Has BF3 changed the perception that gameplay trumps graphics?

Has BF3 changed the perception that gameplay trumps graphics?
NO! Though i havent played it yet, ive been around enough new generations of games to see that, great gameplay will always be appreciative to a degree over graphics. Thats the main reason why i go back and play some of my older games. For gameplay that isnt sometimes found or as good in todays games. But sometimes, we look back on the older games with rose colored glasses not seeing the faults. A great example is Mario 64. It was heralded as on the best games of all time when it came out, the best implementation of 3d world with 3d camera. But try to play it now. Eeek, that camera is broke and the controls is a little iffy. I still love the game though. Doom and serious Same is another example. SS is great fun, though i still go play doom. Mainly because i really love the maps of the original doom.

I thought the best thing about source code, was the overall package. One of the easiest to develop for, supported great by the creater, and could do most of what you wanted. There was a couple other engines that was technical better. With id tech 4 being one of them. It was the complete package that made Valve and Epic one of the premier engine suppliers.

Half Life 1 was great. Especially the base part. But when you get to Zen, it drops the ball. Half Life 2 was more evolution, and refined. It does feel like the shooter genre is a little stagnant right now in innovation and simple "WoW, you have to play this game!" factor. To me the last shooters that had that feeling were Quake 1, Half Life 1, Quake 3 for sheer deathmatch delight, and Unreal Tournament for teams. I really should try the Battle field series. I just prefer arena style shooters.
 
What bothers me about this thread is this; How the hell can Battlefield 3 alter the perception of the average consumer by convincing them that game play is more important than graphics when the game has some of the best visuals in any game to date?

It's got great game play and visuals. That sends a different message.
 
well I played the karkland maps and they sure don't seem like the maps I played in bf2.
Sure they are newer visually but it just doesn't seem right to me.
When I was on wake I was thinking is this wake?
and Karkland map was confusing. Yes I remembered it but it just didn't play the same.
Thats it they don't play like the old maps.

so graphics made a positive and a negative in this game and as far as saying perception of play over graphics...
no the graphics are good but some of the maps are not and I don't think this game can help this statement.

I LOVE THE BUILDING DAMAGE....HATE PLANES
 
sparks said:
well I played the karkland maps and they sure don't seem like the maps I played in bf2.
Sure they are newer visually but it just doesn't seem right to me.
When I was on wake I was thinking is this wake?
and Karkland map was confusing. Yes I remembered it but it just didn't play the same.
Thats it they don't play like the old maps.

so graphics made a positive and a negative in this game and as far as saying perception of play over graphics...
no the graphics are good but some of the maps are not and I don't think this game can help this statement.

I LOVE THE BUILDING DAMAGE....HATE PLANES
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing about Karkland. It's so busy visually speaking it doesn't look or feel like the old one.
 
Sorry to bump this old post.. I finally got around to playing Max Payne 3 this weekend and after an hour feel very BLAH about it.. The graphics seem dated compared to BF3, the gameplay is slow, and there is no wow factor.

I'm shocked because the general consensus for Max Payne 3 has been positive, and I greatly enjoyed MP1 and MP2....

For me the Battlefield effect is on display here..

I think BF3, even though nobody will ever claim it's a twitch shooter, has reviatlized the old Quake/UT feelings for me. I primarily play DM and with my new 670 rig feel like I'm flying around the maps, reloading, taking cover, firing, suppressing, sniping.. Doing it all now.. Load up Max Payne and I feel like I'm playing an outdated console shooter..

As I said, I'm about 1 hour in.. Anyone want to give me a good reason to continue? Does it get better?
 
Bumrush said:
Sorry to bump this old post.. I finally got around to playing Max Payne 3 this weekend and after an hour feel very BLAH about it.. The graphics seem dated compared to BF3, the gameplay is slow, and there is no wow factor.

I'm shocked because the general consensus for Max Payne 3 has been positive, and I greatly enjoyed MP1 and MP2....

For me the Battlefield effect is on display here..

I think BF3, even though nobody will ever claim it's a twitch shooter, has reviatlized the old Quake/UT feelings for me. I primarily play DM and with my new 670 rig feel like I'm flying around the maps, reloading, taking cover, firing, suppressing, sniping.. Doing it all now.. Load up Max Payne and I feel like I'm playing an outdated console shooter..

As I said, I'm about 1 hour in.. Anyone want to give me a good reason to continue? Does it get better?
Click to expand...

I feel the same way about Deus Ex. Only BF3 flys like that.
 
Personally, I thought Max Payne 3 had great graphics overall (especially the characters, the environment textures were pretty bad at times). It's definitely worth playing through, good story and a lot of fun IMO.

Amazing graphics (and BF3 certainly has those) didn't keep me from quitting BF3 after a few weeks. I just hope they use the engine to make better games.
 
spaceman said:
I feel the same way about Deus Ex. Only BF3 flys like that.
Click to expand...

Hate to bring up the S word, but I'm starting to think Max Payne flat out sucks..

I thought it would be a good break from BF3 but I don't see myself playing much more unless the experience gets better..
 
Bumrush said:
I also think that the epic nature of BF3 and jaw dropping graphics combine to make this a strong candidate for the greatest PC FPS game of all time, especially once the bugs get ironed out. This game has the potential to challenge the original Half Life. Thoughts?
Click to expand...


No. Not until they actually make it better than the previous titles (BF1942 and BF2) will that be possible.

This means:
- Add the commander back
- Add the spectator back
- Fix the "consolesque" network code (the alpha apparently had server side hit detection)
- Readd the comms, they did good in 2142.
- Readd the 6 man squad
- Give us real Battlefield maps, not smaller versions of them.
- Modding support.
- Allow us to remove the "cinematic" filter (gray/subduing) applied without an injector.
- Readd private server hosting.
- Readd proper bot support.

... I could go on. It's a good game, but it hardly comes close to touching on the previous DICE titles (the ones before EA bought them).

Don't get me wrong. The Frostbite 2 engine is downright impressive, but the angle they took this series is not the best. It went from being a PC title to being a console title and you can tell (they admitted that they switched to PS3-as-lead development halfway through). That's why a lot of their design decisions were so asinine. They should have kept the "Bad Company" line as a consolish game and left the main title to be PC centric with a console port. Instead they decided to make BFBC3 and rename it BF3.

Just think, if they remained a PC-centric developer throughout their history, we may have 84 or 128 player match ups. Instead, we're still doing 64.
 
Last edited:
BF3 is the Neo*Geo of its day.

I love the game, the destruction that goes on when your taking points, the SOUND is AMAZING, the graphics are just TOP notch! BF3 is the only game I get TRULY excited about, it feels like your playing a VERY NEW game! The suppression and proning. You have to think and play a little slower (You have to THINK!), and consider your weapon combinations. You just can't go slammy clicky on your mouse keyboard like an old Quake game with a rocket launcher or railgun. You can also play a TF2 or CSS today on the source engine, but it lacks so much when it comes to the sound and graphics and enviroment is a total sandBOX!, it feels like a Disney game in a cardboard box WITH a cardboard FLAT ground and skys, and looks like it everywhere else TOO! ... it is...5+ years of very old tech, and a severe amish antiquated gaming experience. I love TF2 the way they create new map(s) about every year and new weapons+hats and give it spice, the gameplay is fairly balanced (Insert blank item is OP joke) but seriously the textures and sounds are so f'n OUTDATED it's SAD! There's NO experience like BF3 today, it stands on its own.
 
Last edited:
teletran8 said:
BF3 is the Neo*Geo of its day.

I love the game, the destruction that goes on when your taking points, the SOUND is AMAZING, the graphics are just TOP notch! BF3 is the only game I get TRULY excited about, it feels like your playing a VERY NEW game! The suppression and proning. You have to think and play a little slower (You have to THINK!), and consider your weapon combinations. You just can't go slammy clicky on your mouse keyboard like an old Quake game with a rocket launcher or railgun. You can also play a TF2 or CSS today on the source engine, but it lacks so much when it comes to the sound and graphics and enviroment is a total sandBOX!, it feels like a Disney game in a cardboard box WITH a cardboard FLAT ground and skys, and looks like it everywhere else TOO! ... it is...5+ years of very old tech, and a severe amish antiquated gaming experience. I love TF2 the way they create new map(s) about every year and new weapons+hats and give it spice, the gameplay is fairly balanced (Insert blank item is OP joke) but seriously the textures and sounds are so f'n OUTDATED it's SAD! There's NO experience like BF3 today, it stands on its own.
Click to expand...

