The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Loading times on the PS2 has put me off buying it at all!
I had a go on Rugby 2001 (which looks good on PC-from what I've seen on shop computers) on the PS2, but got bored waiting for it to load (It took sooooooo long) so I'm definately not gonna buy the console because loading times on the PC (for huge games on my 166Mhz processor) frustrate me and I play games for relaxation.
In response to the original topic:
We wont see the Game Boy Advance used to it's full potential for a while yet! Generally better games are released nearer the end of a console's life. So we probably wont see the best games graphically or the best games for gameplay itself for a while yet.
I think that for the Game Boy Advance, both gameplay and graphics are just as important as each other. The Game Boy Advance has so much expected of it by a lot of people. They expect beaultiful, high quality, 3D images on the Game Boy Advance, even though we've been told that wont happen because the graphics chip isn't as powerful as the playstation (although the Game Boy Advance is more powerful sytemwise).
Gameplay is also expected to be improved dramatically, although I reckon we wont notice much difference between the gameplay of top Game Boy/Game Boy Color games and the Game Boy Advance. The Game Boy Advance may be more powerful, however games don't need to be powerful to be full of gameplay.
Then again it depends on what games you are comparing. If I compared Tony Hawks Pro Skating 2 for GBA with Pokémon Gold, I'd have to choose Pokémon Gold as the better for Gameplay, however if I was to compare Tony Hawks Pro Skating 2 for GBA with Super Mario Land for Game Boy, I'd have to choose Tony Hawks as the better game for Gameplay as the levels are very repetative in Super Mario Land. (Don't confuse this game with Super Mario Bros DX on the Game Boy Color)
It all depends on what developers think gamers want, and whether they can create new games with a balance between them.
I had a go on Rugby 2001 (which looks good on PC-from what I've seen on shop computers) on the PS2, but got bored waiting for it to load (It took sooooooo long) so I'm definately not gonna buy the console because loading times on the PC (for huge games on my 166Mhz processor) frustrate me and I play games for relaxation.
In response to the original topic:
We wont see the Game Boy Advance used to it's full potential for a while yet! Generally better games are released nearer the end of a console's life. So we probably wont see the best games graphically or the best games for gameplay itself for a while yet.
I think that for the Game Boy Advance, both gameplay and graphics are just as important as each other. The Game Boy Advance has so much expected of it by a lot of people. They expect beaultiful, high quality, 3D images on the Game Boy Advance, even though we've been told that wont happen because the graphics chip isn't as powerful as the playstation (although the Game Boy Advance is more powerful sytemwise).
Gameplay is also expected to be improved dramatically, although I reckon we wont notice much difference between the gameplay of top Game Boy/Game Boy Color games and the Game Boy Advance. The Game Boy Advance may be more powerful, however games don't need to be powerful to be full of gameplay.
Then again it depends on what games you are comparing. If I compared Tony Hawks Pro Skating 2 for GBA with Pokémon Gold, I'd have to choose Pokémon Gold as the better for Gameplay, however if I was to compare Tony Hawks Pro Skating 2 for GBA with Super Mario Land for Game Boy, I'd have to choose Tony Hawks as the better game for Gameplay as the levels are very repetative in Super Mario Land. (Don't confuse this game with Super Mario Bros DX on the Game Boy Color)
It all depends on what developers think gamers want, and whether they can create new games with a balance between them.
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 Freak of the Dark, you are obviously a Ninty as loading times is the first thing dragged up by you lot. Loading times make a game, BAH!
> 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 Freak of the Dark, you are obviously a Ninty as loading times is the first thing dragged up by you lot. Loading times make a game, BAH!
Gameplay should be the key issue in any game. Good graphics help give a better picture of what your playing. Without good gameplay, your going to want to leasve it alone, rather than a game with poor graphics.
Everyone talks about graphics or gameplay as the two ingredients that make a game. Everyone thinks that graphics improve a game and that new consoles are mainly there top enhance graphics. Everyone also forgets that speed is a main factor that makes a game good. The faster and truer to life that a game is the better it is.
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.
Try this with any games bar RPG's and certain adventures and you will find that speed is as important as Graphics or Gameplay and is often ignored by us gamers.
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.
Try this with any games bar RPG's and certain adventures and you will find that speed is as important as Graphics or Gameplay and is often ignored by us gamers.
Nowadays if a game is released with bad graphics, it will atomatically be slated as a rubbish game. The screenshots are what you ill see of the game first and that is all you have to go bny to know if it is a good game.
Say the GC games on display had crummy graphics (which they didn't) would you still think that they were great games. A lot of people think that they are good, but how do they know? They have never even played the games yet. All they have seen is screenshots and maybe the odd quicktime movie of them.
So it is normally the graphics that attract people to the game in the first place. So if the game has pants graphics no one will really buy the game (unless it gets rave reviews) because they think it is cack. To prove my point could someone tell me a game that has bad graphics that has been very succesful. Oh and I mean bad graphics at the time not now.
(;o|
Say the GC games on display had crummy graphics (which they didn't) would you still think that they were great games. A lot of people think that they are good, but how do they know? They have never even played the games yet. All they have seen is screenshots and maybe the odd quicktime movie of them.
So it is normally the graphics that attract people to the game in the first place. So if the game has pants graphics no one will really buy the game (unless it gets rave reviews) because they think it is cack. To prove my point could someone tell me a game that has bad graphics that has been very succesful. Oh and I mean bad graphics at the time not now.
(;o|
To be honst a game with good graphics tends to have good gameplay!
How does graphics make a game? i want to know yeah it looks good and that is all it does to contribute to the game!
Page: