The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Super Gohan wrote:
As with the gameplay being affected, well,
> probably, but we're not there yet, are we.
Well, compare the originality of gameplay now to that of SNES games. It is far inferior. IF developers wanted to they could create games with fantastic gameplay that utilises the new consoles' abilities. But the don't. They simply use old gameplay styles, and have better grpahics.
Hopefully the success of games like Black and White will stop this cycle... or just prompt clones and sequals to the game...
NiGHTS!
As with the gameplay being affected, well,
> probably, but we're not there yet, are we.
Well, compare the originality of gameplay now to that of SNES games. It is far inferior. IF developers wanted to they could create games with fantastic gameplay that utilises the new consoles' abilities. But the don't. They simply use old gameplay styles, and have better grpahics.
Hopefully the success of games like Black and White will stop this cycle... or just prompt clones and sequals to the game...
NiGHTS!
Edgy's hit the nail on the head.
Not only do publisher want to see better graphics, they now impose tighter deadlines on games. This inevitably leads to poorer games.
I find that the only companies who I can think of who are free to be original, and often are, are those companies that publish their own games and have control over them.
A good example of this is the 10 dev teams in Sega, each of which has a director who pics games as he wants to make them. Of course, not all the games fit the gameplay-first ideology- like Shenmue. However, these self contained dev teams are more free to experiment. Look at Jet Set Radio. Even better- look at screen shots of the newly imerging game- Rez. The graphics are very simple- Tron style backgrounds. But the game plays so dynamically and origainlly (for first reports) that it really seems like one for the future.
Likewise, Nintendo also thinks of gameplay first. Take Zelda 64. Did you ever see the screenshots from the first year of game production? They were aweful (well, for the final game's standards). There was fog, and little texturing. But, the game was still praised for its gameplay. After this was finalised, the game was then done up graphically.
NiGHTS!
Not only do publisher want to see better graphics, they now impose tighter deadlines on games. This inevitably leads to poorer games.
I find that the only companies who I can think of who are free to be original, and often are, are those companies that publish their own games and have control over them.
A good example of this is the 10 dev teams in Sega, each of which has a director who pics games as he wants to make them. Of course, not all the games fit the gameplay-first ideology- like Shenmue. However, these self contained dev teams are more free to experiment. Look at Jet Set Radio. Even better- look at screen shots of the newly imerging game- Rez. The graphics are very simple- Tron style backgrounds. But the game plays so dynamically and origainlly (for first reports) that it really seems like one for the future.
Likewise, Nintendo also thinks of gameplay first. Take Zelda 64. Did you ever see the screenshots from the first year of game production? They were aweful (well, for the final game's standards). There was fog, and little texturing. But, the game was still praised for its gameplay. After this was finalised, the game was then done up graphically.
NiGHTS!
Edgy, you make a good point, but when I watched the trailer, I don't expect games to ahve graphics like that, because that the console or PC would have to be pretty damned powerful to look like that. In the future maybe.
As with the gameplay being affected, well, probably, but we're not there yet, are we.
As with the gameplay being affected, well, probably, but we're not there yet, are we.
I think that gaming may get worse now that the Final Fantasy movie is soon to be released in cinemas.
From what I saw in the preview today when I went to see JP3, the movie looks brilliant! I had to look twice before realising it was computerised graphics!
So now people will expect games to be like that which will put more pressure on developers to make games with even more complex graphics.
This will result in a loss of gameplay and that is very disadvantageous for the gaming world.
As I have said in another topic, games need to have the right balance between gameplay and effects. So improving too much on graphics could cause mini-chaos in games. More power will be needed for graphics than the actual game itself which will mean you'll be watching some kind of interactive movie instead of playing a game!
Too much is expected from games developers. I would certainly prefer more gameplay than cinematic graphics.
From what I saw in the preview today when I went to see JP3, the movie looks brilliant! I had to look twice before realising it was computerised graphics!
So now people will expect games to be like that which will put more pressure on developers to make games with even more complex graphics.
This will result in a loss of gameplay and that is very disadvantageous for the gaming world.
As I have said in another topic, games need to have the right balance between gameplay and effects. So improving too much on graphics could cause mini-chaos in games. More power will be needed for graphics than the actual game itself which will mean you'll be watching some kind of interactive movie instead of playing a game!
Too much is expected from games developers. I would certainly prefer more gameplay than cinematic graphics.
do u feel that some features of games are obselete? Like the appendix, or the SCROLL LOCK button?
I've already given the example of turn based games. However, there are more...
can you think of any more?
NiGHTS!
I've already given the example of turn based games. However, there are more...
can you think of any more?
NiGHTS!
You seem to be being really picky. Maybe developers are focusing a little more on graphics than they should be, but games that are being released are still fun to play.
We can't stop the graphics getting better and better. But with better graphics, can come better gameplay and therefore better games. I know this is not always the case, but is in most cases.
We can't stop the graphics getting better and better. But with better graphics, can come better gameplay and therefore better games. I know this is not always the case, but is in most cases.
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: