Viewing Thread:
"Just the Gameplay that counts."

Yes, this is Bonus having a rant at people hassling me again. I am sick fed up of people coming out with "It's just the gameplay that counts" when it comes to looking at games for systems which are not out yet or games which are not due out for several months. At these stages in a game's development, the looks are all we have to give us an idea at the technical merit of the game. So when I want to pull the video's which Game has shown me of Starfox Adventures to shreds because Rare are "cheating with their effects to fool people into thinking the game looks good, I shall and I most definatly will, does the Gameplay matter 8-10 months away from the UK release, emm, no, because you can't pick up and play a screenshot.

So if it comes down to comparing the technical merits and graphics of a screenshot, I will look at various aspects of the graphics, the abilities of the console and more importantly the developer to decide whether or not I am interested in the game, or the console. I have huge expectations of various games on the PS2 based on the screenshots, then once the game comes out, I take a look at reviews etc. to see how the games actually play, that is when I feel gameplay matters, when you are sitting with a console and game in front of you, and you are playing. If the game has good gameplay, then you will be entertained, but the gameplay of any game is a matter of someone's own opinion, and whether they like it or not is entirely up to the individual. If we all liked the same, then there would be a much narrower variety of games on the market.

But there isn't much arguement to be had about the technical aspects of a game's graphics, they are either good or bad, and as I have pointed out, Starfox Adventures has overall, fairly poor graphics, if you sit down and look at what is being done, the poor lighting, animation and models are a brilliant example. To date, the only game on the system which has even remotly impressed me is Resident Evil, but I amn't a fan of Resident Evil games, so once the games come to be released, I don't buy them, because *I* don't like them.

Thats all that matters, whether or not *YOU* like the game, when it comes to release day.

Bonus TO = Great gameplay and graphics nuff said =)

Lord Semajal wrote:
*well that about wraps is up*


I didn't order no Fajita's.

i said

*well that about wraps is up*

Sheese does no one listen

QUOTE ALERT

Cartman from southpark

"Screw you guys im going home"

Yes, it is a continuation of a franchise.

In Game terms it's not a continuation of style and content.
Starfox Adv is not a sequel!!!!
Is Mario Party a sequel to Mario Kart???... Is it a continuation?
If I stick mario and the gang with worlds and characters in a Football game does that make the game a sequel to Mario 64???

Probably, yes. They are using past games to make their new games look more profitable. The game is not a sequel in the sense that it follows directly on with a story etc. But here is the definition of sequel;

Something that follows; a continuation

Surely Starfox Adventures is following on from the other Starfox games by continuing with the same characters, no??

Fianl Fantasy 9 + 10 are R.P.G's VERY similiar to each other, in most cases IDENTICAL other than plot.
I wouldn't call Crash Team Racing a sequel to Crash 3.
Would you call Super Puzzle Fighter a sequel to Super Street Fighter??? or Bust a Move a sequel to Bubble Bobble?

Bonus wrote:
> I do think that Rogue Leader has good graphics

Having looked at some video's again, I do have some "issues" with the graphics, but merely niggling remarks which could make the game look even more impressive. And at least they haven't tried to cheat to cover the situation over.

Gameplay counts but not until you have played the game.

*Well that about wraps it up*

Then in that case would you class Final Fantasy 10 a sequel to Final Fantasy 9. If you do, may I laugh?? Or Crash Team Racing to Crash Bandicoot 3??