The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Games developers are faced with very complex specifications to meet for a game to be considered good in the twenty-first century. But is it too much for them? Do we expect too much?
I think we do!
We expect plenty of gameplay, but not without real quality graphics, realistic sound effects in Dolby surround, lots of multiplayer modes, lots of FMV, and lots more which tends to make up the majority of top selling games.
Are all those specifications really neccasary for quality gaming? Will they still be considered neccesary in the future?
Well, not really.
Today, most gamers are able to play on a SNES or Megadrive and play the classic games such as Super Mario Kart and Sonic the Hedgehog. These games have none of the above qualities, other than the first: Gameplay.
In the future, we may be faced with interactive hologram technology where a whole room can simulate an entire world, where you can live you every fantasy, or just simply go on holiday without leaving the home. We wont expect surround sound, FMV or graphics, we'll expect almost real everything! sights, smells, tastes, and even the laws of physics.
Do we really want the above qualities in all of todays games?
No.
Why was the Game Boy Advance an immediate success? Well most people have mentioned Mario Kart Advance a lot. This game is apparantly so popular in the states because it is more like the SNES version! It doesn't have photo quality graphics, but it does have excellent gameplay!
That is one of the reasons Nintendo's handheld series of consoles, Game Boy, has become the worlds best selling console over the years. Nearly all the major games on Game Boy have prioritised gameplay more than any other specification. Gameplay is the core of videogames. Poor gameplay means poor games, no matter what they look like!
Franchises like Tetris, Pokémon, Zelda, Sonic the Hedgehog, Super Mario and even games like Command & Conquer and the original Final Fantasy games have all been successful for concentrating on gameplay.
Right now in the present, developers work way too hard on trying to give gamers FMV, stunning graphics and other features which are really irrelevant to the game just so it gets noticed and bought. You get the odd game which has the right balance between all different specifications, but you're lucky if you've got the right console to play it on!
I would prefer to play a basic 2D game with stunning gameplay than a 3D game with stunning graphics.
I hope people don't take graphics, sound effects, multiplayer modes and all these extras for granted! Games developers work very hard in trying to give you the best gaming experience you'll ever have, and I'm sure it's not easy to do that!
Games developers deserve to have their credits shows at the end of games. They've earnt that right to show themselves in our games as far as I'm concerned.
I think we do!
We expect plenty of gameplay, but not without real quality graphics, realistic sound effects in Dolby surround, lots of multiplayer modes, lots of FMV, and lots more which tends to make up the majority of top selling games.
Are all those specifications really neccasary for quality gaming? Will they still be considered neccesary in the future?
Well, not really.
Today, most gamers are able to play on a SNES or Megadrive and play the classic games such as Super Mario Kart and Sonic the Hedgehog. These games have none of the above qualities, other than the first: Gameplay.
In the future, we may be faced with interactive hologram technology where a whole room can simulate an entire world, where you can live you every fantasy, or just simply go on holiday without leaving the home. We wont expect surround sound, FMV or graphics, we'll expect almost real everything! sights, smells, tastes, and even the laws of physics.
Do we really want the above qualities in all of todays games?
No.
Why was the Game Boy Advance an immediate success? Well most people have mentioned Mario Kart Advance a lot. This game is apparantly so popular in the states because it is more like the SNES version! It doesn't have photo quality graphics, but it does have excellent gameplay!
That is one of the reasons Nintendo's handheld series of consoles, Game Boy, has become the worlds best selling console over the years. Nearly all the major games on Game Boy have prioritised gameplay more than any other specification. Gameplay is the core of videogames. Poor gameplay means poor games, no matter what they look like!
Franchises like Tetris, Pokémon, Zelda, Sonic the Hedgehog, Super Mario and even games like Command & Conquer and the original Final Fantasy games have all been successful for concentrating on gameplay.
Right now in the present, developers work way too hard on trying to give gamers FMV, stunning graphics and other features which are really irrelevant to the game just so it gets noticed and bought. You get the odd game which has the right balance between all different specifications, but you're lucky if you've got the right console to play it on!
I would prefer to play a basic 2D game with stunning gameplay than a 3D game with stunning graphics.
I hope people don't take graphics, sound effects, multiplayer modes and all these extras for granted! Games developers work very hard in trying to give you the best gaming experience you'll ever have, and I'm sure it's not easy to do that!
Games developers deserve to have their credits shows at the end of games. They've earnt that right to show themselves in our games as far as I'm concerned.
Page:
No harm in asking, they can only say no...
Then we dont buy the games. simple.
Its our fault that shoddy games are being made. If we diddnt buy them, there wouldnt be a market for them, so they wouldnt be made. You can blame the americans for the Army Men series, they love it!
If we want the games to get better then theres not a great deal we can do. What we can do is only buy the really good games. The companies will realise that their second-rate title isnt selling, realise that it isnt selling because it is pants, and maybe work a bit harder on the next one.
Its not as simple as that though. There are people out there who want the shoddy games. There are people that like the Army Men series, which is why they keep making them. Then you have to allow for people who a) have more money than sense, b) buy the games without researching them a little c) parents buying them without a clue. Bad games are going to be bought regardless of how bad they are.
We just have to hope that the games writers note that people like us are the big market for them. People who play games seriously. People who expect graphics AND gameplay, with longetivity, fmv, dolby surround, dvd cut scenes and the like thrown in. Good games is where the real money is for the developers. I bet MGS2 will be great, and I bet it will sell like hot cakes for it.
All we can do about it though, is avoid the 2-month-development dregs and save our cash for the titles that are worth having, and hope the games companies catch on. If anyone has any better ideas, let us know...
Then we dont buy the games. simple.
Its our fault that shoddy games are being made. If we diddnt buy them, there wouldnt be a market for them, so they wouldnt be made. You can blame the americans for the Army Men series, they love it!
If we want the games to get better then theres not a great deal we can do. What we can do is only buy the really good games. The companies will realise that their second-rate title isnt selling, realise that it isnt selling because it is pants, and maybe work a bit harder on the next one.
Its not as simple as that though. There are people out there who want the shoddy games. There are people that like the Army Men series, which is why they keep making them. Then you have to allow for people who a) have more money than sense, b) buy the games without researching them a little c) parents buying them without a clue. Bad games are going to be bought regardless of how bad they are.
We just have to hope that the games writers note that people like us are the big market for them. People who play games seriously. People who expect graphics AND gameplay, with longetivity, fmv, dolby surround, dvd cut scenes and the like thrown in. Good games is where the real money is for the developers. I bet MGS2 will be great, and I bet it will sell like hot cakes for it.
All we can do about it though, is avoid the 2-month-development dregs and save our cash for the titles that are worth having, and hope the games companies catch on. If anyone has any better ideas, let us know...
Expectations.
We always expect more than we get, and end up disappointed.
Surely we have a right to expect progress, and improvements upon previous games.
If we don't have high expectations, then developers will not strive to achieve them, merely release what the people will be happy with.
If we ask for more, we might just get it.
We always expect more than we get, and end up disappointed.
Surely we have a right to expect progress, and improvements upon previous games.
If we don't have high expectations, then developers will not strive to achieve them, merely release what the people will be happy with.
If we ask for more, we might just get it.
Edgy wrote:
> aliboy, you just contradicted yourself.
You said that it's easier
> for developers with current technology, however it's harder for
> them...
I meant its harder as there is alot more pressure on them to succed. There are alot more gamers than there were 10 years ago and the demand for good games is very high.
> aliboy, you just contradicted yourself.
You said that it's easier
> for developers with current technology, however it's harder for
> them...
I meant its harder as there is alot more pressure on them to succed. There are alot more gamers than there were 10 years ago and the demand for good games is very high.
The way I see it, is that all the games had graphics that were suited to their time. Believe me, when I saw the scrolling backgrounds and character amination of Sonic the Hedgehog, I was impressed. More so in fact, that when I played Sonic Adventure I wasn't half as impressed.
I think the main reason was because I played Mario 64 first and would expect no less from a console twice as powerful and the N64.
There's a lot of very big issues behind graphics... timing, transition over time effects etc etc.
I don't think the transition from 16-Bit > 32/64-Bit will be over-shadowed by the arrival of the Gamecube and X-Box and latter games in the PS2 library, ...because the fact they they can run 3D games isn't anything special.
What will really impress is the effects that can be added to the graphics.... the Blurring in Dinosaur planet and the Semi-Transparency in Luigi's Mansion and we can't forget the water effects in DKR!!
I'll stop writing now...
Game
I think the main reason was because I played Mario 64 first and would expect no less from a console twice as powerful and the N64.
There's a lot of very big issues behind graphics... timing, transition over time effects etc etc.
I don't think the transition from 16-Bit > 32/64-Bit will be over-shadowed by the arrival of the Gamecube and X-Box and latter games in the PS2 library, ...because the fact they they can run 3D games isn't anything special.
What will really impress is the effects that can be added to the graphics.... the Blurring in Dinosaur planet and the Semi-Transparency in Luigi's Mansion and we can't forget the water effects in DKR!!
I'll stop writing now...
Game
I don't think it's too much to ask developers to do a good job when making games, especially if your shelling out Ł30 - $40 for it. If someone was painting your house, you wouldn't say "Its OK if you do a second rate job" which is basically what you're saying here. We, as the paying customer, should expect graphics And gameplay (and lets be brutally honest, there simply aren't that many games with good graphics and bad gameplay, they're almost always both good, both bad, or with better gameplay than graphics).
aliboy, you just contradicted yourself.
You said that it's easier for developers with current technology, however it's harder for them...
You said that it's easier for developers with current technology, however it's harder for them...
Good topic edgy. I agree with you to some degree that we do tend to ask a little to much and expect games of high standards. But in a way we deserve it. Its now 2001 and the technology used to create and store games is very advanced from what it was like say 5-10 years ago. So its easier for developers to make impressive games, yet some get it wrong.
Also with the price we have to pay for games you would expect something of a high standard and not a gmae that is rushed or just a polished up sequel that we seem to see time and time again.
There are alot of developers around nowadays and competition is harder than before, so each one tries to make good games. Remember this is their job to make games for us. But sometimes they can take the sound and gameplay a little too far. Adding things that nobody really notices, sound that dosn't really get heard or images that aren't really required. Ok so some will notice them and like them but what about the others who dont?
If you were to put yourself in a developers shoes you would realise its not an easy stress-free job as some think. You have to do your part to make the game play and look right. If people aren't happy with it then it dosn't sell and therefore its not as much cash in your pocket as you would like.
Also with the price we have to pay for games you would expect something of a high standard and not a gmae that is rushed or just a polished up sequel that we seem to see time and time again.
There are alot of developers around nowadays and competition is harder than before, so each one tries to make good games. Remember this is their job to make games for us. But sometimes they can take the sound and gameplay a little too far. Adding things that nobody really notices, sound that dosn't really get heard or images that aren't really required. Ok so some will notice them and like them but what about the others who dont?
If you were to put yourself in a developers shoes you would realise its not an easy stress-free job as some think. You have to do your part to make the game play and look right. If people aren't happy with it then it dosn't sell and therefore its not as much cash in your pocket as you would like.
Ha ha very funny.
And you say your a PS fan????????????
Maybe.
I don't play footy games.
I don't play footy games.
Page: