If indie games are better than AAA games, why don't they have graphics like this?
>w-well they make up for it by having good gameplay which AAA games don't have
So AAA games have good graphics but bad gameplay, while indie games have bad graphics but good gameplay. Both are flawed, meaning indie games aren't better than AAA games, just different. AA games, meanwhile, are decent at both, but don't excel at either.
2D indie games have shit graphics and terrible gameplay. Only 3D indie games are worth anything, but in that case the worse graphics are excused by the food gameplay.
most AAA games have no content and are only technologically advanced. Doesn't mean that a game studio that isn't owned by a gorillion dollar publisher can't make a game that is both great to play and graphically impressive
Gameplay > Music > Graphics >>>>> Story
A game with 10/10 in all four > a game that doesn't
No AAA game fits this description.
you can choose between two things to eat
one looks like shit, but it's healthy and tastes good
one looks good, but it's literally made of shit and tastes like shit
which one do you eat
No indie game does either... not sure what your point is
Literally this
This is the worst bait thread I've seen in a long time. Anyone who responds to this is unironically retarded.
By your logic picture books are good games.
Gameplay = Music = Story = Graphics >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Western AAA trash
>not sure what your point is
Okay, I will repost it again, since you're so dense
Gameplay > Music > Graphics >>>>>> Story
Unfair comparison because the first one is flawless in terms of its function as food. A more appropriate comparison would be:
one tastes bad, but is healthy
one tastes good, but is unhealthy
and the correct answer would be: I eat the first one 6 days a week and then the second one on my dedicated cheat day like a normal human being who is conscious about his health but also likes to enjoy himself for as long a life as possible.
artstyle is more important than graphics
No it wouldn't, because AAA games don't taste good, they only look good, the actual use of them is shit, so they look good and taste like shit.
Okay, and my point was that your model doesn't make weakness in any category below gameplay excusable or acceptable, so the model is pretty arbitrary
Yeah, they look (and sound) good, and the audiovisual aspect is half the experience of a video game, therefore looking and sounding good is part of the function a video game is supposed to fulfill.
Boy you gotta try harder if you wanna make a good bait
Make a good argument then, since no one has yet
Corr-fucking-ect, video games should always, ALWAYS strive for gameplay, whether in absolute or contextual (for example compared to other games in thr genre) terms
Yes it does. Gameplay is vastly more important than any other factor. And regardless, most indie games don't have bad graphics, they just don't have 4K photorealistic graphics that look exactly the same as every other AAA game
>Ubishit bullshot
>Gameplay is vastly more important than any other factor.
Wrong, it's equally as important as graphics and sound as far as video games are concerned.
No its not. Kill youreself
Objectively incorrect
I've played it on max. It looks like that.
thisage
Indie games have better music
>not saging stutter posts
retards
I've listened to your meaningless dribble and now you can go fuck yourself with a broomstick. What separates videogames as a genre is the interactivity, which makes is logical to put on the pedestal above other aspects. Videogame will still be a video fucking game even without sound or graphics as text adventures have shown.
Mechanics exist so we can interface with a world that looks and sounds interesting. Strong mechanics in order to interface with something that looks like shit is for autistic people. No good argument can be made that suggests otherwise.
>as a genre
As a medium obviously*
He's gripping the fly rod wrong.
No its so I can play a fun game. Im sorry youre a filthy zoomer that needs pretty lights everywhere
Baba Is You
end of argument
>So AAA games have good graphics but bad gameplay, while indie games have bad graphics but good gameplay.
I see you have come to the misconception that grpahic fidelity is what measures good graphics as opposed to an artstyle. Plenty of indie games ALSO have good graphics whereas I'd be hard pressed to many AAA games have good gameplay.
>...
>not sure what your point is
stay in school
I'm sorry, but you said GAMEplay, right? Wouldn't that make the indie GAME better than the AAA "GAME"
Baba Is You isn't ugly though
There's no reason to make an argument against you since you haven't provided any to begin with. Writing opinion pieces against other opinion pieces is a waste of time and ultimately irrelevant since I can just skip to the point of calling you names. Dumb fucking nigger.
Gameplay>story>music>>>>>graphics
You must be under the age of 20 to not list graphics dead last
Realistic graphics =/ good graphics. You completely neglect the importance of artstyle, framerate, performance, optimization, and various other issues that you'd face if realism is all you care about,
Why do you make the assumption that because it's indie it automatically means the graphics are bad? Flawed argument.
No because they're called VIDEO games
According to OP, anything that isn't HD photorealism is bad graphics
Gameplay>>>>>story
Ok, by that logic, fallout 4 is a good game because it’s fun. Who cares if the writing is garbage? That’s not gameplay.
They are part of a visual medium, indeed, but they are also GAMES.
>you're all just opinions!!!
>my opinions are FACT tho
k
Well same goes for AAA games and gameplay, I was making a generalization
but FO4 also has shit gameplay
I am OP and I didn't say that, Far Cry looks good because it's detailed but also beautiful in terms of art style
It's not a generalization, it's fact
Well you're obviously a shill then
>fallout 4 is a good game
false
its gameplay is trash. Play 1/2 you stupid zoomer
The gameplay is easily the best in the series, you can’t deny that.
Since the gameplay of 4 is superior to the awkward gunplay of NV, it is a superior game.
According to the flawless logic present here
A shill for who? The massive indie publishing ring?
if they spend alot on graphics alot can end up being cut.
The indie publishing ring, yes
FOOD
ANALOGY
>my opinions are FACT tho
I haven't said that, you illiterate cunt, which ironically makes my reasoning for calling you dumb fucking nigger more justifiable.
Fallout 4 has better gameplay than NV. So by that logic it’s a better game. Who cares about story am I right?
I absolutely can deny that because the gameplay is shit
>Caring about graphics in 2k current year.
Pleb detected
But the gameplay, as shit as it is in 4, is objectively BETTER THAN NV. That’s the point I’m trying to illustrate here. So by that logic alone, it’s better than NV
I've made my arguments and you're out of them, hence the resort to debase mine as "opinions"
>The gameplay is easily the best in the series, you can’t deny that.
Yes you can because it isn't the best.
Embarrassing opinion
No, it isn't.
Repeat them for me, since I'm so dense then
Godfather is widely recognized as one of the greatest films of all time but lacks giant CG robots. in this, both Transformers 4 and Godfather are flawed works.
Explain? How in the world is clunky unresponsive gamebryo engine shit in New Vegas an upgrade to the shooting in 4?
This is literally the ONLY thing everyone agrees that 4 did better, but that’s only because it’s a newer game
You certainly >implied it when you asked why indie games don't look like the latest AAA trash
see
If you can’t work that out I’m afraid you might be clinically retarded.
gunplay =/= gameplay
You realize Fallout is first and foremost an RPG before it is an FPS correct?
No I didn't, "graphics" as in the end result of what we see, that includes the fidelity and detail and also the art style
Because gameplay is not just the shooty bangs. It is also the combat encounters in which to use the shooty bangs, the exploration, the character development, and even the branching progression of quests. 4 is objectively inferior to NV in all of these regards.
It's a matter of opinions. Some like spectacles, others a "deep" narrative, theres also the exploration, and finally how you interact with the game. What I'm trying to say is that what you think doesn't matter.
Because I'm right, and you're wrong.
I don't see any arguments here, chump
You're retarded then
you did say that if you're including fidelity and detail. Baba Is You is both lo-fi and relatively simple, but you didn't want to get caught saying it's bad, so you just moved the goalposts.
Better than NV. So by that logic it beats NV
Mhm, sure. And uh, what’s constitutes good RPG elements? Could the writing and by extension story have anything to do with it?
You cannot make a good fallout rpg without good writing. Writing>>>gameplay in fallout series
>Better than NV. So by that logic it beats NV
Disregarding that I highly disagree with that initial statement, yes by that logic it would beat NV.
>Could the writing and by extension story have anything to do with it?
They do in this scenario because these elements directly tie into the actual game design of NV by allowing the player to choose different courses of action to complete a task aka GAMEPLAY.
I didn't reduce what "graphics" entails like that and never implied it, you just think I did. There are a ton of games from the 80s that have good graphics in my opinion. Baba Is You looks good, there are a lot of 2D indie games that don't though
Giving the player multiple choices is absolutely meaningless if the choices are not interesting or poorly rationalized, like “choosing” factions in fallout 4
Graphics are actually Tech + Art Style
So no, your picture shows good tech but incredibly boring and bad art, it earn a 10/20 for graphics at best.
Meanwhile, a lot of indie games will get 3/10 tech and 10/10 art, resulting in 13/20 graphics.
Indie games often win even on the graphic department.
Checkmate
>Giving the player multiple choices is absolutely meaningless if the choices are not interesting or poorly rationalized,
Sure, but that doesn't change what I said because an easy way to make choices interesting is if they have actual different impacts on how you played the game which is still related to gameplay. I don't know why you want to keep implying that this is soley a writing thing.
>So no, your picture shows good tech but incredibly boring and bad art
No it doesn't lol how could you think this except if you generally disliked the outdoors and the homeliness of American rural living
indie doesnt mean good gameplay, but it usually means something that isnt just a mix of whatever already works and is standard (same aiming, same controls, same movement, same stealth, etc...)
some indie games do fall into simply recreating a system that isnt very standard now but was at times (the retro 3D shooters, the 2D sidescrollers, etc...).
So the selling point for indies is certainly gameplay, I dont think that its because its good, but because you most likely wont find it in AAA.
DMC5 does
Do you have something against 2D in general or something? What a stupid statement.
>story is important in a video game
ironic.
>GRUG ONLY PLAY TWITCH SHOOTER OR PACMAN NOTHING ELSE IS GAME
>HYBRID OF MOVIE OR BOOK AND GAME IS NOT REAL YOUR THING BAD MY THING GOOD
This, kek!
FFVII