The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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...
The way games evolve must be in favour of getting the gameplay right. If a game is so good in terms of the way it plays, it doesn't really matter what it looks like! Gameplay is improving all the time, I thought I'd share with you my views on how games should evolve!
Gameplay enhancing improvements are the way forward, let me give you some examplesÖIn a 128bit world, how can such a graphics light game like Snake manage to compete with the latest games on the newest games consoles?! I mean, is Snake and the other mobile phone games anything more than 2bit? 4bit perhaps? Well, I just have to say that graphics mean absolutely nothing if a game is a dog to play. You know it's true really...
I while ago, as many of you may have done, I bought the visually stunning Ecco the Dolphin, was pretty impressed, but I gave up trying to get anywhere because it just didn't play to my liking - aside from the fact that it was one of the most incredible looking and sounding games, where the word 'ambience' fits like a glove, it was and is incredibly difficult, frustrating and just not something you need when you're trying to progress!! So where am I going with this? Who knows, but as most will tell you 'graphics maketh not a great game' and it's true.
So Ecco may suit some, but can you imagine a game with such amazing, mind boggling, jaw dropping and palm sweatingly good looking with sound and everything presented in the best way, only for you to find that the control system may as well have been designed by Mike Tyson, and that it's practically unplayable?! That'd suck, that'd hurt big time, because a game that looks great deserves to be good to play too. So, what's all this about Snake? Well...
Ion many mobiles Snake 2 is one of the mini games available to play on it - one of the only things you can do without spending 40p a minute, or something similar, and so I've ended up playing this far more than anything out of my real games collection, and why? Ok, so I was bored, but the simple things in life do entertain, they are addictive and the original concepts are the best. Tetris, Packman, even ChuChu Rocket - aren't they all just great! So any who, I have been playing Snake, it's a cracking game that I recommend you all have a go should for some reason you haven't played it yet, and forget graphics - this is pure addiction from a 2D (if that), with one line that gets bigger every time you eat a little dot, with the occasional bonus points from larger funny shaped creatures, and it really is a very good game. Free with most mobiles! Ok, so it used to be Nibbles ñ games designers. Give me a New Lemmings, a new Tetris (but different obviously) and Iíll get off your case.
So whilst games like SSX are also good fun, and offering up to date graphics, it just goes to show, you don't need a £200 PS2, just get into...Snake.... Anyway, forget snake for the moment. I doubt weíll see future snakes appearing on the future games machines, but the point Iím trying to stress is that I want to see good games with good gameplay continuing to be at the forefront of gaming and of sales as these deserve to sell well. Itís good at the moment, there are some games that refuse to be playable, letís make things better though!!
Game Cube and X box, soon to be released ñ already, Zelda and House of the Dead 3 have been condemned for having Cell shading graphics, something which is actually quite advanced, derived from the fantastic Jet Set Radio ñ come on people these games may not look like they used to, but theyíll play even better for sure, and I canít wait!
Thanks
Dan
The way games evolve must be in favour of getting the gameplay right. If a game is so good in terms of the way it plays, it doesn't really matter what it looks like! Gameplay is improving all the time, I thought I'd share with you my views on how games should evolve!
Gameplay enhancing improvements are the way forward, let me give you some examplesÖIn a 128bit world, how can such a graphics light game like Snake manage to compete with the latest games on the newest games consoles?! I mean, is Snake and the other mobile phone games anything more than 2bit? 4bit perhaps? Well, I just have to say that graphics mean absolutely nothing if a game is a dog to play. You know it's true really...
I while ago, as many of you may have done, I bought the visually stunning Ecco the Dolphin, was pretty impressed, but I gave up trying to get anywhere because it just didn't play to my liking - aside from the fact that it was one of the most incredible looking and sounding games, where the word 'ambience' fits like a glove, it was and is incredibly difficult, frustrating and just not something you need when you're trying to progress!! So where am I going with this? Who knows, but as most will tell you 'graphics maketh not a great game' and it's true.
So Ecco may suit some, but can you imagine a game with such amazing, mind boggling, jaw dropping and palm sweatingly good looking with sound and everything presented in the best way, only for you to find that the control system may as well have been designed by Mike Tyson, and that it's practically unplayable?! That'd suck, that'd hurt big time, because a game that looks great deserves to be good to play too. So, what's all this about Snake? Well...
Ion many mobiles Snake 2 is one of the mini games available to play on it - one of the only things you can do without spending 40p a minute, or something similar, and so I've ended up playing this far more than anything out of my real games collection, and why? Ok, so I was bored, but the simple things in life do entertain, they are addictive and the original concepts are the best. Tetris, Packman, even ChuChu Rocket - aren't they all just great! So any who, I have been playing Snake, it's a cracking game that I recommend you all have a go should for some reason you haven't played it yet, and forget graphics - this is pure addiction from a 2D (if that), with one line that gets bigger every time you eat a little dot, with the occasional bonus points from larger funny shaped creatures, and it really is a very good game. Free with most mobiles! Ok, so it used to be Nibbles ñ games designers. Give me a New Lemmings, a new Tetris (but different obviously) and Iíll get off your case.
So whilst games like SSX are also good fun, and offering up to date graphics, it just goes to show, you don't need a £200 PS2, just get into...Snake.... Anyway, forget snake for the moment. I doubt weíll see future snakes appearing on the future games machines, but the point Iím trying to stress is that I want to see good games with good gameplay continuing to be at the forefront of gaming and of sales as these deserve to sell well. Itís good at the moment, there are some games that refuse to be playable, letís make things better though!!
Game Cube and X box, soon to be released ñ already, Zelda and House of the Dead 3 have been condemned for having Cell shading graphics, something which is actually quite advanced, derived from the fantastic Jet Set Radio ñ come on people these games may not look like they used to, but theyíll play even better for sure, and I canít wait!
Thanks
Dan
Page:
You see I believe that Snake is let down criminally my a part of it's gameplay. The control method. Maybe it was just the phone I was using, but it was just plain awkward, with no real feeling of control. Even though it's the same game, something as simple as that could ruin it.
This point becomes even more important in the next few years, as we'll see the same games on Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube, but each machines controller is different, and some will suit some games more than others.
Even if the game is exactly the same in looks, sound and the game itself having an important function (be it a special move or whatever) assigned toa combinationof nuttons that just isn't comfortable just won't make for a fun gameplay experience. It may to fine, pressing the shoulder button whilst rotating the analogue stick on the PS2, but on the Gamecube or Xbox it could be near impossible to do without dropping the pad. How annoying would that be?
Answering the question "What is gameplay?" is tough. I think it's a combination of all aspects of the game, anything that could effect play in either a good, or a bad way, be it dodgy graphics or killer tunes. Really it comes down to how fun, or entertaining the game is, I've never heard anyone say "This game is really fun, but the gameplay sucks!" Though you do hear "This game looks awesome, but plays like a donkey!"
Anyway, back to the post in hand, Snake is alleged to be good. Does this mean we ought to use our £200-£300 consoles to play Snake (Or SuperSnake Cubed/ X-Snake)?
Of course not, it's not just the basic games that have good gameplay. The PSX Final Fantasy games use a complex menu system (comparitively complex) and feature a lengthy, sometimes tough quest. Still, they're considered to be amongst the greatest games around.
So what should we expect next, gameplay enhancements all round, or just better looking and sounding PSX and N64 standard games?
I'm sure you'd all say that you'd like to see the gameplay develop on all levels, deeper storylines, better control, and plenty of new features not possible on a weaker console.
I mean, what would have been the point of buying an N64 if SuperMario64 and the like had been given that amazing 3D overhaul, but were still running along avoiding enemies to get to the endof the level? It had to take on a bit of a quest like nature to keep the gameplay developing on all levels.
It's easy for developers to take these fantastic new developent kits and concentrate on the aesthetics like the graphics, people only see the graphics in a screensht, and screenshots can sell games. Certainly many early PS2 games were guilty of only receiving a graphical makeover. Thankfully developers are now working the development kits to find more of the potential to develop important new features in the games. PS2 owners are no longer playing graphically sweet PSX games, but true next generation titles. I'm not saying that all early PS2 games were guilty of concentrating on graphics, but you can't deny that it's only now that you're starting to really see the differences in the levels of gameplay between the Sony consoles?
It will be intersting to see if Microsoft and Nintendo wil be able to release the titles that both look AND play like next generation titles sooner than Sony did, if not there will be many more gamers making the Sony switch.
This point becomes even more important in the next few years, as we'll see the same games on Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube, but each machines controller is different, and some will suit some games more than others.
Even if the game is exactly the same in looks, sound and the game itself having an important function (be it a special move or whatever) assigned toa combinationof nuttons that just isn't comfortable just won't make for a fun gameplay experience. It may to fine, pressing the shoulder button whilst rotating the analogue stick on the PS2, but on the Gamecube or Xbox it could be near impossible to do without dropping the pad. How annoying would that be?
Answering the question "What is gameplay?" is tough. I think it's a combination of all aspects of the game, anything that could effect play in either a good, or a bad way, be it dodgy graphics or killer tunes. Really it comes down to how fun, or entertaining the game is, I've never heard anyone say "This game is really fun, but the gameplay sucks!" Though you do hear "This game looks awesome, but plays like a donkey!"
Anyway, back to the post in hand, Snake is alleged to be good. Does this mean we ought to use our £200-£300 consoles to play Snake (Or SuperSnake Cubed/ X-Snake)?
Of course not, it's not just the basic games that have good gameplay. The PSX Final Fantasy games use a complex menu system (comparitively complex) and feature a lengthy, sometimes tough quest. Still, they're considered to be amongst the greatest games around.
So what should we expect next, gameplay enhancements all round, or just better looking and sounding PSX and N64 standard games?
I'm sure you'd all say that you'd like to see the gameplay develop on all levels, deeper storylines, better control, and plenty of new features not possible on a weaker console.
I mean, what would have been the point of buying an N64 if SuperMario64 and the like had been given that amazing 3D overhaul, but were still running along avoiding enemies to get to the endof the level? It had to take on a bit of a quest like nature to keep the gameplay developing on all levels.
It's easy for developers to take these fantastic new developent kits and concentrate on the aesthetics like the graphics, people only see the graphics in a screensht, and screenshots can sell games. Certainly many early PS2 games were guilty of only receiving a graphical makeover. Thankfully developers are now working the development kits to find more of the potential to develop important new features in the games. PS2 owners are no longer playing graphically sweet PSX games, but true next generation titles. I'm not saying that all early PS2 games were guilty of concentrating on graphics, but you can't deny that it's only now that you're starting to really see the differences in the levels of gameplay between the Sony consoles?
It will be intersting to see if Microsoft and Nintendo wil be able to release the titles that both look AND play like next generation titles sooner than Sony did, if not there will be many more gamers making the Sony switch.
Ant wrote:
After going through that sentence a
> few times in my head, I would say....yes, probably. {:)
lol@Ant... :)
After going through that sentence a
> few times in my head, I would say....yes, probably. {:)
lol@Ant... :)
Armitage Shanks wrote:
Would you agree that it is the execution of the graphics thats
> important... it may be that a game so many options that the game is
> overwhelming... or that things are too cluttered... the execution of the
> graphics, options and positions are more part of the design of the game than the
> resluting graphics?
After going through that sentence a few times in my head, I would say....yes, probably. {:)
Would you agree that it is the execution of the graphics thats
> important... it may be that a game so many options that the game is
> overwhelming... or that things are too cluttered... the execution of the
> graphics, options and positions are more part of the design of the game than the
> resluting graphics?
After going through that sentence a few times in my head, I would say....yes, probably. {:)
> Ant wrote:
I was thinking of games such as GT3 or
> Perfect Dark, or the
> upcoming MGS2. I don't think these games would be the
> same without their
> graphics. In fact, better graphics actually allows for
> more gameplay options, as
> you can interact with the environment more.
> Well, it's just a thought...
Although to be fair... Its not the quality of the graphics that permits your interation with the environment... you can have a game using DOOM's graphics which could allow the same level of interation as say, Red Factions graphics, despite not being as good as the graphics...
Would you agree that it is the execution of the graphics thats important... it may be that a game so many options that the game is overwhelming... or that things are too cluttered... the execution of the graphics, options and positions are more part of the design of the game than the resluting graphics?
I dunno though? :)
I was thinking of games such as GT3 or
> Perfect Dark, or the
> upcoming MGS2. I don't think these games would be the
> same without their
> graphics. In fact, better graphics actually allows for
> more gameplay options, as
> you can interact with the environment more.
> Well, it's just a thought...
Although to be fair... Its not the quality of the graphics that permits your interation with the environment... you can have a game using DOOM's graphics which could allow the same level of interation as say, Red Factions graphics, despite not being as good as the graphics...
Would you agree that it is the execution of the graphics thats important... it may be that a game so many options that the game is overwhelming... or that things are too cluttered... the execution of the graphics, options and positions are more part of the design of the game than the resluting graphics?
I dunno though? :)
Ant wrote:
> Hey, Armatige, I never said they weren't separate entities. No need to write an
> essay. :D
I was thinking of games such as GT3 or Perfect Dark, or the
> upcoming MGS2. I don't think these games would be the same without their
> graphics. In fact, better graphics actually allows for more gameplay options, as
> you can interact with the environment more. Well, it's just a thought...
lol... no, sorry man, I didnt mean it as a direct responce to what you had written specifically... I clicked in the reply to post button and forgot to delete your text :)
> Hey, Armatige, I never said they weren't separate entities. No need to write an
> essay. :D
I was thinking of games such as GT3 or Perfect Dark, or the
> upcoming MGS2. I don't think these games would be the same without their
> graphics. In fact, better graphics actually allows for more gameplay options, as
> you can interact with the environment more. Well, it's just a thought...
lol... no, sorry man, I didnt mean it as a direct responce to what you had written specifically... I clicked in the reply to post button and forgot to delete your text :)
Hey, Armatige, I never said they weren't separate entities. No need to write an essay. :D
I was thinking of games such as GT3 or Perfect Dark, or the upcoming MGS2. I don't think these games would be the same without their graphics. In fact, better graphics actually allows for more gameplay options, as you can interact with the environment more. Well, it's just a thought...
I was thinking of games such as GT3 or Perfect Dark, or the upcoming MGS2. I don't think these games would be the same without their graphics. In fact, better graphics actually allows for more gameplay options, as you can interact with the environment more. Well, it's just a thought...
Ant wrote:
> I think we need a definition of the word 'gameplay.'
I mean, in some ways,
> graphics could be part of the gameplay. Interesting...
Although, if thats the case, why are graphically 'inferior' titles, like the Sims, Diablo 2, even Rollercoaster tycoon, still in the American top ten games chart...
These are titles, which, even when released looked out of date... a point which was commented upon in many of the reviews... Yet they remain, month after month, in the top ten of the charts....
Conversly, the graphically advanced titles, like Max Payne are, after a few months, no where to be seen?
This isnt to say Max Payne isnt a great game, because it is a fantastic title...
Its just it seems its the games which become known for their playability that stick around...
To be honest, once you get into a title, how often do you really notice the graphics... its the completion of the challenge that becomes paramount...
The graphics may work as a hook... enhanceing the overall enjoyment of a title... And to be honest, I like to play games that look good...
Given the size of develpment teams for new titles, I really dont think its a comprimise between gameplay and graphics...
Since the people developing the grahics, those developing the game engine, and those testing the game are all working in different teams...
I think any lack of gameplay comes from the desire of the publishers to sell the product as quickly as possible...
Which, itself, given Eidos's rather excitable state of existance over the past couple of years is itself understandable...
Getting the gameplay tweaks just right takes time... and time takes an enourmous amount of money...
Although, its true that graphics which are unclear, obstruct the field of play, etc... will count against the gameplay... and that equally, graphics that are sharp, fast, appropriate and well implelemented will help increase enjoyment...
I just cant help but feel that graphics and gameplay should be considered as seperate entities?
In the same way that picture qualitity, or special effects can help improve how enjoyable a film is to watch, it will never make a bad film good, or a good film bad?
> I think we need a definition of the word 'gameplay.'
I mean, in some ways,
> graphics could be part of the gameplay. Interesting...
Although, if thats the case, why are graphically 'inferior' titles, like the Sims, Diablo 2, even Rollercoaster tycoon, still in the American top ten games chart...
These are titles, which, even when released looked out of date... a point which was commented upon in many of the reviews... Yet they remain, month after month, in the top ten of the charts....
Conversly, the graphically advanced titles, like Max Payne are, after a few months, no where to be seen?
This isnt to say Max Payne isnt a great game, because it is a fantastic title...
Its just it seems its the games which become known for their playability that stick around...
To be honest, once you get into a title, how often do you really notice the graphics... its the completion of the challenge that becomes paramount...
The graphics may work as a hook... enhanceing the overall enjoyment of a title... And to be honest, I like to play games that look good...
Given the size of develpment teams for new titles, I really dont think its a comprimise between gameplay and graphics...
Since the people developing the grahics, those developing the game engine, and those testing the game are all working in different teams...
I think any lack of gameplay comes from the desire of the publishers to sell the product as quickly as possible...
Which, itself, given Eidos's rather excitable state of existance over the past couple of years is itself understandable...
Getting the gameplay tweaks just right takes time... and time takes an enourmous amount of money...
Although, its true that graphics which are unclear, obstruct the field of play, etc... will count against the gameplay... and that equally, graphics that are sharp, fast, appropriate and well implelemented will help increase enjoyment...
I just cant help but feel that graphics and gameplay should be considered as seperate entities?
In the same way that picture qualitity, or special effects can help improve how enjoyable a film is to watch, it will never make a bad film good, or a good film bad?
I think we need a definition of the word 'gameplay.'
I mean, in some ways, graphics could be part of the gameplay. Interesting...
I mean, in some ways, graphics could be part of the gameplay. Interesting...
We have powerful new consoles to allow more gaming possibilities, better graphics is just a side effect. MGS is an excellent game but it wasn't before possible without the power of the PlayStation, same with G-Surfers on the PS2.
Page: