The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
hobbes_ wrote:
And to admit, half of us that are in
> yr 7-8 might not actually remeber the joys of the first time you
> opened the box of your NES or SNES (in my case).
I remember when I first opened the SNES box. I slapped in Street Fighter and just played and played and played
And to admit, half of us that are in
> yr 7-8 might not actually remeber the joys of the first time you
> opened the box of your NES or SNES (in my case).
I remember when I first opened the SNES box. I slapped in Street Fighter and just played and played and played
You're right there M16 in some aspects.
A lot of us that have been playing games since we could talk and walk and hold a controller will understand about stuff like this and looked and found out how these things work what makes it so powerful etc. And others just pick it up as they go along.
But some of us that don't really play and want to find out as much, some have gotten used to 64-128bit consoles and gameplay. And only looking at the screenshots and the graphics and saying wow that games got good graphocs it must be a good game, buying it and saying oh this is cr@p! A waste of £40!
And to admit, half of us that are in yr 7-8 might not actually remeber the joys of the first time you opened the box of your NES or SNES (in my case).
I first got a SNES but I already had an Amiga 1200 (i think) and I used to love playing on each of these all of the time.
And I still do now sometimes because of how addictive the games that they are. But you can't just play a game that is addictive. No! Boring and lifeless graphics are hard to look at on the eye and are not that entertaining for me and quite a lot of people.
An addictive game will only last so long but a game that is highly addictive and has nice and easy graphics to look at will last donkeys years longer.
So I would say make it look more cartoony, smoother, better COLOURS. But keep the orgiginality and the addictivity (spelling mistake), (grammer mistake), (word dont exsit so dont use it in youre english tes :-)).
Take Rayman (1) for instance.
I know this is one the early playstation games. And it is not exactly 'Today' gaming but just read.
:-)
It was a very basic game. A totally original game. It was highly addictive and everytime an enemy or foe knocked you down it made you want to get right back up and have another pop at him. Great just what you want in a computer game.
It was totally original, no one had ever thought about putting a curtain haired, purple, legless, and armless guy into a playstation game or any format of game for that matter.
For the time in which it was brought out it was quite basic and 2D with some sort of small 3D effect and you'd think that a game like that wouldn't fare very well against the likes off graphically better fully 3D games.
But those types of games weren't as original and as new.
The graphics weren't exactly 'da bomb' 3D visuals but were smooth, colourful, ORIGINAL, easy to look at and fun and well thought up.
Just what was needed in a game.
The gameplay was fun, addictive, and highly entertaining. It was a new game.
Take a Playstation 2 game. Nearly all the games that come out for me don't really seem to need me wasting time looking at them and trying them out. And only a handful like GTA3 etc are worth it.
But hardly any of these were or are original for that matter, but look fab (graphically speaking). And that can wear quite a bit and end up back in the box. After a matter of weeks or up to 2 months.
And if developers looked at these 2 types of games that I have mentioned in this post then they could create hits after hits after hits.
hobbes_
A lot of us that have been playing games since we could talk and walk and hold a controller will understand about stuff like this and looked and found out how these things work what makes it so powerful etc. And others just pick it up as they go along.
But some of us that don't really play and want to find out as much, some have gotten used to 64-128bit consoles and gameplay. And only looking at the screenshots and the graphics and saying wow that games got good graphocs it must be a good game, buying it and saying oh this is cr@p! A waste of £40!
And to admit, half of us that are in yr 7-8 might not actually remeber the joys of the first time you opened the box of your NES or SNES (in my case).
I first got a SNES but I already had an Amiga 1200 (i think) and I used to love playing on each of these all of the time.
And I still do now sometimes because of how addictive the games that they are. But you can't just play a game that is addictive. No! Boring and lifeless graphics are hard to look at on the eye and are not that entertaining for me and quite a lot of people.
An addictive game will only last so long but a game that is highly addictive and has nice and easy graphics to look at will last donkeys years longer.
So I would say make it look more cartoony, smoother, better COLOURS. But keep the orgiginality and the addictivity (spelling mistake), (grammer mistake), (word dont exsit so dont use it in youre english tes :-)).
Take Rayman (1) for instance.
I know this is one the early playstation games. And it is not exactly 'Today' gaming but just read.
:-)
It was a very basic game. A totally original game. It was highly addictive and everytime an enemy or foe knocked you down it made you want to get right back up and have another pop at him. Great just what you want in a computer game.
It was totally original, no one had ever thought about putting a curtain haired, purple, legless, and armless guy into a playstation game or any format of game for that matter.
For the time in which it was brought out it was quite basic and 2D with some sort of small 3D effect and you'd think that a game like that wouldn't fare very well against the likes off graphically better fully 3D games.
But those types of games weren't as original and as new.
The graphics weren't exactly 'da bomb' 3D visuals but were smooth, colourful, ORIGINAL, easy to look at and fun and well thought up.
Just what was needed in a game.
The gameplay was fun, addictive, and highly entertaining. It was a new game.
Take a Playstation 2 game. Nearly all the games that come out for me don't really seem to need me wasting time looking at them and trying them out. And only a handful like GTA3 etc are worth it.
But hardly any of these were or are original for that matter, but look fab (graphically speaking). And that can wear quite a bit and end up back in the box. After a matter of weeks or up to 2 months.
And if developers looked at these 2 types of games that I have mentioned in this post then they could create hits after hits after hits.
hobbes_
As long as I can tell what things are and it's got a high framerate, I'm fine.
I think that the graphics should suit the game.
I think that a console is best to have a balance between cartonny and realistic graphics.
As for new ideas for games, wait until I start making games for Rareware.
Yep, I've got a couple of neat game ideas up my sleeve. ;-)
I think that a console is best to have a balance between cartonny and realistic graphics.
As for new ideas for games, wait until I start making games for Rareware.
Yep, I've got a couple of neat game ideas up my sleeve. ;-)
M16 wrote:
that the rest?
Typical me, I make a typo on the opening two lines!
It was meant to read, "than the rest".
Cheers Resi and YH for the kind words.
I will check back in about 4 hours, I am off to buy me a GBA!
Cheers.
that the rest?
Typical me, I make a typo on the opening two lines!
It was meant to read, "than the rest".
Cheers Resi and YH for the kind words.
I will check back in about 4 hours, I am off to buy me a GBA!
Cheers.
Ok, first thing: good post.
Now, people want good graphics for a very simple reason. To justify to themselves the £200+ they have just spent on their console. Simple as that.
Technology is advancing all the time, as we know, and so the hardware can handle and create better and better graphics. Games developer almost feel they have to keep their grpahics up with the hardware. If you bought a really good game for your PS2, but the graphics were absolute rubbish, i mean really bad, like PSX level, wouldn't you feel a bit cheated? Wouldn't you say to youself something like:
"Yeah, the gameplay is great, but why did i spend £300 to play ames like this when i could have played it on my PSX."
A good example of this is the GBA. Compared to the N64, DC and PS2, the graphics are rubbish, but because the machine isn't capable of DC type graphics, no one minds. In all the articles i've read about the GBA people are comparing the graphics to the SNES, as they are of equal power, even though the GBA is 32bit. They all say that it looks better than the SNES version etc. So even though the 'Cube is on its way, it's being compared with the SNES.
Going back to the PS2, DC etc, the games HAVE to have great graphics or people will feel robbed. The PS2 is capable of great graphics, so imagine what would happen if MGS2 looked hardly any better than the original! People have to feel their money spent has been justified, and they do this by looking at the graphics. Any platform can have great gameplay on it, what ever the age, but only the newest ones can be considered to have great graphics as well.
Now, people want good graphics for a very simple reason. To justify to themselves the £200+ they have just spent on their console. Simple as that.
Technology is advancing all the time, as we know, and so the hardware can handle and create better and better graphics. Games developer almost feel they have to keep their grpahics up with the hardware. If you bought a really good game for your PS2, but the graphics were absolute rubbish, i mean really bad, like PSX level, wouldn't you feel a bit cheated? Wouldn't you say to youself something like:
"Yeah, the gameplay is great, but why did i spend £300 to play ames like this when i could have played it on my PSX."
A good example of this is the GBA. Compared to the N64, DC and PS2, the graphics are rubbish, but because the machine isn't capable of DC type graphics, no one minds. In all the articles i've read about the GBA people are comparing the graphics to the SNES, as they are of equal power, even though the GBA is 32bit. They all say that it looks better than the SNES version etc. So even though the 'Cube is on its way, it's being compared with the SNES.
Going back to the PS2, DC etc, the games HAVE to have great graphics or people will feel robbed. The PS2 is capable of great graphics, so imagine what would happen if MGS2 looked hardly any better than the original! People have to feel their money spent has been justified, and they do this by looking at the graphics. Any platform can have great gameplay on it, what ever the age, but only the newest ones can be considered to have great graphics as well.
Excellent post and a good point, Producers do spend far too much time working on the graphics,which aren't anything without a good game to back it up.
I think Gameplay is essential but Graphics have the ability to either spoil a game or make the overall gameplay better. More people just look at the graphics to compare which is the better console but there's far more to games than graphics. Putting aside the games the graphics on the N64 are better overall, but the Playstation's sound and use of the CD player was outstanding, but no one ever looks at any of these other elements that make a game they just look at whats on screen.
Personally I think they should put Gameplay first then enhance the game with nice graphics not vice versa.
I think Gameplay is essential but Graphics have the ability to either spoil a game or make the overall gameplay better. More people just look at the graphics to compare which is the better console but there's far more to games than graphics. Putting aside the games the graphics on the N64 are better overall, but the Playstation's sound and use of the CD player was outstanding, but no one ever looks at any of these other elements that make a game they just look at whats on screen.
Personally I think they should put Gameplay first then enhance the game with nice graphics not vice versa.
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: