Help me understand

>>381162150
you're lumping more shit together than a dung beetle

>>381162150
because it won't matter how pretty the game looks if it runs like ass.
Those 16bit devs made sure the game was playable first before they worried about making nice pixel art. Same thing goes for any and all devs.

>>381162150
So The Order 1886 is better than Deus Ex?

It's sort of understandable since in the past decade there has been an explosion of walking simulators that look good but with no substance to them. Graphics are sort of important, but only if they are supported by strong gameplay and other elements of the game.

>>381162150
Because back then besides graphics the gameplay was also good and original

Now you basically play the same shit you've already played years ago but with better graphics. All modern games look identical. There is nothing original about upcoming Metro. It's just a generic QTE FPS with cinematic garbage, like every other FPS out there.

For example Max Payne 1 - the graphics were amazing for 2001 but it didn't matter, what mattered was the gameplay because it was unique and interesting. You can't say the same about the upcoming Metro because just looking at the trailers you can already see that it's literally a generic FPS from years ago but with better graphics

>>381162532
And it doesn't matter how smooth the mechanics are or how complex the enemy AI is if the game looks like shit, and takes place in a boring setting. As far as I'm concerned these things are on equal ground. Yet people on here pretend that that's not the case, and only one is really needed to make a game playable.

>>381162598
No, and there is no reason to think that I'm saying that.

>>381162740
There were a lot of derivative games back in the arcades. We don't talk about them because they are forgotten now due to being so derivative.

>All modern games look identical.
Metro: Exodus, DOOM, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, Resident Evil 7, Prey, Far Cry 5. Six first person games that came out in the past year or will come out soon that look nothing alike, and there are more examples than those and more than just first person games coming out.

>>381163524
a fun game is always fun.
a pretty game is always pretty.
a game with great graphics is only great until the next console gen.

>>381163885
Not all great things are meant to be timeless. A game can't be great unless it's cutting edge in all areas as far as I'm concerned.

>>381162150
You are in the wrong place to seriously ask that. /v/ sometimes it's fun and sometimes pure cancer.

>>381162150
because playing AAA titles is for fuckin' faggots

>>381164543
that's not a very common opinion.
And that's because it's a very high bar to have.

>>381162150
Because if you think that graphics should be a first priority, you get Order 1886.

>>381165908
The best games are the ones that take both sides with equal priority though.

>>381162150

Art design is very important. Much more important than graphics tech.

Good use of color, composition and form is much more important than masturbating over AA.

>>381166349
This. Old mario games still look just fine, and are just as good to play today.

>>381166131
Nope

Artstyle > Graphics.

Gameplay should be first, with artstyle in mind. Then the artstyle should be bought out with graphics in mind.

It's funny that you use metro as an example because the graphics in that are to enhance the gritty post-apocalyptic nature of the artstyle.

>>381166349
>Much more important than graphics tech.
A bit. But there's a line that, when crossed, makes a game look outdated, which affects presentation, which is still important.

>>381166131
you often have uneven levels of talent working on a game. MGS has great gameplay and writing, but the graphics have never been anything to write home about. They're generally considered to be great games.
I don't see why the two most important things have to be between art direction and gameplay. That's a narrow view to have.

>>381162150
18 user here, you're not thinking of it in the same way people do.

What we mean is that graphics aren't a thing that makes a game not worth playing. While maybe not common here there are people who play games from certain time periods because they say the graphics are too primitive. Even though SMB3 has worse graphics then the order 1886 SMB3 is still a much better game. We don't mean "graphics literally don't matter" we mean "old games are still worth playing even if the graphics aren't modern".