The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
This has been a well discussed topic, but I feel that after seeing the GC screenshots and videos, it's time to bring it to our attention once again.
My view is sort of....in between. I say that they both matter, and they have to work...with eachother.
I believe that all games need good gameplay, but most games need good graphics as well.
I mean, would N64 fans like Perfect Dark or Goldeneye so much if they had poor graphics??
Would I like MGS so much if it had poor graphics?? Probably.
Gameplay is more important, and graphics are also needed to improve the experience. Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
What are your views??
Thanks for reading, Ant.
My view is sort of....in between. I say that they both matter, and they have to work...with eachother.
I believe that all games need good gameplay, but most games need good graphics as well.
I mean, would N64 fans like Perfect Dark or Goldeneye so much if they had poor graphics??
Would I like MGS so much if it had poor graphics?? Probably.
Gameplay is more important, and graphics are also needed to improve the experience. Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
What are your views??
Thanks for reading, Ant.
Page:
When I first saw and played time crises I thourght the graphics were amazing for the Playstation and that the gameplay was below average, but the thats just my opion.
I enjoy a bit of both. But I'd prefere gameplay.
Take Time Crisis on the PSX. The graphics are, well, ok, but aren't spectacular, yet, when I play it, I forget about how it looks and think of what it looks.
When you get focussed into a game, you just think about playing, not what it looks like.
Gameplay is the game, graphics are a bonus!
Take Time Crisis on the PSX. The graphics are, well, ok, but aren't spectacular, yet, when I play it, I forget about how it looks and think of what it looks.
When you get focussed into a game, you just think about playing, not what it looks like.
Gameplay is the game, graphics are a bonus!
I'm looking forward to shigsy's new game Pikmin, The graphics are amazing and the game it's self looks very originall.
It depends what type of game it is. Back in the days of point-and-click adventures, The storyline was what held the game together, because the didn't have graphics.
Now that we do have the power to bring graphics into games, they should be used in moderation, and not overshadow the game.
If someone says " You have to play this game, its got wicked graphics" they are not looking deep enough. The graphics provide a great medium for the game developers to put their games into.
Take snake for example. It is probably the most played game this year. And it has no graphics really!
also, it depends on the genre. C&C games will in no way benefit from full 3D graphics - it is pointless.
So I am truly in favour of gameplay, but if the developer has that bit of extra room, it is worth the wait for better graphics
Now that we do have the power to bring graphics into games, they should be used in moderation, and not overshadow the game.
If someone says " You have to play this game, its got wicked graphics" they are not looking deep enough. The graphics provide a great medium for the game developers to put their games into.
Take snake for example. It is probably the most played game this year. And it has no graphics really!
also, it depends on the genre. C&C games will in no way benefit from full 3D graphics - it is pointless.
So I am truly in favour of gameplay, but if the developer has that bit of extra room, it is worth the wait for better graphics
Well, I can't imagine a game with 16 or 32 bit graphics having that great gameplay. I mean okay, sure, it could have really good gameplay but it couldn't be really long. I do think that gameplay is more important but graphics provide a way of making the game feel different. First you're in the forest then you're in a volcano and it just changes the way the game is. With poor graphics, a game couldn't be very smooth to play which would take a lot away from the gameplay.
No, graphics have always been an issue in gaming. There has never been a time when they 'didn't matter', there have only been times where they weren't as good.
I can't remember any examples of scpectrum/commodore games hyped for their graphics, but I was slightly out of touch with the gaming world for my first few years as a gamer, but there were landmark graphical games. Anyone remember any?
I can't remember any examples of scpectrum/commodore games hyped for their graphics, but I was slightly out of touch with the gaming world for my first few years as a gamer, but there were landmark graphical games. Anyone remember any?
little extract from my post:
In most machines these days, all that changes is the specs and we look at that the most, because without specs we wouldn’t have great graphics! Groundbreaking games are released now and then but the quality of the games are pretty low compared to the good old games such as the very first Sonic that came out because games were simply a new thing back then, and technology wasn’t exactly our high point. But today I think that gaming isn’t advancing to new heights like the technology is at the moment, I expect a few more original games that include a bit more imagination in them, I expect many developers know what I’m talking about, eh Shigsy? Anyone seen Animal Forest, it has Nintendo’s childish ‘type’ graphics but Shigsy’s idea is to have the family involved in it! Great! If that isn’t the way to go for designing new and original games what is?
I look forward to the GameCube a lot not because it is very powerful, but I expect some surprising stuff to turn up on that machine. We can still have sequels around in the future but some Deus Ex type games are needed to make the gaming boat a bit more stable because people are losing precious time bringing out clones all the time, of course they make more money out of selling sequel after sequel of a series that begins great and ends up exactly the same game in the sequel, but they know we expect a bit more than improving the graphics of games to make them more realistic. Realism of games is cool, but not all games can be realistic because some of their ideas are crazy! Look at Microsoft’s Malice for the X-Box!
But realism doesn’t mean we don’t buy the games, whether or not it is playable or not we can’t play a game that has been rendered beautifully and you can’t play it for that long.
The whole concept is to enjoy the game, the graphics is an extra piece of the jigsaw that catches our eye all the time, and it’s like the selling point of whole games!
So will we fix the problems with game shortage and more original games? The future will tell when the next console machines are out, not when the next Pentium processor is out!
Keep an open mind on what games you buy! Whether or not you haven’t played the genre before you may be surprised to find it good.
Have a good day
Sniper
In most machines these days, all that changes is the specs and we look at that the most, because without specs we wouldn’t have great graphics! Groundbreaking games are released now and then but the quality of the games are pretty low compared to the good old games such as the very first Sonic that came out because games were simply a new thing back then, and technology wasn’t exactly our high point. But today I think that gaming isn’t advancing to new heights like the technology is at the moment, I expect a few more original games that include a bit more imagination in them, I expect many developers know what I’m talking about, eh Shigsy? Anyone seen Animal Forest, it has Nintendo’s childish ‘type’ graphics but Shigsy’s idea is to have the family involved in it! Great! If that isn’t the way to go for designing new and original games what is?
I look forward to the GameCube a lot not because it is very powerful, but I expect some surprising stuff to turn up on that machine. We can still have sequels around in the future but some Deus Ex type games are needed to make the gaming boat a bit more stable because people are losing precious time bringing out clones all the time, of course they make more money out of selling sequel after sequel of a series that begins great and ends up exactly the same game in the sequel, but they know we expect a bit more than improving the graphics of games to make them more realistic. Realism of games is cool, but not all games can be realistic because some of their ideas are crazy! Look at Microsoft’s Malice for the X-Box!
But realism doesn’t mean we don’t buy the games, whether or not it is playable or not we can’t play a game that has been rendered beautifully and you can’t play it for that long.
The whole concept is to enjoy the game, the graphics is an extra piece of the jigsaw that catches our eye all the time, and it’s like the selling point of whole games!
So will we fix the problems with game shortage and more original games? The future will tell when the next console machines are out, not when the next Pentium processor is out!
Keep an open mind on what games you buy! Whether or not you haven’t played the genre before you may be surprised to find it good.
Have a good day
Sniper
SHEEPY wrote:
> For me a bit of both!
There is no point having a brilliant game
> with the poorest graphics you have seen and a brilliant game with
> poor graphics!
So 50% gameplay
50% graphics
Thats the way
> for me, but of course...
I would still like a game if it had
> excellent gameplay fair graphics and the other way around. You can
> never beat a brilliant cut-sceen even if the game is
> poor!
Sensible Soccer - Old favourite of mine, terrible graphics
> in these days terms but the best gameplay :)
(Well Done on
> changing mood of place Ant ;))
Oops what a mess I made of that then :D
> For me a bit of both!
There is no point having a brilliant game
> with the poorest graphics you have seen and a brilliant game with
> poor graphics!
So 50% gameplay
50% graphics
Thats the way
> for me, but of course...
I would still like a game if it had
> excellent gameplay fair graphics and the other way around. You can
> never beat a brilliant cut-sceen even if the game is
> poor!
Sensible Soccer - Old favourite of mine, terrible graphics
> in these days terms but the best gameplay :)
(Well Done on
> changing mood of place Ant ;))
Oops what a mess I made of that then :D
For me a bit of both!
There is no point having a brilliant game with the poorest graphics you have seen and a brilliant game with poor graphics!
So 50% gameplay
50% graphics
Thats the way for me, but of course...
I would still like a game if it had excellent gameplay fair graphics and the other way around. You can never beat a brilliant cut-sceen even if the game is poor!
Sensible Soccer - Old favourite of mine, terrible graphics in these days terms but the best gameplay :)
(Well Done on changing mood of place Ant ;))
There is no point having a brilliant game with the poorest graphics you have seen and a brilliant game with poor graphics!
So 50% gameplay
50% graphics
Thats the way for me, but of course...
I would still like a game if it had excellent gameplay fair graphics and the other way around. You can never beat a brilliant cut-sceen even if the game is poor!
Sensible Soccer - Old favourite of mine, terrible graphics in these days terms but the best gameplay :)
(Well Done on changing mood of place Ant ;))
Well, I think that Gameplay and gamelength is much more important than the graphics, like I've said before on another topic I would love to have a game on the GC with low graphics (maybe 16bit or 32bit) but with amazing length and Gameplay, the only thing is though is that it would not appeal to the casual gammer which takes up alot of the market these days (The casuel gammer usually goes for the license or the graphics). I think that if the Playstation never came out when it did the SNES could have gone for another 2-3 years and we would all be playing a much higher standard of games these days, but then I suspose Sony did push the Gaming market into the rite direction.
Page: