mean time. The statistic is something like only 1 in a hundred people put money into any of these games.

I personally enjoyed a fair amount of Candy Crush. Sure it was just a bejeweled clone, but it did some interesting things here and there and was overall fairly enjoyable. I played it for several months on and off, never put any money into it but enjoyed the time I spent with it.

On the other hand, if it was even a dollar I never would have touched it. I have no problem with how they "sold" it.

>>2925949
It was the first FF game, massive amount of improvement between 7 and 9 though.

>>2925959
>It only triggers impatience in some people
It is deliberately designed to. How people deal with it is different, that's the gamble they take. Does not change their intention and design one bit.

>>2925954
Most people who play these games just pull them out on the toilet or something like that though. The timers don't mean anything to them because they're not permanently invested in it. Next time they need to shit, it will have recharged and they can spend five minutes raising a dragon or poking a kitten or whatever else the game has you doing.

>That stuff might be fine on the toilet or killing time but that's about it, not for actual gaming.

Which is exactly the point. These aren't full, deep games. They're 5 minutes mini games to kill some time.

>>2925965
>because they're not permanently invested in it
Another common exploit mechanic is "rewards", stuff for starting the game at least once a day. It increases the personal time investment, sense of responsibility, keeps the program in the user's memory (brain, not computer) and lowers the threshold to shelling out actual money

>>2925962
>How people deal with it is different, that's the gamble they take.

That is their gamble, and I think it's their prerogative to make. I do see how it can lead to games with lackluster gameplay, but I don't see anything inherently wrong about someone wanting to do that. Sure they want you to get hooked and spend money, but they know the vast majority of people won't.

Again, this led to a situation where I played and enjoyed Candy Crush without ever spending a penny. Might they have been able to make a better Bejeweled clone without needing to design it around the freemium model? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Either way, all I really care about is that there was a game I enjoyed.

>>2925970
But again, if someone doesn't care or that doesn't bother them then how is that bad necessarily? You're acting like the developer wanting the played to enjoy the game enough that they spend some money on it is this dirty practice.

I look at it more like these are super extended demos. The basic game is free, if you get super invested in it or want to play a ton then you pay a bit and you can. It's different from the game being $5 up front, but I don't think it's necessarily worse.

>>2925972
>I think it's their prerogative to make
And I'll call it out as the abusive tactic that it is.

>it can lead to games with lackluster gameplay
The gameplay is not being developed. It's the means, not the goal.

>I don't see anything inherently wrong about someone wanting to do that
That's kind of sad.

>all I really care about is that there was a game I enjoyed
And confirmed the freemium model as viable on the platform, keeping it active and alive for a long time to come, encouraging programmers to specifically design programs with the sole reason to exploit psychological effects to drain money from your wallet. Whether you personally are able to resist or not is secondary. The program's available, and successfully suffocates less abuse models, as you yourself admitted.

>>2925982
>Whether you personally are able to resist or not is secondary.

I don't think it's secondary at all. I also disagree that the traditional game model has been suffocated. But I also disagree that any of this is inherently abusive in any way. So really at this point we disagree almost completely on everything it would seem.

>>2925978
>if someone doesn't care or that doesn't bother them then how is that bad necessarily?
It is bad because the mechanic itself is hostile towards the user. Instead of providing entertainment to the player, the purpose is exclusively to drain money, by any means necessary, including heavy disrespect towards user agency. It's bad, because, as some anons already said, it works against more ethical models (why pay for a game, when you can get a "game" for free?)

>You're acting like the developer wanting the played to enjoy the game enough that they spend some money on it is this dirty practice.
The developers are not wanting the player to enjoy the game. They want the player to want to continue the game, so they can put up roadblocks that frustrate the player, and provide a convenient solution for money. The freemium model is actively designed against entertainment, not for it.

>super extended demos
A demo advertises a full product, in particular a product where the developer gets out of the way of the player, and especially doesn't set up intentionally negative interruptions and reminders. A product that can be purchased, or rented as a whole, removing the incentive of the developer to abuse the player.

>>2925990
>I don't think it's secondary at all
These products are put on the market because they work. Whether they work on you in particular, does not affect the overall result, these products being on the market.

>I also disagree that the traditional game model has been suffocated
Several anons said they'd not pay for mobile games when there are free options, ignoring that the free options are unethical in their mechanisms. In other words, the mere existence of these products discourages actual sales of games.

>>2925991
>Instead of providing entertainment to the player, the purpose is exclusively to drain money,

Except as I pointed out, I got entertainment without having my wallet drained. In fact, of everyone I know who plays those kinds of games (my mom, wife's parents, aunts etc) I don't know anyone who has ever spent money on them.

These games are designed to try and make money but they're not successful with the vast majority of people.

It's also not really impacting game sales, because the people playing them were unlikely to ever buy a game in the first place.

Anyways, I think I'm done with this. I see where you're coming from, but we're never going to see eye to eye on it. I don't love the freemium model, but I don't think it's nearly as inherently awful as you. We'll just have to disagree and leave it at that.

>>2925998
What's the difference if I spend 15 upfront for a game or 5 three times for all the unit packs?

>>2926018
Other than knowing the cost upfront to complete a game/buy the full game?

>I dunno

>>2926009
>Except as I pointed out, I got entertainment without having my wallet drained
Except as I pointed out, that's a coincidence, not a development goal.

>but they're not successful with the vast majority of people
Frankly, I don't care. They are designed to. That they fail is secondary. Actual games do not try to, and are not designed to. They provide entertainment without the dirty tricks. Why should I care that the dirty tricks rarely work? Does not make them any less dirty.

>It's also not really impacting game sales, because the people playing them were unlikely to ever buy a game in the first place.
The only reason they'd never buy a game in first place is that the market established these things are available for free. These products broke the mobile game market quite badly.

>>2926018
If I can't buy a game they don't get anything from me, even free to play models should include something to buy the full game/future updates (like Smite)

>>2926018
Nag screens, reminders, advertisings.

That said, you mentioned add-on packs, which are rather different from the discussed freemium model, which is based around resources. You can not complete the purchase of a freemium game

>>2926021
But if it ends up being the same game in the end, what's the real difference?

Besides the fact that I can decide 1/3 of the way through that I don't enjoy it enough to finish and then not have to pay another $10.

>>2926030
The difference is not being able to unlock the full game upfront

If I play a game I have no clue how much more I'm going to struggle or grind for not continuing to buy more garbage

If you enjoy buying pieces that's great for you, but there should at least be the option to buy the full game

>>2926023
>They provide entertainment without the dirty tricks.

I don't see the developer hoping that I pay for the game if I like it as a dirty trick. It's way easier to get burned buying something you hope will be good at full price and then find disappointing than it is from a free game.

>>2926023
>The only reason they'd never buy a game in first place is that the market established these things are available for free.

Except no. Because all the people I mentioned had been around a long before video games existed at all. Free mobile games didn't stop my wife's mom from buying regular games and move to only playing free ones.

It took someone who never, ever played games and turned her nose up at them into someone who plays, enjoys and appreciates games. I think that's pretty great.

On the other side there's me. I play and pay for normal full games as well. The freeware games I play don't stop me from doing that at all.

>>2926045
Middle aged house wife pls go

>>2926039
>If I play a game I have no clue how much more I'm going to struggle or grind for not continuing to buy more garbage

Games are pretty easy to research now that we have this fancy "internet" at our disposal. In the absence of actually checking out a game first to see if I would like it, I prefer the option to only pay $5 upfront instead of $15.

>>2926045
>I don't see the developer hoping that I pay for the game if I like it as a dirty trick
It's also not the freemium model.

>>2926051
Then keep paying for your casual buy a piece of the garbage games if that's what you like

Why exactly are you against a company offering the option to unlock the full game? You seem pretty god damn defensive over it.

Why is it "buy the pieces or don't buy anything at all"

>>2926051
>games are easy to research
>I only want to buy one piece in case I don't like it

>>2926057
>Then keep paying

Nice reading comprehension there, genius.

>Why exactly are you against a company offering the option to unlock the full game?

Nothing. As I've mentioned several times, I like buying games that way. I simply have no problem with other models as well.

>>2926062
Also someone else who apparently couldn't even read two whole sentences. lol I was saying that I research games before I buy them. In the event that I didn't do that, it's easier to get burned spending $5 than $15. lol

>>2926068
>>>2926057 (You)
>>Then keep paying
>Nice reading comprehension there, genius.
Bro, you are at the very least buying to get started with your five bucks

You have defended your five-15 dollar investments furiously

>>2926073
That's a theoretical situation we're discussing. That if a game was theoretically available as either a $15 single purchase, or sold in three "chapters" for $5 each, I think the piecemeal model is a viable one. Not necessarily what I would choose depending on the game, but an option I would not mind seeing.

In actual practice, as I said pretty clearly neither I nor anyone I know has actually paid anything at all for any game with a freemium / pay to play model. Ever.

>>2924784
I bought it at walmart on sale without any research. After i got past the difficulty it was a really really fun game.

File: 1452984679406.jpg (92KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 640x640px

>>2925459
>Can murder 100 cops
>Can not swim 10 feet
Vice city sucked for that reason alone.

>>2926052
>>2926052
How is that not the freemium model?

>>2926192
It is not possible to purchase a freemium game. Freemium games use money in exchange for limited in-game resources that deplete. That can be a fuel mechanism, it can be cooldown overrides, it can be a boost. As such, constant payment is required to maintain these features. It's kind of related to a lease model, with the major (VERY major) difference that depletion can be accelerated, it's not a simple exchange of money for time. For example you can use all the purchased resources nearly instantly and in rapid succession, or draw them out over a very long period.

A developer offering a free part of the game with a purchase option, and the purchased game being free of recurring costs or nagging, is simply the demo model, or better, a blend of the demo and shareware model. Only, shareware was usually exchanged freely, while apps have the central store component. The design of the game though, a part of the game + advertising for free, and the full game for a price, is almost a carbon copy of shareware design, whereas demos in the traditional sense are custom built and do not necessarily include any level or aspect of the actual game.

>>2926212
>>2926212
That's still the developer "hoping you pay for the game" No one said anything about purchasing. Isn't the point that the games are free to play in the first place?

>>2926212
>A developer offering a free part of the game with a purchase option, and the purchased game being free of recurring costs or nagging, is simply the demo model, or better, a blend of the demo and shareware model.

Finally we agree on something. Except I like it.... Not as the only option. But as another potential way of selling a game I think it's just fine.

>>2926221
>Except I like it....
At no point did I oppose the demo or shareware model. I oppose the freemium scam

>>2926212
Or you can play their game for free until you're bored and then move onto the next one. Then it's just free games.

>>2926217
>the developer "hoping you pay for the game" No one said anything about purchasing
You are not paying for the game in the freemium system

lol misread, I guess we don't agree at all. I liked both the demo/shareware and free to play models equally.

>>2926234
>You are not paying for the game in the freemium system

That's a real stretch of semantics. Is that really what you were talking about? Either way it's the dev hoping you give them some money for playing their game. Instead of buying it outright it's free. If you want some bonuses or to keep playing a lot at one time you can pay a bit to do that. If you don't, you don't.

>>2926212
Not the guy you're talking to but the problem with the freemium model is that so few people pay anything. At it's height only 3% of people playing Farmville paid for anything and it was considered one of the most successful freemiums ever. Unless your game is massive it won't make any money at all.

>>2926240
>it's the dev hoping you give them some money for playing their game
No, it's the dev tricking you into giving them some money. The game does not rely on any of these mechanisms, and these mechanisms are by design disruptive and "annoying".
You can think of it in terms of a) taking a game (that's the simple part), b) adding an addiction mechanism or two (daily rewards, unlockables, achievements), and c) adding an annoyance mechanism (progress hindered by cooldown, lack of crucial resources, or alternatively, tune the progression of the game towards grinding (which is also annoying) and offer a mechanism to bypass it. I have no problem with the first step, and plenty of freemium programs are fairly good in that regard. I have big problems with the remaining parts. They are unrelated to playing a game, and designed to disturb or damage the game. As such, I consider it hostile towards the user.
Maybe to clarify the usage of "annoying" here: I'm trying to use it in the sense of something that is designed to run counter the mechanisms of the game. For example a game may have a "just one more round" formula to it. A cooldown prevents this from working, it solely exists to annoy or upset the player, and then give them an instant resolve in form of a temporary and depleting resource. Compare with a shareware game, where, for example, you may get an upfront limit of rounds, that can not be extended. It's clearly communicated that this is part of it being a shareware or demo. After purchasing the game, this "damage" of the game is completely gone, the developer won't repeatedly nag the player about it, and has no particular reason to make the game extra addictive, in order to lure them into further purchases. That is, the whole customer-developer relationship becomes one of a mutual business, instead of a con-mark situation.

>>2926259
>For example a game may have a "just one more round" formula to it. A cooldown prevents this from working, it solely exists to annoy or upset the player, and then give them an instant resolve in form of a temporary and depleting resource. Compare with a shareware game, where, for example, you may get an upfront limit of rounds, that can not be extended. It's clearly communicated that this is part of it being a shareware or demo. After purchasing the game, this "damage" of the game is completely gone, the developer won't repeatedly nag the player about it, and has no particular reason to make the game extra addictive, in order to lure them into further purchases.

Guy who's been talking to you the most here. I see those as both equally valid. You see the freemuim model as more annoying, I do not. I look at the cooldown as an excuse to do something else. By that method, so long as I don't want to rush through the whole thing, I can play the whole game for free. I like that better than a demo and then having to pay for the rest actually.

>>2926257
The freemium mechanism relies on so called whales. Few people that actually pay, but pay unreasonably large sums. We're talking straight up large 3-digit sums, or 4-digit sums, stuff that would never fly on a full price game. In a way, the freemium model acts like spam. The vast majority of people won't fall for it, but it doesn't matter, because distribution is practically free (to the creator). All you need is a victim or two, that lacks judgement, and milk them for all their worth. That "for all their worth" is where all the dirty tricks step in, the impatience, annoyance, limited but buyable ressources, etc. And to get these few heavy weight victims, you need the spread. The best a freemium developer can hope for is that their product goes viral. The more people install it, the more likely they find a whale or two. Again, the actual distribution is practically free for them, so there's no "risk" in being as widely installed as possible.

>>2926263
>You see the freemuim model as more annoying
I see it as deceptive.

>I look at the cooldown as an excuse to do something else
And for every ten-thousand people like you, there's one that's gonna end up with crippling debt because they fell for it. Not cool.

>I can play the whole game for free
Including constant nagging, excessive grind, peer pressure (MMO design), or in short, a damaged product.

>I like that better than a demo and then having to pay for the rest actually.
With the demo model the developer has no interest to lure or deceive you after the purchase (they may during the demo, but it tends to hurt them in the long run). In fact, their highest interest is in actually making the whole thing enjoyable, in order to recommend themselves for your next purchase. These games rely on fun over addiction (You, and many anons on this board, know quite well how to deal with the addictive aspects of freemium games, they're not aimed at us. That they exist, is, in my opinion, a very bad thing. A business model that relies on an abusive relationship with the customer

>>2926259
>No, it's the dev tricking you into giving them some money

It's them TRYING but it never works. You act like people actually buy those stupid bonuses and shit.

>>2926278
One in a couple of thousands does, and when they do, they usually do so with large amounts of money. It may be dozens of dollars, hundreds, thousands, depending on how "lucky" the dev is. There's no cost in giving their product to everyone, but there's reward in giving it to the right person.

>>2926264
Exactly. Harry Connick jr says he spent over a hundred grand on Candy Crush. Dude basically bankrolled the game for me, and he was happy cause he gives two shits about 100k here or there. Works fine for me!

>>2926276
>there's one that's gonna end up with crippling debt because they fell for it

If there's someone out there stupid enough to put themselves into crippling debt because of a freemium game, they deserve what their stupidity has wrought.

Stay mad at the games if you want, but I'm done work so time for a train ride and monster hunter beside some old lady having fun playing candy crush for free.

>>2926286
Okay? So one in a hundred wants to drop some money on the game. Why should I be upset is some rich fuck wants to blow a wad on some game? Do you hang around arcades and tell people they're not really having fun because they're not buying the games they're playing? lol.

I probably put hundreds of bucks in Street Fighter over the years. Am I a whale?

>>2922970
There were some amazingly gorgeous PS1 and Saturn games, but that was because of the systems being able to display 2D art so well. 3D graphics on all of those systems were far too weak to make any of those games genuinely beautiful though.