What the fuck? No offense but this sounds like a total EA shill post, lol. :p
 
The gameplay is amazing, one major thing they missed out on...

YOU CAN'T ORGANIZE YOUR GAMEPLAY WITHOUT VOIP.
 
BF3 is the most graphically on point game I've played and I prefer it's gameplay over MW3 and similar titles. There definitely needs to be better VOIP and spectator mode to even make it a moderately competitive game.
 
We have had this arguement before so many times. The answer is the same all the games that had great "game play" where almost always graphically advanced for their time as well. Very few games like mine craft can come out now days and look like ass but still do well. And if valve had not been pushing the technology of something in each of their games it they would not have been as successful.

You make a game and it is the average of all its properties and graphics is a big property. Then there is the whole issue of game play mostly being a personal opinion thing, I always found it ironic that people would say games with polar opposite game play both have some of the best game play. But at the end of the day graphics need to be at least competitive with the other players out there in the game industry, you dont have to be at BF3 level to make a hit but you need at least Unreal 3 level graphics I think.

I personally only bought BF3 for the graphics, and perhaps it was worth it. I still keep it as sort of a tech demo to show off my HT setup but dont really play it.
 
Bumrush said:
As a long time FPS player from back when GL Quake and Glide changed everything, I've been completely mesmerized and in awe of this game engine. I can't help but admire the job that Dice has done with the BF3 engine and the unbelievable graphics of BF3.

So, has the tide turned? It's hard for me to enjoy decade old technology like the Source engine after playing a few rounds of BF3.

I also think that the epic nature of BF3 and jaw dropping graphics combine to make this a strong candidate for the greatest PC FPS game of all time, especially once the bugs get ironed out. This game has the potential to challenge the original Half Life. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

No way, BF2 was better.
 
To me the battle isn't so much gameplay vs graphics (since so many developers can't really be fucked with either of them), but more gameplay vs graphics vs marketability.

Right now, marketability is rolfstomping the other two.
 
more frostbite 2.0 games!!!

was hoping dead space was going to use it but it wont




thankfully the new command and conquer will though thats going to be fucking awesome.
 
Bumrush said:
I think BF3, even though nobody will ever claim it's a twitch shooter, has reviatlized the old Quake/UT feelings for me. I primarily play DM and with my new 670 rig feel like I'm flying around the maps, reloading, taking cover, firing, suppressing, sniping.. Doing it all now.. Load up Max Payne and I feel like I'm playing an outdated console shooter..
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely on this.

When BF3 first came out, there were too many performance issues for me (GTX480SLI / Surround) - not that the performance was bad - it was good single screen, but in Surround, it was unplayable even at the lowest settings so I dabbled, but I went back to playing casual BC2 SQDM

After the polished up the game a bit more and I went to dual 680s, BF3 is a whole new experience as 99% of the time I am over 60fps and the game looks great and runs silky smooth even at 5760.

All of the weapons have their own feel and I find myself able to really differentiate certain guns for certain roles and maps. The G3 is my all around favorite and the SCAR-H a close second - both are 20 shot .308 rifles so they shoot far and hit hard and with a 6x scope, you can give the real snipers a hard time.

I mostly play the DM style games and Gunmaster is a nice addition but the servers that switch to CQ Domination have been able to draw me in and while the objective games are not my favorite, they are growing on me.

Once Guild Wars 2 comes out, I'll probably just play that and BF3 and almost nothing else.
 
DoubleTap said:
I agree with you completely on this.

When BF3 first came out, there were too many performance issues for me (GTX480SLI / Surround) - not that the performance was bad - it was good single screen, but in Surround, it was unplayable even at the lowest settings so I dabbled, but I went back to playing casual BC2 SQDM

After the polished up the game a bit more and I went to dual 680s, BF3 is a whole new experience as 99% of the time I am over 60fps and the game looks great and runs silky smooth even at 5760.

All of the weapons have their own feel and I find myself able to really differentiate certain guns for certain roles and maps. The G3 is my all around favorite and the SCAR-H a close second - both are 20 shot .308 rifles so they shoot far and hit hard and with a 6x scope, you can give the real snipers a hard time.

I mostly play the DM style games and Gunmaster is a nice addition but the servers that switch to CQ Domination have been able to draw me in and while the objective games are not my favorite, they are growing on me.

Once Guild Wars 2 comes out, I'll probably just play that and BF3 and almost nothing else.
Click to expand...

It's BF3 for me and nothing else..

Love the weapons.. Been addicted to the F2000 lately, but I greatly enjoy the SKS, the VAL, PKP...

I started playing around with the AN-94 and quickly fell in love with it too, despite initial frustrations with the spray.. For whatever reason, once I unlocked the Reflex Red Dot Sight, I suddenly had much better aim.

That is precisely what I love about the game.. For a while there it was F2000 or bust. Until I decided to start sniping and realized how cool the SKS rifle was.. For run and gun, nothing beats the rapid rate of fire on the Val. When i feel like camping an area and mowing down targets, the PKP is king..
 
I think we're past the era where very impressive technical graphics will trump great gameplay. In the early 3D era some games looked absolutely ridiculous, while others were very impressive. I remember when things like reflections, bump-mapped textures, or even just high-poly count models would make someone's jaw drop. That kind of tapered off around 2005 with the release of the next-gen consoles. Doom 3 is a great example of an okay game riding on the fact that it looked phenomenal with its per-pixel lighting effects and shadowing.

Today, I think a *decent* game will get by on great artistic graphics. Technical achivement is a bit of a moot point since many games are using licensed engines, and many of the popular licensed engines are comparable in terms of what they can accomplish. Assassin's Creed, while pretty damn good as far as stealth gameplay goes, was painfully repetitive and tedious. What it had in its favour was tremendous artwork, which made it look impressive. Take away the visual fidelity and the artwork's immersive quality, and Assassin's Creed does not become a hit. Mirror's Edge is another game that was fun but also very tedious, but had the benefit of phenomenal artistic direction.
 
I've been enjoying the graphics and the game play as well, it never gets old for me no matter how any times I play the same map.
 
Ummm...I thought the topic of this thread might be "was BF3's gameplay so inadequate, despite having PC-level graphics, that gamers finally decided gameplay is more important than graphics overall." I see somehow BF3 is being praised for its gameplay :eek:

It wasn't a bad game, but it certainly wasn't in any way a standard of excellence.
 
Just re-downloaded and started playing SP again after probably about 6 months or so. Wow, I forgot how amazing this game looks.
 
Yeah I was confused as well, with the gameplay that BF3 provides along with its graphics, I'd certainly say its graphics trumps the gameplay by about a factor of 1000.

Gameplay trumping graphics is an example of SNES Final Fantasy games, most definitely not BF3
 
I would say BF3 has very solid gameplay, nothing ground-breaking by any means. If you like the genre, you most likely will be very happy with it. The graphics on the other hand are superb, particularly paired with the scale of the game in MP.
 
I was gifted this game over the weekend by a friend and finally got to play it after waiting months and months to experience it. What an immense letdown.

Visually the game is stunning. There is no debating that. When it first booted up and I entered my first map my jaw dropped. I was giddy with excitement. Then I started playing the game. Everything aside from the graphics is monumental steps backwards from BFBC2. Instead of being able to enter every single building on the map you can hardly enter any. Building destruction is almost non existent. The maps plain suck. The mechanics are garbage and the whole thing starts to look and feel like a Battlefield game made specifically to cater to and steal COD players.

I'm sure all my points have been mentioned since the game was released and I'm rehashing old points of debate, but I was happily back playing BFBC2 within two hours of installing BF3. I haven't given up on it completely yet but I'm pretty close to freeing up those 16 GBs of space on my hard drive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top