Viewing Thread:
"Take off those Rose Tinted Specs....."

Take off your Rose Tinted Spectacles. Now. Finding it too diffcult? Hmmmm, maybe i can help.

Why do some people say that graphics don't count, that gameplay is all that matters? Ok, maybe 'count' is the wrong word, maybe 'matter' would be better. Let's try again. Why do some people say that graphics don't matter, that gameplay is all that matters. Slightly better, but either way, i will try and explain my point.

I think graphics do matter, to an extent. To everyone that says "Graphics don't matter, i'm going off to play my SNES." I would say "Take off you Rose Tinted Spectacles." Ah, that is where we came in.

The thing is, we look back now to the days of the SNES and the MegaDrive and think the graphics are rubbish, that we were taken in by the gameplay alone. To this, i say bollards. Weren't you imprssed when you saw DK Country on the SNES, with all the richly detailed backgrounds, appearing as if it was in 3D? Did you not gasp in astonishment when you saw for the first time? I think most of you did, and thats my point.

Would the SNES MarioKart have been the same if the graphics were wireframe with no textures and you couldn't make out who the characters were supposed to be? No. You needed to be able to relate to the game and the settings of the levels to get the most out of the game.

People need to have good graphics in their games. Wouldn't you feel slightly cheated if Mario Kart on the 'Cube looked only slightly better than the N64 version? Wouldn't you think something like "Yeah, it's ok, but i think my N64 could run this." You've just spent £150 for the machine, which is a reasonable amount of money, and yet the games aren't pushing the machine to it's limits. It's the same with the PS2. If MGS2 looks like an N64 could push the old polyogns around, was it really worth you spending £300 on the hardware?

This brings me back to the first point. In 10 years time, when we are all playing on our XBox 3 or GameCube 4's or whatever, there will be people having a chat, and they'll say things like, "It was better before, i know when we played Shenmue and GT3 we had to use a television to watch what was going on," "but it didn't matter, it's the gameplay that counts." Whereas at the moment we are all gobsmacked by the graphics of those two games. See what i mean?

Another thing people always yada on about is that games were always more original before. OF COURSE THEY WERE!! Games hadn't been around long when the SNES and the MegaDrives came out so each new evolution of hardware allowed more variations of gameplay. When something is new, there are always loads of original ideas. Look at films. When they first started being made nothing had been done before, so each new variation practically started off a new genre. Now most of the variations have been made, so we get similar stuff all the time.

Gaming has been around a while now so there are less and less original ideas. The most original game i've seen in the last 18 months or so is Mr Driller. Ok, you could say that Deus Ex is original, but it's not really, it's just mixing 2 existing genres to try and get something original. If games like Doom and Ultima hadn't been made, we may not have seen Deus Ex, so it's not original.

All games can do at the moment is try and push the boudaries of existing genres until 'the next big leap'. B&W, Deus Ex and the Thief games are good examples. Thief relied heavily on sound, so you had to wait until 3D soundcards were widely available before you could release the game, otherwise it would have been rubbish as what the game was leaning heavily on, sound, couldn't have been represented adequately. B&W couldn't have been released 18 months ago as most people wouldn't have had PC's fast enough to play the game.

No doubt someone will say "But what about Shenmue and MGS2? They're original." But, wait for it, they're not. Shenmue is an RPG, not matter how detailed or free-form it is, it's still an RPG, MGS2 is, when you get right down to it, a Doom clone with a few new ideas thrown in.

What i'm trying to get at here is that just because games aren't original, doesn't mean they are less fun to play, and surely thats what gaming is all about, fun. MarioKart is fun, so i play it every now and again, but i also like playing M:SR, B&W, PSO etc. Just because a game is old, doesn't make it any better or worse than a new game. In the same way, a new game is not necessarily just a clone of existing games. The three games i just mentioned all bring something new to the genre, extend the limits for that type of game.

So take of those specs and appriciate that there are good games coming out all the time.

There are lots of factors that have to be considered when buying a game. One of those is the gameplay another is graphics. A good soundtrack is a bonus but I do not view it as a deciding factor.

I always consider the music before I buy a game. For instance, Gungriffon Blaze has a typical Jappy techno metal soundtrack which is so bad, it hurts. This spoils the game as I like something to listen to whilst I'm pointing my gun at an armed battlement. On the other hand, the Gran Turismo series always had fantastic music by real, well-known bands and it really adds to the experience.

I actually pointed it out twice!

My first post on this topic stated quite clearly:-

"But seeing as MGS is not a FPS, I fail to see any similarities except you're a man with a gun" or something like that.

Thinking about it MGS is more like Rik Dangerous than Doom is.

Anyway thats enough of that now!

I am the Tarrant wrote:
It's a third person shooter!!!!!!!!!


Having not played it, i'm surprised it took someone this long to point that out to me!!

:-)

Your Honour wrote:

However you look at
> it MGS is an indirect clone of Doom. It's an FPS with tactical bits,
> the same as Thief.


MGS isn't a first person perspective game though!

It's a third person shooter!!!!!!!!!

Also, you appear to be forgetting that my awkward nature forbids me to agree with you on this matter.

I am right, let it end here!

:-)

I am the Tarrant wrote:
Oh and I don't agree with YH on the MGS2
> being a Doom clone.
Any FPS under the sun can be described as a
> Doom clone. But seeing as MGS2 is not a FPS, I fail to see any other
> similarities except you play as a man with a gun.
Under those rules
> you could say that Doom was a 'Rik Dangerous' clone, which is just
> ridiculous.

Doom wasn't a Rick Dangerous clone because Rick Dangerous was, if i remember corectly, a 2D sideways platformer/shoot 'em up jobby. Doom is a 3D first person shoot 'em up.

Doom was followed by Quake, was followed by Goldeneye was followed by Thief (which started the 3D stealth 'em up genre) was followed by MGS.

However you look at it MGS is an indirect clone of Doom. It's an FPS with tactical bits, the same as Thief.

I agree with you bonus but what would make you more likely to buy a game out of these 2 quotes:

"Soaring orchestral soundtrack"

"Best Graphics I've seen in this genre"

Most would go with graphics. To be honest I think more people go with graphics than they would playability in this day and age :-(

Agree in some parts but the argument is fundamentally flawed!!!

I do agree that if you have just spent £300 on brand new console you are expecting it to be able to produce better graphics and better effects than the consoles which have come before. Yes there is a basic gripe by too many people these days that games aren't as good now as they used to be, but this is not a situation I agree with. The technology used to produce better graphics is evolving at an alarming rate, and the fact that the PS2 and the Gamecube can run with as little VRAM as they do is true testiment to that!! What we are seeing in games is a gradual increase in the quality of AI and a massive increase in the atmoshphere of games, but it has all been brought about in advancements in technology! When I had my N64 and just bought Turok 2 I loved it, I would wait for everyone to go to their beds, and sit in the living room in the dark and be totally engrosed in this game. It wasn't as good as Goldeneye, and the graphics weren't as good as the PC version, so what was it that had me so engrossed in this game?? The sound. Turok 2 was one of the very few games I have ever owned to support Dolby Pro-logic Surround Sound, and boy, what a difference it made. Remember the first time you went to the cinema and watced a film with surrond sound?? Remeber going to the cinema to watch Jurrasic Park, and being amazed at the sound flying around your ears, now imagine that you are sitting in a surround sound environment, playing a game like Turok 2, and that Raptor you just sneaked past is now screaming along behind you. You know it is behind you, because you can hear it behind you! What a sensation. As good as games like Wolfenstien 3D and Doom were, they didn't have the intricate possibilities of this. I am actually considering saving up to buy a Dolby Digital amp and speaker set-up for my bedroom, simply to play my PS2 games when this technology is more widely used.

Gameplay isn't solely relevent, Graphics aren't solely relevent, what is the most relevent when playing today's games is a combination of everything, highly detailed, defined graphics, superb quality, immersive sound and gameplay which suits the atmoshphere of the game.

I see and agree with what you're saying YH, graphics are a definate selling point for games. In fact what with magazines and the internet being our prime source of gathering information about upcoming games, most of us rely heavily on screen shots for getting an idea of the game.
Until the reviews come out and tell us the game is pants anyway.

But how many of us still thought "the Bouncer" might still be good after the reviewers told us it was pants? I'll bet this was down to the pretty visuals.
So, I'm also in total agreement with Meka, it's the games that are/were really playable that we go back to, even if the graphics are rubbish by todays standards.


Oh and I don't agree with YH on the MGS2 being a Doom clone.
Any FPS under the sun can be described as a Doom clone. But seeing as MGS2 is not a FPS, I fail to see any other similarities except you play as a man with a gun.
Under those rules you could say that Doom was a 'Rik Dangerous' clone, which is just ridiculous.

Your Honour is right, I was stunned by the graphics years ago.

I remember seeing the first Megadrive shots. Altered Beast, looking as good as it does in the arcades!

I was completely godsmacked by them, even though looking back now they look rather poor by comparison, it doesn't mean that it wasn't a selling point back in the day.

But the games I go back to, are the games that are most fun, not the ones that were considered to look best. So that's the Wonderboy games on the Sega Master System, Mario 3 and Manic Mansion on the NES, Bomberman on the SNES. Games like this were great, even though they weren't the most graphically stunning games of the era.

Now onto gameplay. I believe that 'gameplay' consists ofeverything that makes up the gaming experience, therefore graphics and sound are part of the gameplay. If you don't agree with that, fine, but think of it like this, if the graphics were different, maybe bigger characters, or different enemies, then we would see the game in a different way. If the sound wasn't right then the atmosphere wouldn't be right, so gameplay would be affected.

To me 'gameplay' is the overall quality of the game, consisting of everything that effects the way you play the game, including graphics, sound, control, options, presentation etc