The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Well, as we all know, graphics aren’t anything. Some of us will argue that graphics mean nothing, and these new super-fly consoles should concentrate more on AI than eye candy. This too was a view held by me until recently (it’s funny, most PSone owners think that!).
I was playing MS Flight Sim 98, supposedly the most realistic flight sim ever. But when I was playing it I thought, “Why haven’t I got the feeling of flying?”
I like flight sims because they simulate the feeling of flying thousands of feet above the earth, which to me is a great feeling. It allows you utter freedom, not just in two dimensions, but upwards as well. “But,” I thought, “In order for me to feel like I’m really flying, it’s got to look like I’m flying. That way it confuses my senses into thinking I’m flying.” And it’s true, I do feel like I’m flying when it looks like I’m flying.
One game I do get a feeling of flying from is Sky Odyssey. Even though it doesn’t have super-accurate physics, it looks the business and really gives me the feeling of weightlessness. The game really does look as if I’m doing 150 knots at 2 angels. Whereas I’m sure FS 98 really does have the aerodynamic structure of a Boeing 747 programmed into it, because the scenery is undetailed and flat, I just don’t get that elated feeling.
So, what’s the point that graphics have to be at be at before they can be forgotten and gameplay can be concentrated on? That, I can’t answer, but here’s by views:
Graphics are a sliding scale. What works for one game doesn’t work for another. Take The Bouncer. Imagine this with Vib Ribbon graphics. This doesn’t quite work does it? How about Vib Ribbon with The Bouncer graphics. Still doesn’t seem right does it. The fact is, some games require better graphics than others. Some are purely representational (Vib Ribbon, Pac Man), and some are for the purposes of immersion and realism (Sky Odyssey, GT3). Different games need different graphics.
So, if not all games need good graphics, why are companies striving to be above the rest? Well, gamers are shallow. I’m not talking about me and you, but average Joe gamers, (dare I say it?) PlayStation gamers. These people immediately look at the graphics and judge a game literally by its cover. These gamers need something to wow themselves and their mates. They are show-offs. They are boasters. They are pitiful. These people will never experience Vib Ribbon, Pokémon or Super Bomberman. Therefore they are to given sympathy. But, nevertheless, there are a great deal of these small-minded individuals and they make up a good proportion of the games market and are to be accounted for. Nowadays, it all falls down to the lowest common denominator. Just developing for the hard or softcore is no longer done. Something for everyone is the motto these days. Well, ultimately we are the ones who suffer, but it’s like an ulcer: You gotta live with it for now, but someday it will go.
All I say is roll on Super Bomberman PS2!
I was playing MS Flight Sim 98, supposedly the most realistic flight sim ever. But when I was playing it I thought, “Why haven’t I got the feeling of flying?”
I like flight sims because they simulate the feeling of flying thousands of feet above the earth, which to me is a great feeling. It allows you utter freedom, not just in two dimensions, but upwards as well. “But,” I thought, “In order for me to feel like I’m really flying, it’s got to look like I’m flying. That way it confuses my senses into thinking I’m flying.” And it’s true, I do feel like I’m flying when it looks like I’m flying.
One game I do get a feeling of flying from is Sky Odyssey. Even though it doesn’t have super-accurate physics, it looks the business and really gives me the feeling of weightlessness. The game really does look as if I’m doing 150 knots at 2 angels. Whereas I’m sure FS 98 really does have the aerodynamic structure of a Boeing 747 programmed into it, because the scenery is undetailed and flat, I just don’t get that elated feeling.
So, what’s the point that graphics have to be at be at before they can be forgotten and gameplay can be concentrated on? That, I can’t answer, but here’s by views:
Graphics are a sliding scale. What works for one game doesn’t work for another. Take The Bouncer. Imagine this with Vib Ribbon graphics. This doesn’t quite work does it? How about Vib Ribbon with The Bouncer graphics. Still doesn’t seem right does it. The fact is, some games require better graphics than others. Some are purely representational (Vib Ribbon, Pac Man), and some are for the purposes of immersion and realism (Sky Odyssey, GT3). Different games need different graphics.
So, if not all games need good graphics, why are companies striving to be above the rest? Well, gamers are shallow. I’m not talking about me and you, but average Joe gamers, (dare I say it?) PlayStation gamers. These people immediately look at the graphics and judge a game literally by its cover. These gamers need something to wow themselves and their mates. They are show-offs. They are boasters. They are pitiful. These people will never experience Vib Ribbon, Pokémon or Super Bomberman. Therefore they are to given sympathy. But, nevertheless, there are a great deal of these small-minded individuals and they make up a good proportion of the games market and are to be accounted for. Nowadays, it all falls down to the lowest common denominator. Just developing for the hard or softcore is no longer done. Something for everyone is the motto these days. Well, ultimately we are the ones who suffer, but it’s like an ulcer: You gotta live with it for now, but someday it will go.
All I say is roll on Super Bomberman PS2!
Page:
Hmmm yes. Interesting.
LMFAO!!! I'll tell you what beat it! Dringo's Kiddies post!!!! *RAOTFL*
Nah, tried that as well!
Follow your own advice boy go on!
Probably a review. Day after day I read topics on the same subject and far inferior that win and it sickens me. Still, can't complain!
Well, I could but I won't.
Well, there was that thing in the 10 GAD tips.
Hmmmmm.
Well, I could but I won't.
Well, there was that thing in the 10 GAD tips.
Hmmmmm.
But is about realism and graphics?
Mine was about gettign immersed in gameplay?
Phew i was worried mine wasn't original there!
Good post what beat it?
I'll find out!
Mine was about gettign immersed in gameplay?
Phew i was worried mine wasn't original there!
Good post what beat it?
I'll find out!
POP because it ties in with Dringo's topic.
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. Let’s just hope they are changes for the better.
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. Let’s just hope they are changes for the better.
As i've mentioned somewhere else, people need good graphics to justify to themselves the amount of money they have spent on the console.
Wouldn't you feel a bit cheated if GT3 had graphics only slightly better than GT2? You'd spent £300 on a console to play a game that you could probably have played on your original PSX.
You need to feel that you have got something for your money. Great gameplay can come on any system, SNES, GBA, DC, PS2 etc. But only the latest machines can have the best graphics.
A good example of this is the GBA. It's not capable of graphics like the DC and PS2 etc, and as it's cheaper, people don't mind as much.
Wouldn't you feel a bit cheated if GT3 had graphics only slightly better than GT2? You'd spent £300 on a console to play a game that you could probably have played on your original PSX.
You need to feel that you have got something for your money. Great gameplay can come on any system, SNES, GBA, DC, PS2 etc. But only the latest machines can have the best graphics.
A good example of this is the GBA. It's not capable of graphics like the DC and PS2 etc, and as it's cheaper, people don't mind as much.
It's not that the polygons are small but they're phong shaded and smooth faceted.
Page: