The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Ok. So everyone knows now that the GBA is out, and how good it is, so I’m not going to go too much into all of that.
The GBA is roughly capable to produce graphics that range in between the SNES and the N64’s. The GBA, like any console, can also offer games with good gameplay. The GBA is also a handheld, and therefore the image cannot be projected onto a bigger sized TV, like a console can.
So what should developers of GBA games be concentration on? Graphics, or Gameplay.
Graphics play an important part in videogames. Without good graphics the game would be an eyesore – it would be ugly, you would have to look hard to see hwtas actually going on, and would not be even worth looking at in the first place. However without good gameplay, the game can be boring – pointless, have a rubbish plot and story line, and would not be even worth turning on.
The Gameboy, because of the lack to produce decent graphics, chose gameplay. Thus spending longer designing the actual gaming ideas than the graphics. Pokemon, a massive example shows this off. The graphics aren’t spectacular, but then you wouldn’t expect them to be. But the gameplay, coorrr, it blows you away – so much to see and do, you will spend so long catching them all.
The N64, on the other hand, relied mainly on it’s graphics, and in places, lacked the gameplay which would of improved it further, although saying that it did come up with some pretty good titles – Zelda for one. Being able to produce a huge 160,000 polygons per second, made it the most powerful games console in 98, ahead of the PSX.
Here the example could be Pokemon Stadium or Mortal Combat 4. Delivering superb graphics, neither PS or MC4 were up to much, and both could be completed and finished easily within 2 hours. (Note that Pokemon Stadium is nowhere near anything like Pokemon GB Blue/Red, there by explaining the difference in gameplay).
So what should the GBA concentrate on? Being a handheld, the graphics aren’t going to shine to their full potential just yet, and because it’s brand new, games will lack time, effort and much needed gameplay. Both of these should well improve within time, of course.
I personally think it should work towards gameplay. If you want decent graphics, look towards a big console like the PS2, they can handle the power. Handhelds should be made for their gameplay, the graphics being a bonus, and consoles should shine for their graphics, with gameplay being their bonus. But sometimes, if you’re lucky, you get both.
What do you think – Graphics or Gameplay?
Thanks for reading,
Namostar.
The GBA is roughly capable to produce graphics that range in between the SNES and the N64’s. The GBA, like any console, can also offer games with good gameplay. The GBA is also a handheld, and therefore the image cannot be projected onto a bigger sized TV, like a console can.
So what should developers of GBA games be concentration on? Graphics, or Gameplay.
Graphics play an important part in videogames. Without good graphics the game would be an eyesore – it would be ugly, you would have to look hard to see hwtas actually going on, and would not be even worth looking at in the first place. However without good gameplay, the game can be boring – pointless, have a rubbish plot and story line, and would not be even worth turning on.
The Gameboy, because of the lack to produce decent graphics, chose gameplay. Thus spending longer designing the actual gaming ideas than the graphics. Pokemon, a massive example shows this off. The graphics aren’t spectacular, but then you wouldn’t expect them to be. But the gameplay, coorrr, it blows you away – so much to see and do, you will spend so long catching them all.
The N64, on the other hand, relied mainly on it’s graphics, and in places, lacked the gameplay which would of improved it further, although saying that it did come up with some pretty good titles – Zelda for one. Being able to produce a huge 160,000 polygons per second, made it the most powerful games console in 98, ahead of the PSX.
Here the example could be Pokemon Stadium or Mortal Combat 4. Delivering superb graphics, neither PS or MC4 were up to much, and both could be completed and finished easily within 2 hours. (Note that Pokemon Stadium is nowhere near anything like Pokemon GB Blue/Red, there by explaining the difference in gameplay).
So what should the GBA concentrate on? Being a handheld, the graphics aren’t going to shine to their full potential just yet, and because it’s brand new, games will lack time, effort and much needed gameplay. Both of these should well improve within time, of course.
I personally think it should work towards gameplay. If you want decent graphics, look towards a big console like the PS2, they can handle the power. Handhelds should be made for their gameplay, the graphics being a bonus, and consoles should shine for their graphics, with gameplay being their bonus. But sometimes, if you’re lucky, you get both.
What do you think – Graphics or Gameplay?
Thanks for reading,
Namostar.
Page:
50-50 Gameplay and Graphics are what make a superb game. Take a look at luigi's mansion. Absolutley gob-smacking, finger-licking graphics, yet also gob-smacking, finger-licking gameplay. If I had to choose, it would ne Graphics. If a game had terrible graphics but great gameplay you wouldn't be able to see anything but if there are great graphics and terrible gameplay at least you would be able to see what is going on and maybe be able to play a little.
I believe that gameplay was important in the GBC because the GB couldn't produce very good graphics. Here, in the GBA, you can now introduce good graphics, so the fight between Graphics and Gameplay begins.
Also, I read quite along time ago that Sont were bringing out a handheld like the GBA, obviously they didn't!
Also, I read quite along time ago that Sont were bringing out a handheld like the GBA, obviously they didn't!
gameplay!
The GBA isn't proper 3-D! (DOOM? the first real 3-d game, using the dos 4.0 engine which started first person shooters) well never mind, what was the most selling console (GBC) and has the got 3-d? no, nevermind hey! The gb's are hand held, if they have porper it wouldn't work, the screen isn't big enough (only gba with a wide screen could do it, but it would be pushing it) and the battery power will be eaten like dringo's brother eating food in a locked tesco extra!
So what this is all about is, gameboys are the greatest exmple of people getting a console/ games for gameplay not graphics.
END
So what this is all about is, gameboys are the greatest exmple of people getting a console/ games for gameplay not graphics.
END
Handheld consoles never really used to be compared to consoles such as SNES, Megadrives, PSOne and N64 etc, now did they. But since the GBA has been released, I have seen magazines comparing it to such consoles like the Playstation.
Originally, the GBA was being compared to the SNES, which was understandable, because, afterall, the GBA is basically a handheld SNES. But it seems that now, GBA is being compared to the PSOne. There isn't any real logical reason behind this.
I don't like to compare consoles at all, because it can lead to arguments. Why not just enjoy what you have in front of you?
Originally, the GBA was being compared to the SNES, which was understandable, because, afterall, the GBA is basically a handheld SNES. But it seems that now, GBA is being compared to the PSOne. There isn't any real logical reason behind this.
I don't like to compare consoles at all, because it can lead to arguments. Why not just enjoy what you have in front of you?
Eh?
Both, like Tony Hawks 2.
That is spectacular!!!
That is spectacular!!!
The GBA's graphics, 2D or otherwise, simply cannot be as powerful as the PlayStation, it's just not possible. Comparing the GBA to the PSone is nothing short of wishful thinking.
I know THPS2 has an isometric view point, but it is the magazines that compare the graphics to that of a playstation, for example rayman advance, not me.
Page: