The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Right then, to my brothers knowledge power equals colour and the more colours the better the game, well I really don't think that this is true, most of the gaming classics were on the Mega Drive, SNES and GameBoy, the early classics had few colours, infact imagine going into school with a full box of colouring pencils, by the end of the term how many did you have from that box of 32, about 4-16 that is how many core colours the companies had back then and the games were GREAT, the majority of the classic were back then and if this is true then what do colours actually do for a 'game'.
The colours inhance the physical appearence of the game, the more colours the better the quality of the image that the gamer will see, and yes 'power equals colour' in the way that the more powerful the machine the better the colour range will be, therefore the better the graphics, so correct me if I am wrong but why with the PS2's power does it produce no better visual graphics then the Dreamcast. Why? Because only MGS2 has been created to use the full power of the machine, why, because companies like Eidos cannot really be bothered to spend thousands of extra hours creating a game when all those extra hours will go into the colour display and overall graphics. With this in mind do games need graphics for people to buy them.
I reckon most people are firstly most impressed by the graphics then the game, a bit like most men go for appearance then personality. Is this wrong, well everyone has there own opinion, I would hope people don't rely on screenshots when picking a game, I really hope they don't...
Thanks for reading
er-no
The colours inhance the physical appearence of the game, the more colours the better the quality of the image that the gamer will see, and yes 'power equals colour' in the way that the more powerful the machine the better the colour range will be, therefore the better the graphics, so correct me if I am wrong but why with the PS2's power does it produce no better visual graphics then the Dreamcast. Why? Because only MGS2 has been created to use the full power of the machine, why, because companies like Eidos cannot really be bothered to spend thousands of extra hours creating a game when all those extra hours will go into the colour display and overall graphics. With this in mind do games need graphics for people to buy them.
I reckon most people are firstly most impressed by the graphics then the game, a bit like most men go for appearance then personality. Is this wrong, well everyone has there own opinion, I would hope people don't rely on screenshots when picking a game, I really hope they don't...
Thanks for reading
er-no
Colours?`
mmmm colours
Gamecube is the easiest console to develop for ever!
The GC is solely made for games and it shows when the game sare being developed!
wow...
The GC is solely made for games and it shows when the game sare being developed!
wow...
Classic games weren't just on the old computers. Admittedly the graphics were limited so they could focuson the gameplay but there are modern classics. Crazy Taxi is a classic. Mario 64 is a classic. MGS is a classic, they have all made a name for themselves in the industry for being such good games.
I think that we will see more and more colours, but with development alot harder than it was, it wouldn't surprise me if basic textures were used and then colour schemes added. After all, not mant companies wan't to go through a whole list of colours to get the right one.
About 1 Million colours is enough, anymore and gameplay will suffer. And hey, there is always lighting to show colours in a different way...colours are good but without lighing everything would be black! (Think About It)
But with regards to the colours means better games, I think its true, But to be honest, anything pre SNES is a joke. Some of the classics might me acceptable but I would much rather play Crazy Taxi for an hour than play Jet Pac for the same length of time...
The Game
I think that we will see more and more colours, but with development alot harder than it was, it wouldn't surprise me if basic textures were used and then colour schemes added. After all, not mant companies wan't to go through a whole list of colours to get the right one.
About 1 Million colours is enough, anymore and gameplay will suffer. And hey, there is always lighting to show colours in a different way...colours are good but without lighing everything would be black! (Think About It)
But with regards to the colours means better games, I think its true, But to be honest, anything pre SNES is a joke. Some of the classics might me acceptable but I would much rather play Crazy Taxi for an hour than play Jet Pac for the same length of time...
The Game
Its the Gameplay that counts!!
:-)
Example: People who didn't like Pokemon that bought the Gameboy games because it was a good RPG and had good gameplay (heck I know it is nothing to do with visuals but it was the best I could think of at the time)!!
:-)
Example: People who didn't like Pokemon that bought the Gameboy games because it was a good RPG and had good gameplay (heck I know it is nothing to do with visuals but it was the best I could think of at the time)!!
Right then, to my brothers knowledge power equals colour and the more colours the better the game, well I really don't think that this is true, most of the gaming classics were on the Mega Drive, SNES and GameBoy, the early classics had few colours, infact imagine going into school with a full box of colouring pencils, by the end of the term how many did you have from that box of 32, about 4-16 that is how many core colours the companies had back then and the games were GREAT, the majority of the classic were back then and if this is true then what do colours actually do for a 'game'.
The colours inhance the physical appearence of the game, the more colours the better the quality of the image that the gamer will see, and yes 'power equals colour' in the way that the more powerful the machine the better the colour range will be, therefore the better the graphics, so correct me if I am wrong but why with the PS2's power does it produce no better visual graphics then the Dreamcast. Why? Because only MGS2 has been created to use the full power of the machine, why, because companies like Eidos cannot really be bothered to spend thousands of extra hours creating a game when all those extra hours will go into the colour display and overall graphics. With this in mind do games need graphics for people to buy them.
I reckon most people are firstly most impressed by the graphics then the game, a bit like most men go for appearance then personality. Is this wrong, well everyone has there own opinion, I would hope people don't rely on screenshots when picking a game, I really hope they don't...
Thanks for reading
er-no
The colours inhance the physical appearence of the game, the more colours the better the quality of the image that the gamer will see, and yes 'power equals colour' in the way that the more powerful the machine the better the colour range will be, therefore the better the graphics, so correct me if I am wrong but why with the PS2's power does it produce no better visual graphics then the Dreamcast. Why? Because only MGS2 has been created to use the full power of the machine, why, because companies like Eidos cannot really be bothered to spend thousands of extra hours creating a game when all those extra hours will go into the colour display and overall graphics. With this in mind do games need graphics for people to buy them.
I reckon most people are firstly most impressed by the graphics then the game, a bit like most men go for appearance then personality. Is this wrong, well everyone has there own opinion, I would hope people don't rely on screenshots when picking a game, I really hope they don't...
Thanks for reading
er-no