Support NeoGAF

[samoilaaa]

Then try to find less braindead work, if videogames is the only way to stimulate your big flat BRAIN.

ohhh fuck off will ya ? AAA games making you so fucking dumb you wont know whats 2+2 anymore

 

[Heisenberg007]

Game Design > everything else.

Boobs > Game design + everything else.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I remember seeing a thread floating around where you guys talked about the graphical fidelity that we should expect this generation, and sure, it is an important aspect when it comes to the evolution of the medium, and I do appreciate me some nice graphics that justify buying all that beefy hardware. However, I feel like there are other, very important elements that make up video games that often get glossed over in those types of discussions, chief among them being the level of interactivity that's present in current triple-A gaming.

Currently there's so much effort that goes towards the visuals just so that the game could impress the audience at first glance but, as a result, most of the things that you see in the scenery ends up serving as nothing more than a set dressing. But in my opinion, the stuff that could help to make games far more impressive are things such as more advanced physics and destructible environments, or simply a higher level of interactivity with the game world.

To emphasize what I mean, picture a scene like this:

Spoiler: A rather long-winded description of a hypothetical scenario

Let's say that you're playing a new Deus Ex game in a final installment of the Adam Jensen's prequel trilogy with a possible option to play in VR. One of the missions in the game takes you to a hotel where you're staying during a covert mission to put a surveillance on bad guys' room. You have multiple options in which you can achieve that, and one of those is reaching the roof and tapping into the hotel's network through a transmitter that's located there. One of your options to reach that objective is to exit through the window and shimmy across the ledge towards a ladder that will take you to the roof. As you reach the ladder, you hear a loud TV playing from a half-open window just a few meters further from the ladder. You can either ignore it and go up, or you can check out what's all the commotion. Inside of the room you can see a guy who dozed off while watching the box. Again, you can ignore him, or you can knock on the window, which will make him wake up. If he sees you, it would turn out that he's a conspiracy nut (in line with the series' themes) and excited about seeing an augumented super-spy outside of his window, he writes down and shows you a key code to some random broom closet door that janitors use, because he thinks they're hiding some stuff there that poisons the hotel water supply with a mind-controlling drug. He's a nutjob, obviously, so you can either pick one of the options from the dialogue tree that pops up to humor him, question further, or just tell him to buzz off. Or, instead of doing that, you can just say nothing and simply gesture a thumbs up before moving on, and he would actually react to it as well.

It would be this little, out of the way interaction that only serves as a small piece of humorous world building, but I feel that there's very few studios or individual creators who ever bother to put stuff like that in their games, because all the budget has to go towards the graphics and story elements. There are very few creatives in the industry these days who ever think about little details like these, chief among them being Hideo Kojima, for example. Imagine how much better Cyberpunk would be if Night City wouldn't be just a nice-looking wallpaper that decorates V's linear adventure. Or how much more impressive any game would be if you could actually destroy the environments and make the destruction persistent, which would be particularly impressive in games where you revisit certain areas multiple times. There are a few things that are quite as satisfying in a video game as examining the aftermath of a pitched battle, but you simply cannot do that if everything poofs out of existence mere seconds after its over because the devs needed to save memory in order to animate strands of hair up the main character's nostrils.

Well all of that sounds really great and super fun, I don't believe that's practical.

AAA games have already bloated in terms of budget, resources, and development time. To make so many different scenarios and account for the reactivity of each scenario seems nearly impossible.

Also, this is just once scene you're talking about. Imagine dozens of missions that have hundreds of such interactive sequences and scenes, which could open up branches to thousands of reactivity scenarios.

As much as I'd like to have this, I don't think it's possible at all. Unless we unlock the power of real-time AI-based procedural generation (voice acting, dialogues, scenarios, reactivity of NPCs, animation: everything!), we will not have stuff like this.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

NO > YES

It totally depends of a LOT of things, there is not "one rule"

 

[Lethal01]

The fact that I can touch everything does not make a game good.
Good story, gameplay, music and graphics do

It makes em better, A game with a world you can have fun interacting beats one with a great story every time.

 

[rofif]

It makes em better, A game with a world you can have fun interacting beats one with a great story every time.

No. not at all.
DMC 3 got no interactivity at all. You just beat up enemies. Just an example.
or Soma or adventure games and so on. Plenty of games that wouldn't gain much with a bunch of interactive shit added in place of a story lol

 

[Lethal01]

No. not at all.
DMC 3 got no interactivity at all. You just beat up enemies. Just an example.
or Soma or adventure games and so on. Plenty of games that wouldn't gain much with a bunch of interactive shit added in place of a story lol

DMC combat in a world like ToTk's sounds 10x more interesting that DMC with a good story
Same could be said about Final Fantasy 16 and final fantasy remake combat.
And an adventure game with a very interactive world you use to solves puzzles also sounds fantastic and more interesting than what Soma was.

 

[rofif]

DMC combat in a world like ToTk's sounds 10x more interesting that DMC with a good story
Same could be said about Final Fantasy 16 and final fantasy remake combat.
And an adventure game with a very interactive world you use to solves puzzles also sounds fantastic and more interesting than what Soma was.

but that's not a choice. You can have both.
Shit moving around the battlefield you can interact with changes nothing.
Elden Ring world is static... and yet it's the best game ever made

 

[Lethal01]

Shit moving around the battlefield you can interact with changes nothing.

Yes it does? You just need to make the shit have properties that changes the flow of battle and options in combat, again, Tears of the kingdom came out just a month ago and demonstrates this pretty well.

Elden Ring world is static... and yet it's the best game ever made

It's world being static is probably a big reason it's not, Miyazaki said that Breath of The Wild was his favourite open world and that he studied it to created Elden Ring, Clearly he's got a lot to learn.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

In all seriousness. When one of the best racing experiences that you can have look like this:

Then you know this thread is correct.

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

I remember seeing a thread floating around where you guys talked about the graphical fidelity that we should expect this generation, and sure, it is an important aspect when it comes to the evolution of the medium, and I do appreciate me some nice graphics that justify buying all that beefy hardware. However, I feel like there are other, very important elements that make up video games that often get glossed over in those types of discussions, chief among them being the level of interactivity that's present in current triple-A gaming.

Currently there's so much effort that goes towards the visuals just so that the game could impress the audience at first glance but, as a result, most of the things that you see in the scenery ends up serving as nothing more than a set dressing. But in my opinion, the stuff that could help to make games far more impressive are things such as more advanced physics and destructible environments, or simply a higher level of interactivity with the game world.

To emphasize what I mean, picture a scene like this:

Spoiler: A rather long-winded description of a hypothetical scenario

Let's say that you're playing a new Deus Ex game in a final installment of the Adam Jensen's prequel trilogy with a possible option to play in VR. One of the missions in the game takes you to a hotel where you're staying during a covert mission to put a surveillance on bad guys' room. You have multiple options in which you can achieve that, and one of those is reaching the roof and tapping into the hotel's network through a transmitter that's located there. One of your options to reach that objective is to exit through the window and shimmy across the ledge towards a ladder that will take you to the roof. As you reach the ladder, you hear a loud TV playing from a half-open window just a few meters further from the ladder. You can either ignore it and go up, or you can check out what's all the commotion. Inside of the room you can see a guy who dozed off while watching the box. Again, you can ignore him, or you can knock on the window, which will make him wake up. If he sees you, it would turn out that he's a conspiracy nut (in line with the series' themes) and excited about seeing an augumented super-spy outside of his window, he writes down and shows you a key code to some random broom closet door that janitors use, because he thinks they're hiding some stuff there that poisons the hotel water supply with a mind-controlling drug. He's a nutjob, obviously, so you can either pick one of the options from the dialogue tree that pops up to humor him, question further, or just tell him to buzz off. Or, instead of doing that, you can just say nothing and simply gesture a thumbs up before moving on, and he would actually react to it as well.

It would be this little, out of the way interaction that only serves as a small piece of humorous world building, but I feel that there's very few studios or individual creators who ever bother to put stuff like that in their games, because all the budget has to go towards the graphics and story elements. There are very few creatives in the industry these days who ever think about little details like these, chief among them being Hideo Kojima, for example. Imagine how much better Cyberpunk would be if Night City wouldn't be just a nice-looking wallpaper that decorates V's linear adventure. Or how much more impressive any game would be if you could actually destroy the environments and make the destruction persistent, which would be particularly impressive in games where you revisit certain areas multiple times. There are a few things that are quite as satisfying in a video game as examining the aftermath of a pitched battle, but you simply cannot do that if everything poofs out of existence mere seconds after its over because the devs needed to save memory in order to animate strands of hair up the main character's nostrils.

Good thread.

Dwarf fortress, cataclysm dda and caves of qud come to mind.

If we could get something like cata or coq in third person a la totk, that would be impossibly rad

If any big developers ever got into the autism simulator genre, Vidya as a whole would become very interesting

 

[Dynasty8]

This is why I've been enjoying indies more and more lately. Game design, fun and proper challenge has been thrown to the side as an afterthought for most triple A titles. Graphics are the main priority, the focus and the main thing that matters....I'm all for good graphics, but not at the expense of making a game a slog.

Nowadays, most of these games are littered with non stop slow walking and crawling sections, non stop waypoints that remove any discovery or surprises, very grounded and extremely linear level and game design that doesnt let you play how you want to play...and games that "win" for you with over forgiveness and no consequences.

This is why I love certain developers that go against that formula.

 

[March Climber]

if having gameplay for braindead people fun then good for you

Then try to find less braindead work, if videogames is the only way to stimulate your big flat BRAIN.

ohhh fuck off will ya ? AAA games making you so fucking dumb you wont know whats 2+2 anymore

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

i would rather play a game like dishonored with average story/character but amazing level design /interactivity/ environmental storytelling than a game like god of war with good writing but boring level design

Welp, didn't take long to see which way you lean with these trash takes :/

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

It is possible to have both.

RDR2 still looks better than most "next gen" games and still is the only actual interactive open world.

Bad example. The game has very bad mission level design. Doesn't let you do quests the way you want, and instead you have to follow paths the developers want you to follow, or you fail the mission.

 

[farmerboy]

Interactivity>graphics

What if I also appreciate the way my eyes interact with whats on screen?

 

[sendit]

Boobs > Game design + everything else.

 

[93xfan]

I remember seeing a thread floating around where you guys talked about the graphical fidelity that we should expect this generation, and sure, it is an important aspect when it comes to the evolution of the medium, and I do appreciate me some nice graphics that justify buying all that beefy hardware. However, I feel like there are other, very important elements that make up video games that often get glossed over in those types of discussions, chief among them being the level of interactivity that's present in current triple-A gaming.

Currently there's so much effort that goes towards the visuals just so that the game could impress the audience at first glance but, as a result, most of the things that you see in the scenery ends up serving as nothing more than a set dressing. But in my opinion, the stuff that could help to make games far more impressive are things such as more advanced physics and destructible environments, or simply a higher level of interactivity with the game world.

To emphasize what I mean, picture a scene like this:

Spoiler: A rather long-winded description of a hypothetical scenario

Let's say that you're playing a new Deus Ex game in a final installment of the Adam Jensen's prequel trilogy with a possible option to play in VR. One of the missions in the game takes you to a hotel where you're staying during a covert mission to put a surveillance on bad guys' room. You have multiple options in which you can achieve that, and one of those is reaching the roof and tapping into the hotel's network through a transmitter that's located there. One of your options to reach that objective is to exit through the window and shimmy across the ledge towards a ladder that will take you to the roof. As you reach the ladder, you hear a loud TV playing from a half-open window just a few meters further from the ladder. You can either ignore it and go up, or you can check out what's all the commotion. Inside of the room you can see a guy who dozed off while watching the box. Again, you can ignore him, or you can knock on the window, which will make him wake up. If he sees you, it would turn out that he's a conspiracy nut (in line with the series' themes) and excited about seeing an augumented super-spy outside of his window, he writes down and shows you a key code to some random broom closet door that janitors use, because he thinks they're hiding some stuff there that poisons the hotel water supply with a mind-controlling drug. He's a nutjob, obviously, so you can either pick one of the options from the dialogue tree that pops up to humor him, question further, or just tell him to buzz off. Or, instead of doing that, you can just say nothing and simply gesture a thumbs up before moving on, and he would actually react to it as well.

It would be this little, out of the way interaction that only serves as a small piece of humorous world building, but I feel that there's very few studios or individual creators who ever bother to put stuff like that in their games, because all the budget has to go towards the graphics and story elements. There are very few creatives in the industry these days who ever think about little details like these, chief among them being Hideo Kojima, for example. Imagine how much better Cyberpunk would be if Night City wouldn't be just a nice-looking wallpaper that decorates V's linear adventure. Or how much more impressive any game would be if you could actually destroy the environments and make the destruction persistent, which would be particularly impressive in games where you revisit certain areas multiple times. There are a few things that are quite as satisfying in a video game as examining the aftermath of a pitched battle, but you simply cannot do that if everything poofs out of existence mere seconds after its over because the devs needed to save memory in order to animate strands of hair up the main character's nostrils.

I’m hoping Forza Motorsport really shows off some neat next gen feel with it’s 8 points of contact per tire.

Leave a laugh emoji if you agree and a plain face if you really, really can’t wait to play it.

 

[samoilaaa]

Welp, didn't take long to see which way you lean with these trash takes :/

with a name and a profile pic like that i wouldnt dare to speak

 

[StueyDuck]

Bad example. The game has very bad mission level design. Doesn't let you do quests the way you want, and instead you have to follow paths the developers want you to follow, or you fail the mission.

Well done for watching a YouTube video and not having an opinion of your own

 

[mxbison]

Well done for watching a YouTube video and not having an opinion of your own

Anyone who played RDR2 should have noticed that missions are 100% on rails with zero player choice. You really don't need a Youtube video for that.

 

[crackajack]

No matter how good the interactivity is, if you are interacting with a brick, you will lose interest eventually (unless its a competitive game, but even then, it well attract less user especially in modern era).

As much as I don't get it at all, isn't Minecraft proving the exact opposite? The graphics are imho one of the worst in recent gens (you have to go back to Atari to find something worse) and the gameplay seems nauseatingly stupid, but people especially the ADHD riddled youth love it.

It makes em better, A game with a world you can have fun interacting beats one with a great story every time.

Personal preference.
I love QTE games when the story is good. It's the genre where I think the most advancements are done in modern games, since any gamey stuff is already researched to the max that is possible on a controller. Those usually quite hated games are almost the only games where the story is acceptably good and not drowned under gamey stretcher stuff. A lot of games would be much better if they didn't overstay their welcome, be more focused and get rid of all the allegedly required play time. I want more games like those, instead of the millionth open world grind with boring sidequests and wasted story, that stretches that story that might work quite nicely if told in under 10h, but since gamers rather run around in filler content, to get "value", we have to dilute that to at least 30h and transform that story to something that loses all worth with pacing that is just off several miles.

 

[StueyDuck]

Anyone who played RDR2 should have noticed that missions are 100% on rails with zero player choice. You really don't need a Youtube video for that.

Well I mentioned the open world originally anyway And the npcs came out talking about missions like they always do because again the internet told them its cool to say.

It's like say the word star citizen without the npcs all yelling scam.

When people bring up the nakey jakey video when ever rdr2 is even mentioned let alone having nothing to do with the topic just instantly tells me that they can't think for themselves

 

[SeraphJan]

As much as I don't get it at all, isn't Minecraft proving the exact opposite? The graphics are imho one of the worst in recent gens (you have to go back to Atari to find something worse) and the gameplay seems nauseatingly stupid, but people especially the ADHD riddled youth love it.

my original point was never about graphic, my point is interactivity is equally important as the content that you are interacting with, not graphic (of course a more serviceable graphic is nice to have).

As for Minecraft Its not a black and white situation, what Minecraft provide is a DIY experience meaning the amount of content is only limited by the player's imagination, and it could be play as both co-op multiplayer and competitive multiplayer.

Another thing to consider is that you could have hundreds or even thousands of game with different type of content but same play loop people would still probably have incentive to experience them all, but if you have hundreds of Minecraft-like DIY experience, even if you offer different play loop, you probably will have very disproportion sales between them because for this type of game you might only need 1 or 2 on the market.

 

[Fess]

But then you play it 2nd and 3rd time around and you realize.... there is nothing in the game.
You fight few enemies, everything is simplistic because the game must be possible to finish but people of different physiques.
Still.... I finished it 3 times and I would be happy to do 4th if I ever get a chance again but it lost a lot of it's magic after first playthrough

From my perspective that can be said about all games. It’s extremely rare for me to do a full playthrough more than once, usually just happen with gameplay focused retro games and RPGs where the character build heavily change the game. A good story and nice graphics is definitely not enough, I may start new playthroughs, like when a remaster come out, but never actually finish them, the pull is gone when I know all that’ll happen storywise.

 

[Gandih42]

While I completely agree that graphical fidelity is not necessary for a game to be good, I don't think games can so easily be separated into individual components of varying levels of importance.

I would really like to see more high-budget games try and invest all the budget in interactivity rather than visual fidelity, because we have plenty of visually stunning AAA games. But I don't think it is objectively better or more important. It'll always be a trade-off between all the different moving parts that constitute a game. Taking FFXVI (haven't finished it yet), it would not be plausible to have ToTK levels of interactivity while maintaining the same level of scope of spectacle and visuals. Instead I think it makes more sense to design the rest of the game around the limitations of having these spectacles.

I'd argue you can find many games where interactivity is rather low, but it is utilized effectively to create an experience that is engaging, moving, memorable, fun, etc. But I also feel that trend, especially in higher-budget games, is away from complex interactivity so It'd be cool to see more developers challenging that.

 

[Drizzlehell]

NO > YES

It totally depends of a LOT of things, there is not "one rule"

Hold on, let me fit all of that nuance into a thread title because that's all you bozos ever bother to read before mindlessly rushing to post a comment.

 

[Lethal01]

As much as I don't get it at all, isn't Minecraft proving the exact opposite? The graphics are imho one of the worst in recent gens (you have to go back to Atari to find something worse) and the gameplay seems nauseatingly stupid, but people especially the ADHD riddled youth love it.

Personal preference.
I love QTE games when the story is good. It's the genre where I think the most advancements are done in modern games, since any gamey stuff is already researched to the max that is possible on a controller. Those usually quite hated games are almost the only games where the story is acceptably good and not drowned under gamey stretcher stuff. A lot of games would be much better if they didn't overstay their welcome, be more focused and get rid of all the allegedly required play time. I want more games like those, instead of the millionth open world grind with boring sidequests and wasted story, that stretches that story that might work quite nicely if told in under 10h, but since gamers rather run around in filler content, to get "value", we have to dilute that to at least 30h and transform that story to something that loses all worth with pacing that is just off several miles.

Nah, the only thing QTE games can sometimes push more is graphics. any advancement you would see in them could be handled by a cutscene and there is still tons of room for new systems in gaming, there are simply too many ways to combine game design elements to come close to scratching a limit.
Shorter games can be better if they allow for Gameplay that would be easier to do than longer ones.

I get it's personal opinion, but you're opinion is wrong

 

[rofif]

From my perspective that can be said about all games. It’s extremely rare for me to do a full playthrough more than once, usually just happen with gameplay focused retro games and RPGs where the character build heavily change the game. A good story and nice graphics is definitely not enough, I may start new playthroughs, like when a remaster come out, but never actually finish them, the pull is gone when I know all that’ll happen storywise.

Best games get better each time I play.
I replay uncharted 4 like every year and I find new stuff and new appreciation each time.
There are some games like that

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Best games get better each time I play.
I replay uncharted 4 like every year and I find new stuff and new appreciation each time.
There are some games like that

Respect, man. I've played it on PS4 when it was first released. Wanted to replay it on PC. Lasted 29 minutes.

 

[GymWolf]

Respect, man. I've played it on PS4 when it was first released. Wanted to replay it on PC. Lasted 29 minutes.

I had to take 6 months and 3 long pauses before finishing that piece of shit of a game

Never again.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

I had to take 6 months and 3 long pauses before finishing that piece of shit of a game

Never again.

Pew, pew, hold X to climb, cut scene, oh boy a puzzle, I wonder where is that plank? I fucking hate their game design.

 

[GymWolf]

Pew, pew, hold X to climb, cut scene, oh boy a puzzle, I wonder where is that plank? I fucking hate their game design.

If just story and characters were any good at least, but the only likeable character are nate and the old dude, the rest goes from forgettable to actively annoying.

 

[Fess]

Best games get better each time I play.
I replay uncharted 4 like every year and I find new stuff and new appreciation each time.
There are some games like that

Uncharted 4 was fantastic, for one playthrough. Tbh I see no reason to replay it as long as I remember the story, it’s too linear for me. I could play parts of it to appreciate the visuals and animations but that’s about it.

Old games I can replay though, like Super Metroid which I’ve played more times than I could count. There it’s a mix of nostalgia and challenge and appreciating the perfection in game design. It’s my #1 all time game.

I’ve done 3 full playthroughs on Elden Ring too, plus half 1st newgame+ until it got too easy.
1) Classic sword and shield
2) Magic astrologer and half NG+
3) dualhand Bloodhound’s Fang without Mimic
And I would play again if I had a good idea for a new character build. It’s my #2 all time game.

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

I'd like to take a moment to give mgs5 a shout out, a game that both looks great and was highly interactive. Shame it wasn't finished.

 

[CGNoire]

Op should try noita, there is no other game on the market with more interactivity than that.

every single pixel is simulated




It make look the physics in zelda or teardown like child play.

This so much. The game is Transcendent.

 

[CGNoire]

However, I feel like there are other, very important elements that make up video games that often get glossed over in those types of discussions

"...in those types of discussions"....

...you mean in "Threads" clearly labeled and created to specificly talk about graphics in which others always seem to come into and derail into the usual and quite frankly tired conversation about Graphics vs Gameplay as if its some Zero Sum Game instead of making there own thread. Thank god there glossed over there and not allowed to derail another graphics thread.

 

[rofif]

I

Uncharted 4 was fantastic, for one playthrough. Tbh I see no reason to replay it as long as I remember the story, it’s too linear for me. I could play parts of it to appreciate the visuals and animations but that’s about it.

Old games I can replay though, like Super Metroid which I’ve played more times than I could count. There it’s a mix of nostalgia and challenge and appreciating the perfection in game design. It’s my #1 all time game.

I’ve done 3 full playthroughs on Elden Ring too, plus half 1st newgame+ until it got too easy.
1) Classic sword and shield
2) Magic astrologer and half NG+
3) dualhand Bloodhound’s Fang without Mimic
And I would play again if I had a good idea for a new character build. It’s my #2 all time game.

I like replaying these games for the atmosphere. I like to be in that world again. I rarely play games for challange

 

[Puscifer]

It is possible to have both.

RDR2 still looks better than most "next gen" games and still is the only actual interactive open world.

Guess Shemue was just for shits and giggles?



This game did everything you say red dead does 20 years ago.

Pew, pew, hold X to climb, cut scene, oh boy a puzzle, I wonder where is that plank? I fucking hate their game design.

I once played Uncharted 4 and was so sick of it's design I literally sold it for doom 2016 and realized I was 25 minutes away from the end when it was eventually free on PSN+

Lost Legacy was such a better game it's crazy.

 

[Unknown?]

One of the main reasons to be hyped by Starfield!

Thanks for your service, the check is in the mail!

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Thanks for your service, the check is in the mail!

Thanks Todd, you don't have to. I'd praise the immersive sim and interactivity aspect of your games regardless!

 

[MMaRsu]

We need games like Half Life 2 that innovate

 

[StueyDuck]

Guess Shemue was just for shits and giggles?



This game did everything you say red dead does 20 years ago.

I see struggling to understand what you are reading is a common issue on gaf.

The thread is about graphics and interactivity, and right now rdr2 is the only game achieving both,

Shenmue is one of my all time favorite franchises but you are being extremely disingenuous if you think they did the same things on a technical level, unless you mean that you can chat to NPCs...

I love that franchise to bits but it does not have an entire ecosystem that dynamically reacts and changes depending on what you the player are currently doing.

Is purposely obfuscating someone's reasoning just part of being on neogaf?

 

[Scotty W]

Miyamoto has an interesting comment on photorealism.

https://shmuplations.com/miyamotodesign/

And if the technology does end up progressing to that level (photorealism), then developers won’t be able to make something unless it’s perfect, will they?

 

[Fess]

I like replaying these games for the atmosphere. I like to be in that world again. I rarely play games for challange

Ah okay, sounds almost like nostalgia so I understand the thinking there.

I could play The Last Ninja any time, not because it’s on my best game of all time list but for the combination of music, general atmosphere and nostalgia, I just like how it feels to revisit it, I even enjoy just analysing how advanced it was for the time. Plus, it’s short, I can finish it in 45 min.

I wish I could erase my memory to replay Scorn and get the first impression again. And the start of Oblivion, absolute masterclass introduction.

But many games are too long for full replays for me.

I’m amazed at myself for replaying Elden Ring so many times, each playthrough were over 100 hours. But the character build I had were so different and each playthrough I went for some new area I hadn’t done before, so it wasn’t all doing the same thing. I didn’t beat or even meet Malenia and that whole area until my 3rd playthrough. I still have a big dragon left to beat, some other things too I think, it’ll be done in my next playthrough. All these things contribute to me having the game so high up on my all time list. It’s absolutely packed with content.

But this is off topic so I think I’ll stop here lol

To go into the topic I too think interactivity is more important than graphics. I like when it’s not just a pretty facade. I’m still amazed by the interactivity in old ass Skyrim:

Edit: Higgs mod video

 

[FoxMcChief]

Nah

 

[R6Rider]

Op should try noita, there is no other game on the market with more interactivity than that.

every single pixel is simulated




It make look the physics in zelda or teardown like child play.

This game has been on my wishlist for awhile. I just realized it's on sale for half off ($10) so I just bought it.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I love that franchise to bits but it does not have an entire ecosystem that dynamically reacts and changes depending on what you the player are currently doing.

neither does rdr2 tbh

 

[GymWolf]

This so much. The game is Transcendent.

No, the game is Noita.

 

[Diddy X]

Graphics will amaze you but physics and interactions are way more important in the fun factor of a game, I think they pushed the graphics enough already and should implement better physics in games.