The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
There generally a topic that pops up every so often about whether Graphics of Game play are the most important element of a game.
To which the reply generally end up something like…
I used to enjoyed the odd game of Dragons Lair… But I’ve lost years of my life to Tetris.
Thing is…
If you grabbed most modern/recent games, and took away their graphics, the game probably wouldn’t work.
However, if you instead replaced the 3D graphics with the comparative 8 bit / 16-bit style graphics…
For example, taking away Mario64’s 3D graphics engine and replacing it with the SNES’s Super Mario World 2D graphics…
Playing Duke Nukem in the 2D platform shooter, style of the original games, rather than the 3D FPS of the later…
Although, I’m not just talking about 3D games, but of ALL modern titles, no mater what their graphic engine. (Its just 3D is currently very popular)
Obviously the FPS style of game could survive in some format (the scaled bitmap), since there is that C a t a c o m b s 3 D game from ID that runs on a 8088 with EGA graphics card, and which runs pretty well… I understand someone even managed to write Doom for the speccy?
Thing is…
If this were done, and the engines replaced, but the rest of the game remaining the same…
How would games of today compare to the games of yesteryear?
Have games actually simplified, with the concentrating moved over to the graphics?
Would the games of today, without their accelerated graphics actually be worse than the games of a few years back?
Then again…
Are games exactly the same as they ever were?
Is the latest PS2 title just a Speccy game with flashy graphics?
Sure, there may be online access, 3Dsurround sound, etc… but when you get to the ones of the game, has anything really changed since the 80’s?
Are GC titles really just going to be NES games with a little plastic surgery?
To which the reply generally end up something like…
I used to enjoyed the odd game of Dragons Lair… But I’ve lost years of my life to Tetris.
Thing is…
If you grabbed most modern/recent games, and took away their graphics, the game probably wouldn’t work.
However, if you instead replaced the 3D graphics with the comparative 8 bit / 16-bit style graphics…
For example, taking away Mario64’s 3D graphics engine and replacing it with the SNES’s Super Mario World 2D graphics…
Playing Duke Nukem in the 2D platform shooter, style of the original games, rather than the 3D FPS of the later…
Although, I’m not just talking about 3D games, but of ALL modern titles, no mater what their graphic engine. (Its just 3D is currently very popular)
Obviously the FPS style of game could survive in some format (the scaled bitmap), since there is that C a t a c o m b s 3 D game from ID that runs on a 8088 with EGA graphics card, and which runs pretty well… I understand someone even managed to write Doom for the speccy?
Thing is…
If this were done, and the engines replaced, but the rest of the game remaining the same…
How would games of today compare to the games of yesteryear?
Have games actually simplified, with the concentrating moved over to the graphics?
Would the games of today, without their accelerated graphics actually be worse than the games of a few years back?
Then again…
Are games exactly the same as they ever were?
Is the latest PS2 title just a Speccy game with flashy graphics?
Sure, there may be online access, 3Dsurround sound, etc… but when you get to the ones of the game, has anything really changed since the 80’s?
Are GC titles really just going to be NES games with a little plastic surgery?
Page:
Meka_Dragon wrote:
I
> downloaded an Acorn Electron emulator, and some of my old games to
> see if they were as good as the games of today (trying very hard not
> to be swayedby the poor graphics and 'music').
Good idea! ... Although, to be fair, I was moving up to include the Amiga, SNES, etc... 16 bit range of systems...
The first thing I
> noticed was a severe lack of presentation.
Very few of the games
> I played had an introduction, so you didn't know what you were
> doing, or why! I remember that this always used to be in the
> instruction book!
In the older games, I seem to remeber most of the instructions were in the casette inlay...
I played Mikie. I knocked the kids off of the
> chairs to sit down on them - and compared to, say, making cows drink
> prune juice on Conkers Bad Fur Day it wasn't as much fun.
However, your compairing an Arcade game to an Arcade Adventure... you would be better off compariing Conqer to 'Everyones A Wally' or KnightLore... since they both provide a much more 'involved' experence.
From the evidence I have seen I
> believe that gaming has moved on in ways other than merely the
> graphics and the sound, with many new features, and the games, in
> general, being more involving.
What new features do you think are held in current titles that cant be found in equalitive 8-16-bit titles?
I
> downloaded an Acorn Electron emulator, and some of my old games to
> see if they were as good as the games of today (trying very hard not
> to be swayedby the poor graphics and 'music').
Good idea! ... Although, to be fair, I was moving up to include the Amiga, SNES, etc... 16 bit range of systems...
The first thing I
> noticed was a severe lack of presentation.
Very few of the games
> I played had an introduction, so you didn't know what you were
> doing, or why! I remember that this always used to be in the
> instruction book!
In the older games, I seem to remeber most of the instructions were in the casette inlay...
I played Mikie. I knocked the kids off of the
> chairs to sit down on them - and compared to, say, making cows drink
> prune juice on Conkers Bad Fur Day it wasn't as much fun.
However, your compairing an Arcade game to an Arcade Adventure... you would be better off compariing Conqer to 'Everyones A Wally' or KnightLore... since they both provide a much more 'involved' experence.
From the evidence I have seen I
> believe that gaming has moved on in ways other than merely the
> graphics and the sound, with many new features, and the games, in
> general, being more involving.
What new features do you think are held in current titles that cant be found in equalitive 8-16-bit titles?
cookie monster wrote:
Not at all, 3D games are very different from 2D
> games, what i was saying is that in 3D games there is so much you
> can do, in 2D games you can only move from left to right.
However... There were 3D titles on the 8-bit systems... abet Wireframe (bar Driller and its sequals)
Although... What your actually doing in the 3D titles... Shooting everything... looking around the level for the switch to allow acces to a key to open the door to escape, etc... is all the same sort of thing older games had you doing...?
Not at all, 3D games are very different from 2D
> games, what i was saying is that in 3D games there is so much you
> can do, in 2D games you can only move from left to right.
However... There were 3D titles on the 8-bit systems... abet Wireframe (bar Driller and its sequals)
Although... What your actually doing in the 3D titles... Shooting everything... looking around the level for the switch to allow acces to a key to open the door to escape, etc... is all the same sort of thing older games had you doing...?
Rather than simply replying to this topic after it was posted yesterday, I went home, and decided to see for myself.
I downloaded an Acorn Electron emulator, and some of my old games to see if they were as good as the games of today (trying very hard not to be swayedby the poor graphics and 'music').
The first thing I noticed was a severe lack of presentation.
Very few of the games I played had an introduction, so you didn't know what you were doing, or why! I remember that this always used to be in the instruction book!
I played Mikie. I knocked the kids off of the chairs to sit down on them - and compared to, say, making cows drink prune juice on Conkers Bad Fur Day it wasn't as much fun.
I can see the appeal of the game, but each level is very limited in what you can do. It's always a case of avoiding te school staff, and collecting hearts to spell a word to let you out of the room.
The only reason I'd want to play it would be for the appeal of playing the games I did as a child!
I also played on what I considered to be one of the best games for the Acorn Electron. Citadel. It's the kind of game in which you take items to different rooms to solve puzzles, to move on to solve more puzzles to eventually get 3 crowns? I believe that was the idea of it, anyway!
Now this game gave you the choice of being male or female! Something that was rather original at the time! The game itself is still quite appealing. Taking object to the right room to solve the puzzles is stll quite a challenge, all enemies have to be avoided too, as I couldn't kill them.
I guess you could say that the Zelda games on the N64 are what a 3D equivolent of this would be, having to use various objects in different places to progress - but Zelda offers so much more! To begin with you have the fighting element, whether it be enemies in the field or bosses in the dungeon, it adds a great deal to the game. Secondly you havea whole range of different items you can use as and when you require - there's no having to leave stuff behind as you can't carry it. Then there's the money aspect, and having to buy stuff. There are other characters that aid the quest - the list goes on.
From the evidence I have seen I believe that gaming has moved on in ways other than merely the graphics and the sound, with many new features, and the games, in general, being more involving.
However, there is one genre on the Acorn Electron which still does hold an interest. Text based adventures. Why do these still appeal? Well it's the vast range of things you can do! There are always multiple items you can use, enemies to defeat, puzzles to solve - much like Zelda without the pictures?
I downloaded an Acorn Electron emulator, and some of my old games to see if they were as good as the games of today (trying very hard not to be swayedby the poor graphics and 'music').
The first thing I noticed was a severe lack of presentation.
Very few of the games I played had an introduction, so you didn't know what you were doing, or why! I remember that this always used to be in the instruction book!
I played Mikie. I knocked the kids off of the chairs to sit down on them - and compared to, say, making cows drink prune juice on Conkers Bad Fur Day it wasn't as much fun.
I can see the appeal of the game, but each level is very limited in what you can do. It's always a case of avoiding te school staff, and collecting hearts to spell a word to let you out of the room.
The only reason I'd want to play it would be for the appeal of playing the games I did as a child!
I also played on what I considered to be one of the best games for the Acorn Electron. Citadel. It's the kind of game in which you take items to different rooms to solve puzzles, to move on to solve more puzzles to eventually get 3 crowns? I believe that was the idea of it, anyway!
Now this game gave you the choice of being male or female! Something that was rather original at the time! The game itself is still quite appealing. Taking object to the right room to solve the puzzles is stll quite a challenge, all enemies have to be avoided too, as I couldn't kill them.
I guess you could say that the Zelda games on the N64 are what a 3D equivolent of this would be, having to use various objects in different places to progress - but Zelda offers so much more! To begin with you have the fighting element, whether it be enemies in the field or bosses in the dungeon, it adds a great deal to the game. Secondly you havea whole range of different items you can use as and when you require - there's no having to leave stuff behind as you can't carry it. Then there's the money aspect, and having to buy stuff. There are other characters that aid the quest - the list goes on.
From the evidence I have seen I believe that gaming has moved on in ways other than merely the graphics and the sound, with many new features, and the games, in general, being more involving.
However, there is one genre on the Acorn Electron which still does hold an interest. Text based adventures. Why do these still appeal? Well it's the vast range of things you can do! There are always multiple items you can use, enemies to defeat, puzzles to solve - much like Zelda without the pictures?
Armitage Shanks wrote:
> cookie monster wrote:
> you
> remove the window for
> innovation,
What innovation? (not questioning as such, just
> curious by what you mean)
cookie monster wrote:
> and the
> games would all be the
> same...Boring.
I'm guessing by
> your responce that you do think that 3D games are just 2D games with
> flashier graphics?
Not at all, 3D games are very different from 2D games, what i was saying is that in 3D games there is so much you can do, in 2D games you can only move from left to right.
> cookie monster wrote:
> you
> remove the window for
> innovation,
What innovation? (not questioning as such, just
> curious by what you mean)
cookie monster wrote:
> and the
> games would all be the
> same...Boring.
I'm guessing by
> your responce that you do think that 3D games are just 2D games with
> flashier graphics?
Not at all, 3D games are very different from 2D games, what i was saying is that in 3D games there is so much you can do, in 2D games you can only move from left to right.
cookie monster wrote:
> you
> remove the window for innovation,
What innovation? (not questioning as such, just curious by what you mean)
cookie monster wrote:
> and the games would all be the
> same...Boring.
I'm guessing by your responce that you do think that 3D games are just 2D games with flashier graphics?
> you
> remove the window for innovation,
What innovation? (not questioning as such, just curious by what you mean)
cookie monster wrote:
> and the games would all be the
> same...Boring.
I'm guessing by your responce that you do think that 3D games are just 2D games with flashier graphics?
Your Honour wrote:
> er-no wrote:
I put myself in the cupboard and just stood there for
> a
> few hours.... oh what fun....
I'm sure you did er-no.
>
Like being in a cupboard, in the dark, by yourself, do
> you?
Yes. As a matter of fact. I do...oh crap.. reveiled too much!
..moving swiftly back to the topic!
> er-no wrote:
I put myself in the cupboard and just stood there for
> a
> few hours.... oh what fun....
I'm sure you did er-no.
>
Like being in a cupboard, in the dark, by yourself, do
> you?
Yes. As a matter of fact. I do...oh crap.. reveiled too much!
..moving swiftly back to the topic!
er-no wrote:
I put myself in the cupboard and just stood there for a
> few hours.... oh what fun....
I'm sure you did er-no.
Like being in a cupboard, in the dark, by yourself, do you?
:-)
I put myself in the cupboard and just stood there for a
> few hours.... oh what fun....
I'm sure you did er-no.
Like being in a cupboard, in the dark, by yourself, do you?
:-)
Your Honour wrote:
Like MGS2. SOme people on here who've played the demo say
> that you can put people in cupboards etc. Even with reduced
> graphics, you couldn't do that on a Spectrum.
I put myself in the cupboard and just stood there for a few hours.... oh what fun....
Like MGS2. SOme people on here who've played the demo say
> that you can put people in cupboards etc. Even with reduced
> graphics, you couldn't do that on a Spectrum.
I put myself in the cupboard and just stood there for a few hours.... oh what fun....
cookie monster wrote:
> I think that if you did strip the game down, and make it 3D then im
> sure that a lot of the games just wouldnt work. I think this because
> many games take full advantage of 3D now, and they use it to
> introduce new and innovitive concepts. If you remove the 3D, you
> remove the window for innovation, and the games would all be the
> same...Boring.
Sorry the first line should have read 2D, not 3D.
> I think that if you did strip the game down, and make it 3D then im
> sure that a lot of the games just wouldnt work. I think this because
> many games take full advantage of 3D now, and they use it to
> introduce new and innovitive concepts. If you remove the 3D, you
> remove the window for innovation, and the games would all be the
> same...Boring.
Sorry the first line should have read 2D, not 3D.
No games wouldn't be the same.
In the orginal Wolfenstein, you couldn't jump or duck. Now, that may sound quite basic, but if you took at ability away from a game like UT, or Project IGI, you'd have a completely different game.
It's not just graphics that newer hardware gives us, but also better engines so you could do more things.
Like MGS2. SOme people on here who've played the demo say that you can put people in cupboards etc. Even with reduced graphics, you couldn't do that on a Spectrum.
In the orginal Wolfenstein, you couldn't jump or duck. Now, that may sound quite basic, but if you took at ability away from a game like UT, or Project IGI, you'd have a completely different game.
It's not just graphics that newer hardware gives us, but also better engines so you could do more things.
Like MGS2. SOme people on here who've played the demo say that you can put people in cupboards etc. Even with reduced graphics, you couldn't do that on a Spectrum.
Page: