The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
128 bit gaming. Do we really appreciate it or do we just think of it as “better graphics” that the rest?
2D gaming or 3D gaming? 8/16/32/64 bit gaming or 128 bit gaming. What is the best? Well, for me it is all down to taste and to be honest I enjoyed games more when they had simple graphics but the games were just so playable that the graphics didn’t matter so much. So, I will not be ashamed of playing a game that was 10 years old as long as I had fun doing it. Okay the graphics wouldn’t be fantastic but as the game-play was good, I doubt if I would notice. I think what made me think that the Mega Drive was such a great console was because the games were new and original, most probably because the gaming world was at an early stage, one that had plenty of new idea’s to explore. Today, we have come to an end of new original ideas, also we will surely come to a halt when we find that we can not make graphics get any better than they already are Actually, we thought that the 16 bit games’ graphics were superb and I couldn’t imagine them getting much better. Nothing much has changed in the way of thinking with the 128 bit graphics today. I still struggle to think how they can get better, obviously they will, but how? In about 100 years time, can you imagine how great technology would have become? I am thinking big here, maybe even ENTERING a whole new different world. Maybe take the role part in a game, now that sounds great to me. I really do think this will be a reality, but not for a very long time, maybe not even in my generation.
Nowadays I really do think that game companies think that graphics are the future of gaming, but do WE really want this? Okay it’s lovely having pretty graphics but I want to be really impressed with technology. Maybe I am just sounding like an ungrateful brat now, but this is the way I feel. If we introduce new technology, you can bet your penny’s that we will be given some new games ideas. If VR was introduced, we would be given some games that really would show of today’s technology.
Just look at really simple technology, which has been brought into gaming. Take the Visual Memory Card for the Dreamcast. That let us do some cool things with our Dreamcast games. Cast your mind back to Sonic for the DC. Remember collecting those cute little characters then training them up with your Visual Memory unit and then taking it into school to battle with your mate? Just things like that make the gaming world seem so much better.
With the massive step up from 32 bit gaming to 128 bit gaming (for Sony anyway) I think that they feel they have to really impress us, fair enough. They want to show us what today’s technology is really about, but if it’s just about pretty graphics I don’t want to know about it. What happened to those big ideas they were promising us? Fair enough Online Gaming is being introduced to game consoles, but surely companies could be a tad more imaginative.
As we all know, today consoles have very good technology, therefor the graphics that we are being produced with have been of a very high standard. I will tell you know that I have nothing against games that hold good graphics. I love games with good graphics because they really do create a great atmosphere in a game, but have we been spoilt? I say we have been, and it has rubbed off on the way we think about games. I always find that when the first time you play a game around your mate’s house, the first thing you look for is how good the graphics are. It’s true, but why do we do this? I think it is because we seem to think that if games don’t have good graphics then surely it must be a bad game. Everyone has different opinions on this, but I am going to approach this in a different way. If I see a game that has bad graphics my first thought of the game is that it’s not going to be very good. I don’t think this because I think that game-play is not important, just that there is a lack of games that show of game-play more than graphics. See what I mean? Take any game that has been a real hit this year, and the chances are that the graphics are very good. With the exception of Paper Mario, maybe. I am not sure weather game companies want us thinking the graphics are important or not, and I know that *I* will never know the real answer. Being the person I am, I am going to say that companies want us to think graphics are the most important thing in games. Why do I think this? Well, to me it is the easy way out. Think about it, with today’s technology I wouldn’t be surprised if making good graphics is a piece of cake to professional game companies. I think that they can make good graphics quicker than make a good story line for example.
When someone says the word “graphics” to you what is the first thing that comes into your head? With me it is realistic characters, and I think that this is another serious issue with graphics. Personally, I have always favoured Nintendo over Sony in terms of graphics. I don’t know what makes me think this, but I think it has got to be the fact that Sony try their best to make graphics look realistic, where Nintendo don’t. Nintendo are famous for their cute and cuddly characters, and I think they should be proud of this. It is very hard to create a character that doesn’t look real, but at the same time have good graphics.
It is difficult to ignore the excitement in the computer gaming community about real-time 3D graphics. Everywhere, the talk seems to be of faster 3D engines -- of hardware acceleration, texture-mapping and advanced real-time lighting effects. As computer graphics hardware gets more powerful and more accessible, game developers are realising a wider range of expressive possibilities. And every year, we see progressively more realistic “virtual worlds” packaged in game form so it’s not surprising that game companies want to make us think that graphics are important. And, in a way they are. I don’t think that a game on a 128 bit console would go down very well with customers if it had poor graphics so I can understand and appreciate that game companies are in an awkward situation here, and one that I am sure is being discussed every day with famous game companies such as Nintendo and Rare. I would love to be a fly on the wall when they have these discussions.
The one game that I really love is Mario 64, and you know why don’t you? It’s because it features super graphics and it features very good game-play. I just wish that we would be treated to more games like this. I think my wishes will come true with the Gamecube because I predict that the games will be of a very high standard, both in graphics and game-play. I mean take the game “Pikmin” and you will understand what I am on about.
I was very interested when I heard that the man himself thought of the idea of the game while he was gardening. Now, I think that’s a first, don’t you? It makes you a little worried where creators get their ideas from games like Timesplitters though.
We are being brainwashed, and we don’t even know it. It’s just the little things, but they all count. Just take game advertising for example. They don’t show of how imaginative the story line is, or how the game-play has so much to offer, instead they show us some tarted up graphics. As I like to think of myself as a hard-core gaming person, this doesn’t affect me too much, but for the new upcoming gaming people we have, they are being brought up to not appreciate TRUE games that feature both good graphics and great game-play at the same time. I understand that gorgeous graphics is what the average gaming person wants, but WHY is this? Is it because that’s just people’s personal opinions or have we been brought up to worship graphics?
There is no contest between game-play and graphics, because if we didn’t have graphics we wouldn’t have a game, simple as. However, I feel that we need to be given more games that have less good graphics and better game-play. I think that with the release of the GBA getting frighteningly close, we are going to be treated with something special. Not beautiful graphics, not quality sound music but we will be given the chance to re-visit the years where game-play was at it’s best. I’m thinking the SNES years.
As we have more or less said goodbye to the PlayStation and the N64 and entering the new and soon to be exciting world of 128-bit gaming we are going to notice some changes. I am not sure what changes these will be, but you know that there are going to be some, if we like it or not. Okay, I guess that’s a little unfair saying “soon to be” because the Dreamcast really offered us some great titles, and original ones too. Also, I suppose the PS2 isn’t doing too bad at the moment. Anyway, with the changes let’s just hope they are for the better, and I am sure they will be.
2D gaming or 3D gaming? 8/16/32/64 bit gaming or 128 bit gaming. What is the best? Well, for me it is all down to taste and to be honest I enjoyed games more when they had simple graphics but the games were just so playable that the graphics didn’t matter so much. So, I will not be ashamed of playing a game that was 10 years old as long as I had fun doing it. Okay the graphics wouldn’t be fantastic but as the game-play was good, I doubt if I would notice. I think what made me think that the Mega Drive was such a great console was because the games were new and original, most probably because the gaming world was at an early stage, one that had plenty of new idea’s to explore. Today, we have come to an end of new original ideas, also we will surely come to a halt when we find that we can not make graphics get any better than they already are Actually, we thought that the 16 bit games’ graphics were superb and I couldn’t imagine them getting much better. Nothing much has changed in the way of thinking with the 128 bit graphics today. I still struggle to think how they can get better, obviously they will, but how? In about 100 years time, can you imagine how great technology would have become? I am thinking big here, maybe even ENTERING a whole new different world. Maybe take the role part in a game, now that sounds great to me. I really do think this will be a reality, but not for a very long time, maybe not even in my generation.
Nowadays I really do think that game companies think that graphics are the future of gaming, but do WE really want this? Okay it’s lovely having pretty graphics but I want to be really impressed with technology. Maybe I am just sounding like an ungrateful brat now, but this is the way I feel. If we introduce new technology, you can bet your penny’s that we will be given some new games ideas. If VR was introduced, we would be given some games that really would show of today’s technology.
Just look at really simple technology, which has been brought into gaming. Take the Visual Memory Card for the Dreamcast. That let us do some cool things with our Dreamcast games. Cast your mind back to Sonic for the DC. Remember collecting those cute little characters then training them up with your Visual Memory unit and then taking it into school to battle with your mate? Just things like that make the gaming world seem so much better.
With the massive step up from 32 bit gaming to 128 bit gaming (for Sony anyway) I think that they feel they have to really impress us, fair enough. They want to show us what today’s technology is really about, but if it’s just about pretty graphics I don’t want to know about it. What happened to those big ideas they were promising us? Fair enough Online Gaming is being introduced to game consoles, but surely companies could be a tad more imaginative.
As we all know, today consoles have very good technology, therefor the graphics that we are being produced with have been of a very high standard. I will tell you know that I have nothing against games that hold good graphics. I love games with good graphics because they really do create a great atmosphere in a game, but have we been spoilt? I say we have been, and it has rubbed off on the way we think about games. I always find that when the first time you play a game around your mate’s house, the first thing you look for is how good the graphics are. It’s true, but why do we do this? I think it is because we seem to think that if games don’t have good graphics then surely it must be a bad game. Everyone has different opinions on this, but I am going to approach this in a different way. If I see a game that has bad graphics my first thought of the game is that it’s not going to be very good. I don’t think this because I think that game-play is not important, just that there is a lack of games that show of game-play more than graphics. See what I mean? Take any game that has been a real hit this year, and the chances are that the graphics are very good. With the exception of Paper Mario, maybe. I am not sure weather game companies want us thinking the graphics are important or not, and I know that *I* will never know the real answer. Being the person I am, I am going to say that companies want us to think graphics are the most important thing in games. Why do I think this? Well, to me it is the easy way out. Think about it, with today’s technology I wouldn’t be surprised if making good graphics is a piece of cake to professional game companies. I think that they can make good graphics quicker than make a good story line for example.
When someone says the word “graphics” to you what is the first thing that comes into your head? With me it is realistic characters, and I think that this is another serious issue with graphics. Personally, I have always favoured Nintendo over Sony in terms of graphics. I don’t know what makes me think this, but I think it has got to be the fact that Sony try their best to make graphics look realistic, where Nintendo don’t. Nintendo are famous for their cute and cuddly characters, and I think they should be proud of this. It is very hard to create a character that doesn’t look real, but at the same time have good graphics.
It is difficult to ignore the excitement in the computer gaming community about real-time 3D graphics. Everywhere, the talk seems to be of faster 3D engines -- of hardware acceleration, texture-mapping and advanced real-time lighting effects. As computer graphics hardware gets more powerful and more accessible, game developers are realising a wider range of expressive possibilities. And every year, we see progressively more realistic “virtual worlds” packaged in game form so it’s not surprising that game companies want to make us think that graphics are important. And, in a way they are. I don’t think that a game on a 128 bit console would go down very well with customers if it had poor graphics so I can understand and appreciate that game companies are in an awkward situation here, and one that I am sure is being discussed every day with famous game companies such as Nintendo and Rare. I would love to be a fly on the wall when they have these discussions.
The one game that I really love is Mario 64, and you know why don’t you? It’s because it features super graphics and it features very good game-play. I just wish that we would be treated to more games like this. I think my wishes will come true with the Gamecube because I predict that the games will be of a very high standard, both in graphics and game-play. I mean take the game “Pikmin” and you will understand what I am on about.
I was very interested when I heard that the man himself thought of the idea of the game while he was gardening. Now, I think that’s a first, don’t you? It makes you a little worried where creators get their ideas from games like Timesplitters though.
We are being brainwashed, and we don’t even know it. It’s just the little things, but they all count. Just take game advertising for example. They don’t show of how imaginative the story line is, or how the game-play has so much to offer, instead they show us some tarted up graphics. As I like to think of myself as a hard-core gaming person, this doesn’t affect me too much, but for the new upcoming gaming people we have, they are being brought up to not appreciate TRUE games that feature both good graphics and great game-play at the same time. I understand that gorgeous graphics is what the average gaming person wants, but WHY is this? Is it because that’s just people’s personal opinions or have we been brought up to worship graphics?
There is no contest between game-play and graphics, because if we didn’t have graphics we wouldn’t have a game, simple as. However, I feel that we need to be given more games that have less good graphics and better game-play. I think that with the release of the GBA getting frighteningly close, we are going to be treated with something special. Not beautiful graphics, not quality sound music but we will be given the chance to re-visit the years where game-play was at it’s best. I’m thinking the SNES years.
As we have more or less said goodbye to the PlayStation and the N64 and entering the new and soon to be exciting world of 128-bit gaming we are going to notice some changes. I am not sure what changes these will be, but you know that there are going to be some, if we like it or not. Okay, I guess that’s a little unfair saying “soon to be” because the Dreamcast really offered us some great titles, and original ones too. Also, I suppose the PS2 isn’t doing too bad at the moment. Anyway, with the changes let’s just hope they are for the better, and I am sure they will be.
Page:
I was outraged when I saw the prices for the GBA, £30, to me, is a lot of cash to pay. I was being asked to pay over £100 just for a GBA and a game. I had too much pride than to spend that much so I bought a PS2 game instead and saving over £60. Fair dues that the game Tony Hawks 2 does look amazing on a Hand held computer but for £30? I’m sorry but I just can’t pay £30 for it. I am not tight or anything just that I think my hard earned money should go on something a little wiser. Maybe a Budweiser! :D I think I will get a GBA second hand.
With the issue of games getting more realistic: I am 100% against the idea of games getting more and more realistic. I enjoy games because they give me something that I can not get in real life. What I mean is if you want games to be more realistic you can say goodbye to characters like Mario because they are not real, are they? Not only that but we would also have to say goodbye to the beautiful game worlds, because they are not real.
Another reason why I wouldn’t want to see games getting more realistic is I have come to the stage where I actually find SOME parts in games boring because they are just too life like. Take Shenmue, although the actual story of it was unlikely to happen to you, it was still a little tedious at some moments in the game. Although it was only the small bits, it still annoyed me a little because I thought that it wasn’t necessary. Instead, they should have made it a little more fantasy like.
It is wrong of me to keep saying bad things with Shenmue because it was infact a great game, and one that will stay in the minds of gamers forever.
Another thing is that you wouldn’t have as much fun with First Person Shooters because as well all now, if you wanted to realistic you would die within one shot, as that is what would happen in real life.
Just thinking about it now, I would loose interest if games if they got too realistic because I would be bored stiff in buying them. I am not sure if I am the only one that thinks this. However, I know that loads of people are intrigued with watching real life. Take Big Brother for example, people loved that. They didn’t care that it was just a few people who were in a house for a few weeks. Doing normal stuff, with normal people that everyone does in their daily life.
With Big Brother being a hit, you can’t blame for game developers to make a game that consists of what you do in real life because everyone seems to be loving it today. Maybe I am the only gamer that thinks games are better off being non-realistic. I would be heartbroken to see all my favourite non-realistic games to stop coming out just because everyone is craving over “life like” games.
If we do start having games that get more and more realistic this will cause a huge demand for excellent graphics in order to give people the impression of being in real life. Not only will game developers spend absolutely ages trying to create fabulous graphics, but also the gameplay will start to get bad. There are two reasons for this. 1) Developers will not get as much time to worry about this as they do with graphics, 2) The gameplay will not be allowed to stray away from real life, so it will be very restricted (like in films made into games).
I know that what makes a good argument is where you give good and bad points about both sides of the argument, but I can not think of anything for realism. I suppose that it could attract more gamers, the ones that have no life so instead have to play games to keep in touch with real life.
Okay, that was a little harsh, but I am a harsh guy. I speak my mind.
Anyway, I suppose a good point for realism is RPG’s will benefit somewhat. RPG’s, in some way, represent a little real life.
What I would personally like to see is when characters speak, their mouths mouth accordingly. This is what I would love to see, and I guess that is something to do with realism. The new demo of MGS2 seems to have got the mouth movement good, but I can not tell if the mouth moves the same way as you would in real life because the voices are in Japanese!
Oh well, I have not got the power to decide weather games should get more realistic or not, but game developers do, and I am sure that they will have made up their minds come the Microsoft X-Box release, don’t you? However, I don’t think you can get more realistic that Microsoft’s Train Simulator. I am dreading the game coming out, and for only one reason. What about if people actually buy the game and it turns into a success? We can safely say that we would be looking at far more of these boring (to me) Simulators.
Obviously we do need a tad of realism in our games, the way characters move and talk are very good examples of this. Also, we wouldn’t want a really pretty girl to have a deep, grumpy mans voice would we? Well, I hope you agree anyway.
With the issue of games getting more realistic: I am 100% against the idea of games getting more and more realistic. I enjoy games because they give me something that I can not get in real life. What I mean is if you want games to be more realistic you can say goodbye to characters like Mario because they are not real, are they? Not only that but we would also have to say goodbye to the beautiful game worlds, because they are not real.
Another reason why I wouldn’t want to see games getting more realistic is I have come to the stage where I actually find SOME parts in games boring because they are just too life like. Take Shenmue, although the actual story of it was unlikely to happen to you, it was still a little tedious at some moments in the game. Although it was only the small bits, it still annoyed me a little because I thought that it wasn’t necessary. Instead, they should have made it a little more fantasy like.
It is wrong of me to keep saying bad things with Shenmue because it was infact a great game, and one that will stay in the minds of gamers forever.
Another thing is that you wouldn’t have as much fun with First Person Shooters because as well all now, if you wanted to realistic you would die within one shot, as that is what would happen in real life.
Just thinking about it now, I would loose interest if games if they got too realistic because I would be bored stiff in buying them. I am not sure if I am the only one that thinks this. However, I know that loads of people are intrigued with watching real life. Take Big Brother for example, people loved that. They didn’t care that it was just a few people who were in a house for a few weeks. Doing normal stuff, with normal people that everyone does in their daily life.
With Big Brother being a hit, you can’t blame for game developers to make a game that consists of what you do in real life because everyone seems to be loving it today. Maybe I am the only gamer that thinks games are better off being non-realistic. I would be heartbroken to see all my favourite non-realistic games to stop coming out just because everyone is craving over “life like” games.
If we do start having games that get more and more realistic this will cause a huge demand for excellent graphics in order to give people the impression of being in real life. Not only will game developers spend absolutely ages trying to create fabulous graphics, but also the gameplay will start to get bad. There are two reasons for this. 1) Developers will not get as much time to worry about this as they do with graphics, 2) The gameplay will not be allowed to stray away from real life, so it will be very restricted (like in films made into games).
I know that what makes a good argument is where you give good and bad points about both sides of the argument, but I can not think of anything for realism. I suppose that it could attract more gamers, the ones that have no life so instead have to play games to keep in touch with real life.
Okay, that was a little harsh, but I am a harsh guy. I speak my mind.
Anyway, I suppose a good point for realism is RPG’s will benefit somewhat. RPG’s, in some way, represent a little real life.
What I would personally like to see is when characters speak, their mouths mouth accordingly. This is what I would love to see, and I guess that is something to do with realism. The new demo of MGS2 seems to have got the mouth movement good, but I can not tell if the mouth moves the same way as you would in real life because the voices are in Japanese!
Oh well, I have not got the power to decide weather games should get more realistic or not, but game developers do, and I am sure that they will have made up their minds come the Microsoft X-Box release, don’t you? However, I don’t think you can get more realistic that Microsoft’s Train Simulator. I am dreading the game coming out, and for only one reason. What about if people actually buy the game and it turns into a success? We can safely say that we would be looking at far more of these boring (to me) Simulators.
Obviously we do need a tad of realism in our games, the way characters move and talk are very good examples of this. Also, we wouldn’t want a really pretty girl to have a deep, grumpy mans voice would we? Well, I hope you agree anyway.
Ortega wrote:
> i nearly bought a GBA today. I had 100 squid in my pocket ready to
> purchase one. But then i saw somthing really strange. £35 for
> the top games. i mean WTF?! totally and utterly a rip-off. I know
> its a little cheaper on the web, but on all the main high sstreet
> stores its £35 for mario, f-zero and tony hawks 2. Tony hawks
> is the worst considering you can get it for around £20 brand
> new on the psx.
Actually, you can get 'em for £29.99 at blockbusters!
Still expensive though.
> i nearly bought a GBA today. I had 100 squid in my pocket ready to
> purchase one. But then i saw somthing really strange. £35 for
> the top games. i mean WTF?! totally and utterly a rip-off. I know
> its a little cheaper on the web, but on all the main high sstreet
> stores its £35 for mario, f-zero and tony hawks 2. Tony hawks
> is the worst considering you can get it for around £20 brand
> new on the psx.
Actually, you can get 'em for £29.99 at blockbusters!
Still expensive though.
Well here is another point, I remember paying £30 for Master System games which are about equal graphically to the GBA. But we did not complain then and that £30 would be even more today when you add in inflation. I do think that GBA games are a bit expensive but they are more complete I suppose than a GBC game. There is more to a GBA game than other previous hand held games. I hopefully will get a GBA in time but at the moment I will probably wait and get another couple of PC or N64 games and when I do have some spare cash then get a GBA. Maybe by then the price will have come down slightly and I will know what are good games and what are the bad games. But the prospect of playing Sonic as he was all those years ago anywhere is certainly a wonderful thought that does make me think that a GBA might just be worth it.
Biggles
Biggles
The games of the Megadrive and SNES days were brilliant. Most of the games, were brilliant, fun, addictive and original. It was these four things that made the games so successful. And nobody really payed much attention to the graphics back then, it was all about the fun and addictiveness.
One thing that was on our side back then was the fact that the two computers: Megadrive and SNES had limitations, so the developers didn't concentrate so much on the graphics and realism of the games, and more on making the game fun to play. And it worked a treat if you ask me.
Now then, when there was an advancement in the consoles, and out came the 32-bit and 64-bit consoles. With this came lots of possibilities. But the one main thing was the graphical enhancement, I mean, after all, whenever a new console is being unveiled, what to they use to show off it's power, the graphics and realism (realism is a part of it now, it just used to be the graphics). As I was saying, it is the graphical enhancement that is a majpr factor. Developers can now concentrate on making the games much more realistic and more graphically stunning than before. Take a look at the racing genre. The Playstation basically redefined this with Gran Turismo, adding in unthinkable amounts of realism, and of course, the first one was also graphically impressive.
I feel that this is one of the problems in todays gaming industry. Developers and Publishers are concenrating more on the graphics and realism than ever before, and this could drastically effect the gaming industry. No longer is it all about fun because the current consoles can't produce the realism, the current consoles can now produce ample amounts of realism and stunning graphics. Now, as M16 said, there would be no gameplay if there were no graphics, but games are becoming more and more realistic every day, and is it as much fun as before. I mean, we never had to toggle with the gear ratios on Mario Kart or Outrun now did we. It was just pick up the controller, and have loads of fun while your at it.
In the future, consoles will progress even more and even more than that probably. Graphics will get better, and games will get even more realistic, and it will come to the point where we are controlling what looks like real people and real cars. Will this be as fun as jumping on a turtle with a plumber or grabbing rings with a blue hedgehog.
The Gameboy Advance will not suffer, as again this has limitations just like the SNES and the Megadrive, so the games will not be as realistic and graphically impressive as those on the 128-bit consoles (well, obviously not, everybody will say). As a results, we will be getting back those fun games that we had back in the SNES and Megadrive days. And because Sega are producing games for it, we are seeing the revival of gaming classics of Megadrive origin such as Sonic Advance, which owes a lot to the Megadrive versions. And we could also see the revival of a lot of other classics.
I am not saying that todays games are no fun at all, just not as fun as they used to be, because of all of this graphical enhancements and the games getting more and more realistic.
One thing that was on our side back then was the fact that the two computers: Megadrive and SNES had limitations, so the developers didn't concentrate so much on the graphics and realism of the games, and more on making the game fun to play. And it worked a treat if you ask me.
Now then, when there was an advancement in the consoles, and out came the 32-bit and 64-bit consoles. With this came lots of possibilities. But the one main thing was the graphical enhancement, I mean, after all, whenever a new console is being unveiled, what to they use to show off it's power, the graphics and realism (realism is a part of it now, it just used to be the graphics). As I was saying, it is the graphical enhancement that is a majpr factor. Developers can now concentrate on making the games much more realistic and more graphically stunning than before. Take a look at the racing genre. The Playstation basically redefined this with Gran Turismo, adding in unthinkable amounts of realism, and of course, the first one was also graphically impressive.
I feel that this is one of the problems in todays gaming industry. Developers and Publishers are concenrating more on the graphics and realism than ever before, and this could drastically effect the gaming industry. No longer is it all about fun because the current consoles can't produce the realism, the current consoles can now produce ample amounts of realism and stunning graphics. Now, as M16 said, there would be no gameplay if there were no graphics, but games are becoming more and more realistic every day, and is it as much fun as before. I mean, we never had to toggle with the gear ratios on Mario Kart or Outrun now did we. It was just pick up the controller, and have loads of fun while your at it.
In the future, consoles will progress even more and even more than that probably. Graphics will get better, and games will get even more realistic, and it will come to the point where we are controlling what looks like real people and real cars. Will this be as fun as jumping on a turtle with a plumber or grabbing rings with a blue hedgehog.
The Gameboy Advance will not suffer, as again this has limitations just like the SNES and the Megadrive, so the games will not be as realistic and graphically impressive as those on the 128-bit consoles (well, obviously not, everybody will say). As a results, we will be getting back those fun games that we had back in the SNES and Megadrive days. And because Sega are producing games for it, we are seeing the revival of gaming classics of Megadrive origin such as Sonic Advance, which owes a lot to the Megadrive versions. And we could also see the revival of a lot of other classics.
I am not saying that todays games are no fun at all, just not as fun as they used to be, because of all of this graphical enhancements and the games getting more and more realistic.
i nearly bought a GBA today. I had 100 squid in my pocket ready to purchase one. But then i saw somthing really strange. £35 for the top games. i mean WTF?! totally and utterly a rip-off. I know its a little cheaper on the web, but on all the main high sstreet stores its £35 for mario, f-zero and tony hawks 2. Tony hawks is the worst considering you can get it for around £20 brand new on the psx.
You know, I'd have said that it was the Gameboy advance that was ripping us off.
If top 3D games on the likes of PS2 and GC have large teams of 30-50 programmers, while the GBA only needs a team of 10.
If GC and PS2 games have complex 3D graphics, expensive motion capture and every trick in the book while the GBA has simple 2D animation.
That would mean that it's much cheaper to make games on the GBA than the bigger systems.
So why are Nintendo charging us as much (possibly more) for these game as we pay for their much more complicated counterparts. And then we get to the subject on how a lot of these games are simply Snes or even Nes conversions.
That's why I feel that Nintendo are ripping us off.
If top 3D games on the likes of PS2 and GC have large teams of 30-50 programmers, while the GBA only needs a team of 10.
If GC and PS2 games have complex 3D graphics, expensive motion capture and every trick in the book while the GBA has simple 2D animation.
That would mean that it's much cheaper to make games on the GBA than the bigger systems.
So why are Nintendo charging us as much (possibly more) for these game as we pay for their much more complicated counterparts. And then we get to the subject on how a lot of these games are simply Snes or even Nes conversions.
That's why I feel that Nintendo are ripping us off.
*claps*
Sorry, I'm busy with Project X.
Sorry, I'm busy with Project X.
With consoles being very expensive it makes you wonder why doesn’t it. I know that consoles have great technology and all, but why so expensive? I think it all comes down to graphics yet again, you know why? No? Well, let me explain why I think that graphics determine how much a games console is.
Today (Friday 22’nd) we have been blessed with the Game Boy Advance and it retails for £90. This is seen as cheap when up against consoles like PS2 and soon to be Gamecube and the X-Box. Why is this? Surely it isn’t that the PS2 is bigger than the GBA?
Well, why is it then? Is it because the PS2’s games LOOK better than the GBA’s? I think this is the reason and quite frankly I think that we are being ripped off, and if I didn’t have such a strong passion for gaming, I wouldn’t by these consoles because they are not worth £300 (in PS2’s case). Yes, they bring you many hours of fun but so does a naughty magazine and that only costs around £3!
I really do think that if the PS2 was exactly the same as it is today, but didn’t produce games with as good graphics I doubt if it would be £300. Are we being ripped off by graphics?
Today (Friday 22’nd) we have been blessed with the Game Boy Advance and it retails for £90. This is seen as cheap when up against consoles like PS2 and soon to be Gamecube and the X-Box. Why is this? Surely it isn’t that the PS2 is bigger than the GBA?
Well, why is it then? Is it because the PS2’s games LOOK better than the GBA’s? I think this is the reason and quite frankly I think that we are being ripped off, and if I didn’t have such a strong passion for gaming, I wouldn’t by these consoles because they are not worth £300 (in PS2’s case). Yes, they bring you many hours of fun but so does a naughty magazine and that only costs around £3!
I really do think that if the PS2 was exactly the same as it is today, but didn’t produce games with as good graphics I doubt if it would be £300. Are we being ripped off by graphics?
Page: