The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
No, you need both of them.
The Game wrote:
> Graphics and Gameplay are like Hydrogen and Oxygen
What, explosive when mixed?
> Graphics and Gameplay are like Hydrogen and Oxygen
What, explosive when mixed?
The Game wrote:
> Graphics and Gameplay are like Hydrogen and Oxygen.
You can also think of them as salt and vinegar. You can sprinkle salt on your chips, it will taste good, but is missing that certain acidy flavour. Or, you can spray some vinegar or your chips, nice, but still lacking that one ingredient - salt. But, when the two are combined you get the best tasting chips ever on this world!
I'm hungry now, gonna go down to the fish and chippie and get me an extra large chips, complete with salt and vinegar!
> Graphics and Gameplay are like Hydrogen and Oxygen.
You can also think of them as salt and vinegar. You can sprinkle salt on your chips, it will taste good, but is missing that certain acidy flavour. Or, you can spray some vinegar or your chips, nice, but still lacking that one ingredient - salt. But, when the two are combined you get the best tasting chips ever on this world!
I'm hungry now, gonna go down to the fish and chippie and get me an extra large chips, complete with salt and vinegar!
My GTAdvance has a save facility.. simply because its an american import!
That is sooo rude to the UK!
BYE FOR A WEEK!
That is sooo rude to the UK!
BYE FOR A WEEK!
you can save on carts! Tony hawks pro skater2 has a save facility. So why dont GT?
But with the technology these days it should have been able to save on the cart. These GBA carts hold twice the amount of normal GB carts. Yet they are sooo tiny. When i opened my first game for the GBA i couldnt believe how small the cart was. initially i thought that there was no game in my box becasue i couldt see it!
Or†ega wrote:
> still a few annoying things about the GBAs gameplay. Like the
> flippin annoying paasword style saving for GT. write one of the
> characters wrong and u have lost your game!
This can't really be avoided. The GBA doesn't have a memory card port (otherwise it would be too big), so developers must rely on a password system, or actually being able to save on the cartridge, much like on the SNES and Megadrive.
> still a few annoying things about the GBAs gameplay. Like the
> flippin annoying paasword style saving for GT. write one of the
> characters wrong and u have lost your game!
This can't really be avoided. The GBA doesn't have a memory card port (otherwise it would be too big), so developers must rely on a password system, or actually being able to save on the cartridge, much like on the SNES and Megadrive.
still a few annoying things about the GBAs gameplay. Like the flippin annoying paasword style saving for GT. write one of the characters wrong and u have lost your game!
The good thing about the GBA is it has its limitations.
In the days of the SNES and Megadrive, the games were fun to play, and had good graphics (at least they were then), but the games were not too realistic. So the developers then were not concentrating on the graphics and the realism as much as the fun and the gameplay. That is what made the games so much fun to play.
It is similar with the GBA. Although the graphics are good for the handheld console, the limitations, mean there is much more emphasis on the gameplay and the games being fun, then there are on the graphics and the realism.
In the days of the SNES and Megadrive, the games were fun to play, and had good graphics (at least they were then), but the games were not too realistic. So the developers then were not concentrating on the graphics and the realism as much as the fun and the gameplay. That is what made the games so much fun to play.
It is similar with the GBA. Although the graphics are good for the handheld console, the limitations, mean there is much more emphasis on the gameplay and the games being fun, then there are on the graphics and the realism.
Page: