The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Yeah I suppose. I've had enough of that for tonight. Go to the WLT anyway.
well its usually only one thing really aint it?
Ortega my man! Just the person to have an argument with. So, what shall it be today?
this is for anyone who has been playing THPS2 on the GBA constantly. Go back and play the psone version. Its so weird playing it in 3D.
sideshow buzz wrote:
> because the magazines make reference to which
> game looks the most like a playstation game
Well I tell yo this for nuttin, THPS2 is NOT 3D and looks nothing like ANY PSone game. The GBA can't do 3D, just pseudo-3D (isometric).
> because the magazines make reference to which
> game looks the most like a playstation game
Well I tell yo this for nuttin, THPS2 is NOT 3D and looks nothing like ANY PSone game. The GBA can't do 3D, just pseudo-3D (isometric).
indeed but on a inorder to get past Nitnendo's game net the games have to have good gameplay!
"pretty" graphics will attract people to the games,
such as reviews of tony hawk 2 on the gba in magazines refering to it as the best looking game so far on the system, but I still have no idea what it plays like,
because the magazines make reference to which game looks the most like a playstation game and write small areas for the gameplay.
gameplay!
such as reviews of tony hawk 2 on the gba in magazines refering to it as the best looking game so far on the system, but I still have no idea what it plays like,
because the magazines make reference to which game looks the most like a playstation game and write small areas for the gameplay.
gameplay!
Not according to that David Gibbon geezer from BBC's Ceefax. Apparently, his favourite game on the GBA is Rayman Advance, because it offers lush graphics and 62 levels. Not once was the word "gameplay" mentioned. The fool.
Ice Blaster wrote:
> When Pokemon first came out- most people liked it, not for the
> graphics, but for the good gamplay...
Teris made the gameboy, the pokemon, these have great grpahics.
No seriouly, the gameboy isn't about graphics, as we can see by the games on the system. So all in all, i can't be bortherd to argue ne more, as you are now getting board.
> When Pokemon first came out- most people liked it, not for the
> graphics, but for the good gamplay...
Teris made the gameboy, the pokemon, these have great grpahics.
No seriouly, the gameboy isn't about graphics, as we can see by the games on the system. So all in all, i can't be bortherd to argue ne more, as you are now getting board.
Page: