The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Gaming has chnaged... for the worse!
For example, whereas in the past designers would focus on gameplay, now it's graphics. This means the game is usually worse than it should be. Like Tomb Raider- there was so much wor on the graphics, but at the end of the day, the "find the switch/key" style gaming is aweful!
Even games like Shenmue faulter...
It was recently brought to my attention how people seem to randomly hold back information. For example, go up to a biker at the start of the game, and they tell you to go away. Go to him later after having done completely unrelated tasks to his daily routine, and he will suddenly tell you where to go and what to do! This completely destroys the immersion caused by the graphics.
And then there are the "great" games like Goldeneye... but even these have their faults. For example, why do the bad guys randomly leave weapons around levels in wooden boxes. Even more stupid- why is it that the wooden box explodes after a few shots? And why still does the weapon always survive the blast? Surely you should only be able to get weapons from your enemy, or from some kind of guarded area?
Even the best games have problems! That final fantasy. It uses turn based battles, which turns the game into a computerised game of chess! When turn based games first came out, they were made because processors couldn't cope with full interaction. So why does this type of gaming still exist? Answer, Square decided to make the graphics of the attacks fantastic, completely ignoring the question: Should we still use this system?
So, should developers continue to go as they are, or should they take a step back for a moment?
NiGHTS!
For example, whereas in the past designers would focus on gameplay, now it's graphics. This means the game is usually worse than it should be. Like Tomb Raider- there was so much wor on the graphics, but at the end of the day, the "find the switch/key" style gaming is aweful!
Even games like Shenmue faulter...
It was recently brought to my attention how people seem to randomly hold back information. For example, go up to a biker at the start of the game, and they tell you to go away. Go to him later after having done completely unrelated tasks to his daily routine, and he will suddenly tell you where to go and what to do! This completely destroys the immersion caused by the graphics.
And then there are the "great" games like Goldeneye... but even these have their faults. For example, why do the bad guys randomly leave weapons around levels in wooden boxes. Even more stupid- why is it that the wooden box explodes after a few shots? And why still does the weapon always survive the blast? Surely you should only be able to get weapons from your enemy, or from some kind of guarded area?
Even the best games have problems! That final fantasy. It uses turn based battles, which turns the game into a computerised game of chess! When turn based games first came out, they were made because processors couldn't cope with full interaction. So why does this type of gaming still exist? Answer, Square decided to make the graphics of the attacks fantastic, completely ignoring the question: Should we still use this system?
So, should developers continue to go as they are, or should they take a step back for a moment?
NiGHTS!
Page:
Sad that this is one of the few topics to stay on track. Saying that some complete idiot is going to come along and wreck it thinking it;ll be funny just because I said it would happen...
Anyway, the title of this topic may have been a little inappropriate. Maybe "Are graphics everything?" would have been better!
Meka, you make some good points, but at the end of the day we can both agree that graphics should not be the be-all-and-end-all of game development.
NiGHTS!
Anyway, the title of this topic may have been a little inappropriate. Maybe "Are graphics everything?" would have been better!
Meka, you make some good points, but at the end of the day we can both agree that graphics should not be the be-all-and-end-all of game development.
NiGHTS!
Wow, a thread that managed to stay on track. Excellent!
To answer the question 'Are graphics too good' then I'd say no.
Yes it's true that companies spend time improving the eye-candy, as a pretty game is a popular game, but I don't think that this can be used to blame poor gameplay on the graphics.
There are many reasons why there are poor games, companies working too hard on the graphics and ignoring the important things is just one of them.
3D gaming has been around for a while now, but some developers are still using old 2D ideas in the games. What this means is that the games feel like they're not living up to their potential, or improving on what came before it.
As the indusrty is so large now, there is room on the market for poor games!
When there were less people buying games, those gamers tended to be more informed about what they were buying. Now that there is the 'casual' gamer market - the gamer that tends to pick up a game as the box is cool, or the screenshots are cool, the right promotion can sell a game better than the game itself!
And regarding the 'guns on Goldeneye shouldn't be laying around' issue, I imagine that it's a necessary evil! The game would be quite different if you had to find weapons, and didn't have such a supply of ammunition, and it would probably be worse, as it would take away from the constant action, which made Goldeneye what it was.
As I believe Edgy wrote, TWINE does limit the ammo, and there's one level in which you have to chase someone, but have left your gun on the table! It's certainly good for a change, having to stun the first guy you see, and take his gun, before proceding to shoot everyone! This, as I said, is fun for a change, but if you had to do it all of the time, it probably wouldn't be quite as fun!
Back to graphics, I think you've got to be more careful than ever when buying games now, as you can easily get carried away by the screenshots, and videos. But what does that show you? What it looks like, maybe what you have to do. You have no idea of how the game actually plays.
Look at RavenBlade. A game that looked beautiful. It was considered to be the best looking game at E3 by many. But the game has now been cancelled because it just wasn't developing as planned. All they had were the graphics!
I'm sure that if the game was released in a shoddy state, with crappy gameplay it would have sold by the shed-load, simply because it looked so good. Personally I'm thankful that it has been scrapped if it wasn't fun to play. Any decent elements of the game will surely be saved and used elsewhere. Maybe one day it will be revived, but it's good to know that Nintendo will pull a game that doesn't play well.
To answer the question 'Are graphics too good' then I'd say no.
Yes it's true that companies spend time improving the eye-candy, as a pretty game is a popular game, but I don't think that this can be used to blame poor gameplay on the graphics.
There are many reasons why there are poor games, companies working too hard on the graphics and ignoring the important things is just one of them.
3D gaming has been around for a while now, but some developers are still using old 2D ideas in the games. What this means is that the games feel like they're not living up to their potential, or improving on what came before it.
As the indusrty is so large now, there is room on the market for poor games!
When there were less people buying games, those gamers tended to be more informed about what they were buying. Now that there is the 'casual' gamer market - the gamer that tends to pick up a game as the box is cool, or the screenshots are cool, the right promotion can sell a game better than the game itself!
And regarding the 'guns on Goldeneye shouldn't be laying around' issue, I imagine that it's a necessary evil! The game would be quite different if you had to find weapons, and didn't have such a supply of ammunition, and it would probably be worse, as it would take away from the constant action, which made Goldeneye what it was.
As I believe Edgy wrote, TWINE does limit the ammo, and there's one level in which you have to chase someone, but have left your gun on the table! It's certainly good for a change, having to stun the first guy you see, and take his gun, before proceding to shoot everyone! This, as I said, is fun for a change, but if you had to do it all of the time, it probably wouldn't be quite as fun!
Back to graphics, I think you've got to be more careful than ever when buying games now, as you can easily get carried away by the screenshots, and videos. But what does that show you? What it looks like, maybe what you have to do. You have no idea of how the game actually plays.
Look at RavenBlade. A game that looked beautiful. It was considered to be the best looking game at E3 by many. But the game has now been cancelled because it just wasn't developing as planned. All they had were the graphics!
I'm sure that if the game was released in a shoddy state, with crappy gameplay it would have sold by the shed-load, simply because it looked so good. Personally I'm thankful that it has been scrapped if it wasn't fun to play. Any decent elements of the game will surely be saved and used elsewhere. Maybe one day it will be revived, but it's good to know that Nintendo will pull a game that doesn't play well.
Edgy wrote:
Now that I would
> certainly give up current standards of graphics and sounds to have!
> The freedom of choice in games instead of taking a preset route!
> That would be brilliant!
Indeed, like Deus Ex and Black and White. The problem is that this costs developers lots of money (because, after all they won't spend less on graphics!), and hence so many don't bother.
There have been some third-path ways of giving gamers flexibility, where the path is not pre-set, nor is it totally open. Like Zelda 64. Here you have to complete tasks in a certain order, but there is lots of scope to engage in mini-quests and explore.
NiGHTS!
Now that I would
> certainly give up current standards of graphics and sounds to have!
> The freedom of choice in games instead of taking a preset route!
> That would be brilliant!
Indeed, like Deus Ex and Black and White. The problem is that this costs developers lots of money (because, after all they won't spend less on graphics!), and hence so many don't bother.
There have been some third-path ways of giving gamers flexibility, where the path is not pre-set, nor is it totally open. Like Zelda 64. Here you have to complete tasks in a certain order, but there is lots of scope to engage in mini-quests and explore.
NiGHTS!
NiGHTS! wrote:
Also, I believe
> there should be more flexibility in games- like how you solve a
> task. Why-oh-why are there boxes lying around in the middle of games
> that allow you to solve a completely irrelavent problem? It's just
> like leading you through the game.
NiGHTS!
Now that I would certainly give up current standards of graphics and sounds to have! The freedom of choice in games instead of taking a preset route! That would be brilliant!
Also, I believe
> there should be more flexibility in games- like how you solve a
> task. Why-oh-why are there boxes lying around in the middle of games
> that allow you to solve a completely irrelavent problem? It's just
> like leading you through the game.
NiGHTS!
Now that I would certainly give up current standards of graphics and sounds to have! The freedom of choice in games instead of taking a preset route! That would be brilliant!
/\_/\
*_*
(|| ||)>
U U
The cat....
The Fish.....
><{-----{*>
:) (Sorry, I couldn't resist after seeing the fish at the end of a message.....)
Fish-e is right about one thing. Games like Goldeneye wouldn't be the same if they were made too real. It's fun in Goldeneye to have lots of ammo so that you can blast your way through the game.
The more realistic bond game: The World Is Not Enough, was made more real so that you get less ammo and have to utilise gadgets a lot more. To be honest I found the game a little boring.
Goldeneye was about right at the time of it's release. It had a great mixture of graphics and gameplay, which like Doom was in it's prime time, seems very outdated now but still highly addictive.
*_*
(|| ||)>
U U
The cat....
The Fish.....
><{-----{*>
:) (Sorry, I couldn't resist after seeing the fish at the end of a message.....)
Fish-e is right about one thing. Games like Goldeneye wouldn't be the same if they were made too real. It's fun in Goldeneye to have lots of ammo so that you can blast your way through the game.
The more realistic bond game: The World Is Not Enough, was made more real so that you get less ammo and have to utilise gadgets a lot more. To be honest I found the game a little boring.
Goldeneye was about right at the time of it's release. It had a great mixture of graphics and gameplay, which like Doom was in it's prime time, seems very outdated now but still highly addictive.
Fish-e, good points... but Goldeneye. Surely in a real-life covert mission the british secret service doesn't run out of ammo. Why? Well, they have good equipment and lots of ammo to start with. Surely doing the same in the same way would enhance it. Make you feel like you are bond, and your mission is...
Also, I believe there should be more flexibility in games- like how you solve a task. Why-oh-why are there boxes lying around in the middle of games that allow you to solve a completely irrelavent problem? It's just like leading you through the game.
Why not instead give you an open game, where you can do things in any order? Imagine playing Goldeneye where you could take any route through the level, and do the required tasks in any order? Like in Black and White where you can act in any way you want to solve a task.
NiGHTS!
Also, I believe there should be more flexibility in games- like how you solve a task. Why-oh-why are there boxes lying around in the middle of games that allow you to solve a completely irrelavent problem? It's just like leading you through the game.
Why not instead give you an open game, where you can do things in any order? Imagine playing Goldeneye where you could take any route through the level, and do the required tasks in any order? Like in Black and White where you can act in any way you want to solve a task.
NiGHTS!
Well i believe that all the companies should stay on the path that they are taking, it would be silly doing something new no, especially squarsoft.
It would be a big mistake for Squaresoft to try something new now, people have got used to the way their games are structured. Me myself as a Final Fantasy fan like the way that they are structured, you can speed up the battles, and each magic attacks, summons make the battles look like a beaute. What they lack in the battling they make up in visual effects, and trying to improve the battling system, would me that the effects of magic and summons won't be as good.
As Edgy said, people will want the graphics to be like the Final Fantasy movie, me myself wouldn't mind this but as long as there is good visual effects throughout the game then i don't mind.
If graphics get to good then, it will over power other aspects of the game, like the visual effects. Just think if graphics of the game when you control it become like the Final Fantasy movie then, what will happen to the cut scenes, well they would simply disappear, which is not good for games like Final Fantasy.
With things like shenmue, where you speak to someone at one point and you learn nothing, do one little thing and it is like you've turned this silent guy who always repeats himself into a talking dictionary. This is a stupid thing, but it is the best way to do it.
And Goldeneye thing, well if they did this then it eould be to realistic, because you kill a guard pick up there gun and ypu would get hardly any ammo, pick up ammo boxes and you have a tremendous amount more, which does really help with the gameplay.
So i say stay on the this path and the gaming future could be bright.
thanx for reading
><{{{*>
It would be a big mistake for Squaresoft to try something new now, people have got used to the way their games are structured. Me myself as a Final Fantasy fan like the way that they are structured, you can speed up the battles, and each magic attacks, summons make the battles look like a beaute. What they lack in the battling they make up in visual effects, and trying to improve the battling system, would me that the effects of magic and summons won't be as good.
As Edgy said, people will want the graphics to be like the Final Fantasy movie, me myself wouldn't mind this but as long as there is good visual effects throughout the game then i don't mind.
If graphics get to good then, it will over power other aspects of the game, like the visual effects. Just think if graphics of the game when you control it become like the Final Fantasy movie then, what will happen to the cut scenes, well they would simply disappear, which is not good for games like Final Fantasy.
With things like shenmue, where you speak to someone at one point and you learn nothing, do one little thing and it is like you've turned this silent guy who always repeats himself into a talking dictionary. This is a stupid thing, but it is the best way to do it.
And Goldeneye thing, well if they did this then it eould be to realistic, because you kill a guard pick up there gun and ypu would get hardly any ammo, pick up ammo boxes and you have a tremendous amount more, which does really help with the gameplay.
So i say stay on the this path and the gaming future could be bright.
thanx for reading
><{{{*>
Sega have managed to squeeze an original idea into a Game Boy Advance cart!
Who would have thought that cats chasing mice into rockets would have made a videogame?
It's like a sci-fi Tom and Jerry!
A completely new idea, both released on Dreamcast and Game Boy advance (in Japan anyway)
Sega have proven to us that original games can still be made!
Who would have thought that cats chasing mice into rockets would have made a videogame?
It's like a sci-fi Tom and Jerry!
A completely new idea, both released on Dreamcast and Game Boy advance (in Japan anyway)
Sega have proven to us that original games can still be made!
Super Gohan wrote:
> That is one problem nowadays. With each new console, comes revamped
> games with spruced up graphics. But once it has been available, you
> start getting the original titles. The problems here is though, is
> that most of the original ideas have been used up in the 8-bit and
> 16-bit days, so in most cases, the best way to go is to use those
> ideas, and make them better.
DO you honestly believe that most ideas have been used up? Nonsense! As long as we have imaginations we can make new, original games.
Why is it always Nintendo who proves this time and time again with the release of a launch game?
NiGHTS!
> That is one problem nowadays. With each new console, comes revamped
> games with spruced up graphics. But once it has been available, you
> start getting the original titles. The problems here is though, is
> that most of the original ideas have been used up in the 8-bit and
> 16-bit days, so in most cases, the best way to go is to use those
> ideas, and make them better.
DO you honestly believe that most ideas have been used up? Nonsense! As long as we have imaginations we can make new, original games.
Why is it always Nintendo who proves this time and time again with the release of a launch game?
NiGHTS!
That is one problem nowadays. With each new console, comes revamped games with spruced up graphics. But once it has been available, you start getting the original titles. The problems here is though, is that most of the original ideas have been used up in the 8-bit and 16-bit days, so in most cases, the best way to go is to use those ideas, and make them better.
Page: