The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
When Pokemon first came out- most people liked it, not for the graphics, but for the good gamplay...
I've got a GBA with THPS2 and it is just fantastic. The levels are well designed (they are the same as the PSX/DC versions), the gameplay is darned good and the graphics.....well, they're pretty good. I've unlocked four areas. I've completed the Hangar area and got gold in Marseilles. In Marseilles I've got 90% and I've got various other things that I've done. I think the hardest things I've encountered so far are on the Warehouse level. There's one banknote on the left hand side near the green gunge that I can't get, and I can't get the secret tape either.
Ok, time for me to put my ha'penny worth in here. It simply HAS to be gameplay. The graphics on a GBA really aren't that much of an improvement over the 16-bit consoles, although you can be sure the gameplay has improved a little since ye olde days of the 16-bit. If you want graphics AND gameplay, get a SNES. Or even better, get a Megadrive.
If you simply CANNOT ever own another home console again, then you have to get a GBA, there's no real viable alternative on the market, the GameGear doesn't even come close.
But, if you like games, and play them a lot, stick to a home console. And even then you can pick up a second hand PSX and 10 games for the price of a GBA.
If you simply CANNOT ever own another home console again, then you have to get a GBA, there's no real viable alternative on the market, the GameGear doesn't even come close.
But, if you like games, and play them a lot, stick to a home console. And even then you can pick up a second hand PSX and 10 games for the price of a GBA.
I could never get the videos working- what site are you talking about?
Edgy wrote:
> Loading times on the PS2 has put me off buying it at all!
Edgy- as I know and most people here know, you are big into Ninty. Well loading times are slow on the PS2 because of the discs used. The carts on the 64 were good because they prevented this, but they also prevented good commentary, music and video cutscenes in games!
As you are big into Ninty- like me, you'll be getting a GC, well that is useing discs too, so this means that you should expect slow loading times...does that ut you of the GameCube?
> Loading times on the PS2 has put me off buying it at all!
Edgy- as I know and most people here know, you are big into Ninty. Well loading times are slow on the PS2 because of the discs used. The carts on the 64 were good because they prevented this, but they also prevented good commentary, music and video cutscenes in games!
As you are big into Ninty- like me, you'll be getting a GC, well that is useing discs too, so this means that you should expect slow loading times...does that ut you of the GameCube?
jd99 wrote:
To test this theory I played SSX then 1080. After playing SSX I
> couldn't stand 1080 for more than five minutes, not because it was
> graphically duller or that the gameplay was not as good. I couldn't
> play it because it was so slow.
The PAL version of 1080 was very very slow. The orginal version of the game is much much faster. Its very very annoying that we always seem to get crap conversions of games. Speed always seems to suffer. Tekken on the PS2 is another example.
To test this theory I played SSX then 1080. After playing SSX I
> couldn't stand 1080 for more than five minutes, not because it was
> graphically duller or that the gameplay was not as good. I couldn't
> play it because it was so slow.
The PAL version of 1080 was very very slow. The orginal version of the game is much much faster. Its very very annoying that we always seem to get crap conversions of games. Speed always seems to suffer. Tekken on the PS2 is another example.
Best concentrate on the gameplay. The graphics on a hand held even of GBAs stature are not going to make much of a difference to the enjoyment. Better gameplay makes the game a better game, so do graphics but they do not have the same impact. For a hand held the gameplay is the crucial point.
Biggles
Biggles
Freak of the dark allias Mr Dark is indeed a leading authority on games and no offence Turbonutter but you attack everything about Nintendo so why can't we on Sony (and you complain we go on too much look at yourself!)?
Tetris is making an appearence on the GBA graphics pah who needs em? Yes I agree Graphics show a game in more detail, it looks more realistic and will sell. But aslong as the gameplay is there the graphics don't need to be perfect.
Body Harvest has rubbish graphics, plain boring and blocky yet the Gameplay is stuff to die for really it is involving and gripping and extremley addicitve (despite a little difficult). Now that game if it spent another 6 months in development the graphics could be upgraded a bit more detailed and a bit more smooth but this wouldn't effect how much i enjoyed the game at all!
Dringo
Tetris is making an appearence on the GBA graphics pah who needs em? Yes I agree Graphics show a game in more detail, it looks more realistic and will sell. But aslong as the gameplay is there the graphics don't need to be perfect.
Body Harvest has rubbish graphics, plain boring and blocky yet the Gameplay is stuff to die for really it is involving and gripping and extremley addicitve (despite a little difficult). Now that game if it spent another 6 months in development the graphics could be upgraded a bit more detailed and a bit more smooth but this wouldn't effect how much i enjoyed the game at all!
Dringo
turbonutter wrote:
> Dringo wrote:
> To be honst a game with good graphics tends to
> have good gameplay!
Bollards. Spyro? Sonic Adventure 2? That
> racing game on the PSone that looked like an N64 game?
And they are bad? i did say tend
> Dringo wrote:
> To be honst a game with good graphics tends to
> have good gameplay!
Bollards. Spyro? Sonic Adventure 2? That
> racing game on the PSone that looked like an N64 game?
And they are bad? i did say tend
Page: