The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 graphics have always been a major talking point in most gaming discussion, from comparing games, to comparing systems, they are seen as the benchmark for technical ability. Despite this constant arguing and debate over what constitutes good graphics, few people actually talk about perception of what is good. For those struggling to come to terms with perception, but on a computer game you thonk "looks good", and take a pen and a bit of paper, and write down what it is that make it look that good. This generally gives you an insight into your own perception of what you feel is good. Obviously, there will be things which appeal to you in different genres, and just in different techniques, but your general perception and preference will always be the same.
There has been several debates recently about the ability of the PS2, in comparison with the Gamecube and Xbox, as well as the Dreamcast, so why do people think that one thing is better than the other? More importantly, why do some people disagree? Well, perception is a funny thing. Very few people can look at something and see it exactly the same way as someone else. As there is scope for different view, graphics in games and on different consoles are merely a matter of taste and opinion, the same as the gameplay in certain games, and the plot in different films. Despite this people have argue in a way which appears as though by insulting the intelligence of others, they will change their mind. I mean, just look at Game, he tells me all the time the the GC is better than the PS2, and he uses my Scottishness to try to prove his point, what he doesn;t get is, he is English, so no matter what he says, he will always be arrogent and wrong :D.
No seriously, it's all relative and completely based on opinion. We can argue about the spec of processors etc, because the are matters of fact, there is only one right and wrong answer. However, the output of those same processors is a matter of opinion, because the performance is relative to the ability of the programmer, so nothing will ever perform to it's full and ultimate ability. So anything you see about performance and any arguements you see, about tech specs, just ignore me and my waffling, give the developer some credit when a game looks good, not the little (or big, bleedin' Xbox :D) box sitting beside your TV.
There has been several debates recently about the ability of the PS2, in comparison with the Gamecube and Xbox, as well as the Dreamcast, so why do people think that one thing is better than the other? More importantly, why do some people disagree? Well, perception is a funny thing. Very few people can look at something and see it exactly the same way as someone else. As there is scope for different view, graphics in games and on different consoles are merely a matter of taste and opinion, the same as the gameplay in certain games, and the plot in different films. Despite this people have argue in a way which appears as though by insulting the intelligence of others, they will change their mind. I mean, just look at Game, he tells me all the time the the GC is better than the PS2, and he uses my Scottishness to try to prove his point, what he doesn;t get is, he is English, so no matter what he says, he will always be arrogent and wrong :D.
No seriously, it's all relative and completely based on opinion. We can argue about the spec of processors etc, because the are matters of fact, there is only one right and wrong answer. However, the output of those same processors is a matter of opinion, because the performance is relative to the ability of the programmer, so nothing will ever perform to it's full and ultimate ability. So anything you see about performance and any arguements you see, about tech specs, just ignore me and my waffling, give the developer some credit when a game looks good, not the little (or big, bleedin' Xbox :D) box sitting beside your TV.
Erm yes well done didnt see this post musta missed it :)
I ask people look at the last two who won now go back 7 days and compare.
I ask people look at the last two who won now go back 7 days and compare.
You do know my reply was better... don't you?
Well it was...
...and he's Scottish... surely he only deserves a DVD. :D
'Well Done' I suppose... but you have to admit... my reply did make the topic...
You owe me boy, and don't forget it!
:D
Well it was...
...and he's Scottish... surely he only deserves a DVD. :D
'Well Done' I suppose... but you have to admit... my reply did make the topic...
You owe me boy, and don't forget it!
:D
Well done.
Can you make any more points which you got from me??? Anyone actually believing this numpty is so insightful, forget it. This is what I said to him on MSN, so now he goes and copies what I said.
GAME << Brighter than you might think, he listens to Bonus.
:D
GAME << Brighter than you might think, he listens to Bonus.
:D
It also depends on the developer to make the graphics... I suppose suggesting that there should be a standard itsn't right, because any game made is all down to the developer... If you have a super-computer and a toddler at the wheel you son't get anywhere..... on the other hand, if you have Rareware and a Gamecube or Konami and a PS2, you're looking at some good stuff.
Standards don't really exist in gaming, but as far as most causal gamers are concerned there is a game they would class as standard and they can rate everything else to it.
Right, Bonus?!
:D
Game
Standards don't really exist in gaming, but as far as most causal gamers are concerned there is a game they would class as standard and they can rate everything else to it.
Right, Bonus?!
:D
Game
I agree with you, peoples perception of a good game depends on how THEY see it... that's why, although Famitsu, IGN and The News Monkey may be good reviewers with wide vocabluaries, they don't have the same opinion as other people...
I'd have said the Jak and Daxter graphics were great... the colours are solid, the lighting isn't bad and the physics are good... but to a techy guy like yourself or someone at SR, the fact that the characters shadows are plain circles might be just one criticism you have of the game. To me it looks like a solid platformer with the potential to rule the PS2 platforming world, but as i've said, to others who concentrate not on the 'in your face' graphics the game might be a disappointment.
Most people are impressed with the PS2 graphics.... but from my standpoint, I don't believe they're half as good as they could be... sure the models aren't bad, but that comes as standard from a machine with the power of the PS2. If those sort of grpahics were pushed out of the N64 i'd be impressed, but as I say.. with over twice the speed and twice the bit-age, you have to take it as standard if you are going to rate games fairly.
The reason I think the Gamecube looks so good is because the textures, which tend to hit you first when looking at a screenshot, are considerably better in some of the Nintendo EAD and Rare games... not to mention Rogue Leader. Of course, some other people, who realise that texturiong is one of the Gamecube's stronger points might pass it by as standard and see how well Nintendo have coded the 3D models or how Rare have mapped the levels...
At the end of the day, it is all about perception... I suppose only unbias games technicians and critics can rate the games fairly... but they're not around to hold our hands... we have to make the decisions for ourselves... people may make stupid decisions when choosing a console of a game, so let them!
It's their perception... they see what they like and they want it... just because we think differently doesn't mean they should buy a game or a console they won't enjoy!
I didn't think I'd ever say this, but you're right, Bonus!
Great Post....
Game
I'd have said the Jak and Daxter graphics were great... the colours are solid, the lighting isn't bad and the physics are good... but to a techy guy like yourself or someone at SR, the fact that the characters shadows are plain circles might be just one criticism you have of the game. To me it looks like a solid platformer with the potential to rule the PS2 platforming world, but as i've said, to others who concentrate not on the 'in your face' graphics the game might be a disappointment.
Most people are impressed with the PS2 graphics.... but from my standpoint, I don't believe they're half as good as they could be... sure the models aren't bad, but that comes as standard from a machine with the power of the PS2. If those sort of grpahics were pushed out of the N64 i'd be impressed, but as I say.. with over twice the speed and twice the bit-age, you have to take it as standard if you are going to rate games fairly.
The reason I think the Gamecube looks so good is because the textures, which tend to hit you first when looking at a screenshot, are considerably better in some of the Nintendo EAD and Rare games... not to mention Rogue Leader. Of course, some other people, who realise that texturiong is one of the Gamecube's stronger points might pass it by as standard and see how well Nintendo have coded the 3D models or how Rare have mapped the levels...
At the end of the day, it is all about perception... I suppose only unbias games technicians and critics can rate the games fairly... but they're not around to hold our hands... we have to make the decisions for ourselves... people may make stupid decisions when choosing a console of a game, so let them!
It's their perception... they see what they like and they want it... just because we think differently doesn't mean they should buy a game or a console they won't enjoy!
I didn't think I'd ever say this, but you're right, Bonus!
Great Post....
Game
I agree, each and every one of us has our own views on what is good-looking, whether it be in games, or in real life (girls :D).
Yes, that does mean Ninties and Sonyphiles.
SHOCKY - couldn't think of anymore to write :(
Yes, that does mean Ninties and Sonyphiles.
SHOCKY - couldn't think of anymore to write :(
'Arrogant' not 'Arrogent'.... maybe we could get you a translator? No?
How about someone to tell you if you're making sense or not?
Dear me... it's all in your head, I know i've spoken to you about gaming more than I have anyone else... but when you try to type it, it all comes out weird and messed up and muddled... and Scottish... :D
Just Kidding....
Proper reply coming after this one.. :D
Game: Always wins...
How about someone to tell you if you're making sense or not?
Dear me... it's all in your head, I know i've spoken to you about gaming more than I have anyone else... but when you try to type it, it all comes out weird and messed up and muddled... and Scottish... :D
Just Kidding....
Proper reply coming after this one.. :D
Game: Always wins...
Games graphics have always been a major talking point in most gaming discussion, from comparing games, to comparing systems, they are seen as the benchmark for technical ability. Despite this constant arguing and debate over what constitutes good graphics, few people actually talk about perception of what is good. For those struggling to come to terms with perception, but on a computer game you thonk "looks good", and take a pen and a bit of paper, and write down what it is that make it look that good. This generally gives you an insight into your own perception of what you feel is good. Obviously, there will be things which appeal to you in different genres, and just in different techniques, but your general perception and preference will always be the same.
There has been several debates recently about the ability of the PS2, in comparison with the Gamecube and Xbox, as well as the Dreamcast, so why do people think that one thing is better than the other? More importantly, why do some people disagree? Well, perception is a funny thing. Very few people can look at something and see it exactly the same way as someone else. As there is scope for different view, graphics in games and on different consoles are merely a matter of taste and opinion, the same as the gameplay in certain games, and the plot in different films. Despite this people have argue in a way which appears as though by insulting the intelligence of others, they will change their mind. I mean, just look at Game, he tells me all the time the the GC is better than the PS2, and he uses my Scottishness to try to prove his point, what he doesn;t get is, he is English, so no matter what he says, he will always be arrogent and wrong :D.
No seriously, it's all relative and completely based on opinion. We can argue about the spec of processors etc, because the are matters of fact, there is only one right and wrong answer. However, the output of those same processors is a matter of opinion, because the performance is relative to the ability of the programmer, so nothing will ever perform to it's full and ultimate ability. So anything you see about performance and any arguements you see, about tech specs, just ignore me and my waffling, give the developer some credit when a game looks good, not the little (or big, bleedin' Xbox :D) box sitting beside your TV.
There has been several debates recently about the ability of the PS2, in comparison with the Gamecube and Xbox, as well as the Dreamcast, so why do people think that one thing is better than the other? More importantly, why do some people disagree? Well, perception is a funny thing. Very few people can look at something and see it exactly the same way as someone else. As there is scope for different view, graphics in games and on different consoles are merely a matter of taste and opinion, the same as the gameplay in certain games, and the plot in different films. Despite this people have argue in a way which appears as though by insulting the intelligence of others, they will change their mind. I mean, just look at Game, he tells me all the time the the GC is better than the PS2, and he uses my Scottishness to try to prove his point, what he doesn;t get is, he is English, so no matter what he says, he will always be arrogent and wrong :D.
No seriously, it's all relative and completely based on opinion. We can argue about the spec of processors etc, because the are matters of fact, there is only one right and wrong answer. However, the output of those same processors is a matter of opinion, because the performance is relative to the ability of the programmer, so nothing will ever perform to it's full and ultimate ability. So anything you see about performance and any arguements you see, about tech specs, just ignore me and my waffling, give the developer some credit when a game looks good, not the little (or big, bleedin' Xbox :D) box sitting beside your TV.