The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
People have been debating this for quite a while now. I genuinely belive that it all depends on what type of game it is. Although I do prefer gameplay over Graphics these days. While graphics can enhance the gameplay experience, everything else is much more important. If a game looks nice but plays horried *cough*Red Faction II, C&C: Generals*cough*, then there isn't much point to it at all. Nowadays, far more games are focusing on graphics over gameplay/length of game. Metal Gear Solid 2, Devil May Cry 2, Red Faction II...these are all examples of games that look awesome, play pretty well, but take less time to complete than it does for your grandma to sneeze. Graphics only partake in a game which is 100%. Graphics are only a small slice of the cake. Kingdom Hearts and FFX have great but not the best graphics. Thats why they last 20+ hours. Amazing graphics and amazing gameplay rarely enter the same sentence anywhere in the world. My friend belives graphics are most important. I haven't seen him in years. He was only recently released from a home :).
Many people to date still prefer the older games on the old generation consoles. I myself am I die hard RPG fan. I prefer Final Fantasy VI(Snes) than I do Final Fantasy IX (PSone). I remember when I was small I used to cherish Sonic like nothing else. A small blue hedgehog running around the screen. What made games like that fun, were the sheer amount of fun gushing from the gameplay. Lets face it if you want to watch a movie then watch a movie. Don't expect too much from a game that has mouth watering graphics. People have said to me that Devil May Cry would be one of the worst games if the graphics were of PSone standard. Look at Parasite Eve II though. That has some seriously easy going graphics and some really energetic gameplay.
If anyone has a Gamecube and Resident Evil then you will know what I mean. The original actually scared me a whole lot more than the shallow attempt of this Biohazard version. Gameplay is what actually makes the the game a game for crying out loud. Thats why people don't like the X-Box as much as other consoles. It may have the best and most powerfull processer but the games don't have as much substance and depth that the other games on other systems provied. Im sorry if you all disagree with me when I say that.
Personally, I prefer playing older games half the time. I have a SNES/Mega Drive emulator, as well as a collection of PS1 games, and quite a bit of the time I play them rather than the PS2 equivalent, Because the PS1 games actually last and aren't overly devoted to graphics (unless you count Fear Effects 1 and 2 - lesbian sex and anime-style ahoy). Even older games (Spectrum/Atari/Amiga are even better, because there were no graphical capabilities at all; merely the gameplay, and that is what I was raised on.
I would just like to hear other peoples views on this topic. Is gameplay the most important or are jaw dripping visuals the things that make a game what it is. Remember quantity over quality my friends. Please remember the greatest games which didn't rely on graphics. Games such as Mario 1 and 2, Sonic, Streets of Rage, all should remain close to our hearts.
Many people to date still prefer the older games on the old generation consoles. I myself am I die hard RPG fan. I prefer Final Fantasy VI(Snes) than I do Final Fantasy IX (PSone). I remember when I was small I used to cherish Sonic like nothing else. A small blue hedgehog running around the screen. What made games like that fun, were the sheer amount of fun gushing from the gameplay. Lets face it if you want to watch a movie then watch a movie. Don't expect too much from a game that has mouth watering graphics. People have said to me that Devil May Cry would be one of the worst games if the graphics were of PSone standard. Look at Parasite Eve II though. That has some seriously easy going graphics and some really energetic gameplay.
If anyone has a Gamecube and Resident Evil then you will know what I mean. The original actually scared me a whole lot more than the shallow attempt of this Biohazard version. Gameplay is what actually makes the the game a game for crying out loud. Thats why people don't like the X-Box as much as other consoles. It may have the best and most powerfull processer but the games don't have as much substance and depth that the other games on other systems provied. Im sorry if you all disagree with me when I say that.
Personally, I prefer playing older games half the time. I have a SNES/Mega Drive emulator, as well as a collection of PS1 games, and quite a bit of the time I play them rather than the PS2 equivalent, Because the PS1 games actually last and aren't overly devoted to graphics (unless you count Fear Effects 1 and 2 - lesbian sex and anime-style ahoy). Even older games (Spectrum/Atari/Amiga are even better, because there were no graphical capabilities at all; merely the gameplay, and that is what I was raised on.
I would just like to hear other peoples views on this topic. Is gameplay the most important or are jaw dripping visuals the things that make a game what it is. Remember quantity over quality my friends. Please remember the greatest games which didn't rely on graphics. Games such as Mario 1 and 2, Sonic, Streets of Rage, all should remain close to our hearts.
What use is a game which looks better than it plays? Sure it'll be good to look at, but that'll be the only thing keeping you're attension from the turgid game-play. Graphics are a nice thing to have, but I'd only get excited over a games graphics when I know the actual game-play is good enough to support it.
i think gameplay is more important.if there's not good gameplay i dont care if the graphics are good or bad
sedg wrote:
> If a game looks nice but plays horried *cough*C&C: Generals*cough*
More like if a game looks horrid, and plays ok...
> If a game looks nice but plays horried *cough*C&C: Generals*cough*
More like if a game looks horrid, and plays ok...
AHHH.
No wait.
No wait.
aaaaaaa it's you
YOU
The one who beat me on my first ever proper GAD attempt for Prize 3
YOU!
*mumbles*
YOU
The one who beat me on my first ever proper GAD attempt for Prize 3
YOU!
*mumbles*
People have been debating this for quite a while now. I genuinely belive that it all depends on what type of game it is. Although I do prefer gameplay over Graphics these days. While graphics can enhance the gameplay experience, everything else is much more important. If a game looks nice but plays horried *cough*Red Faction II, C&C: Generals*cough*, then there isn't much point to it at all. Nowadays, far more games are focusing on graphics over gameplay/length of game. Metal Gear Solid 2, Devil May Cry 2, Red Faction II...these are all examples of games that look awesome, play pretty well, but take less time to complete than it does for your grandma to sneeze. Graphics only partake in a game which is 100%. Graphics are only a small slice of the cake. Kingdom Hearts and FFX have great but not the best graphics. Thats why they last 20+ hours. Amazing graphics and amazing gameplay rarely enter the same sentence anywhere in the world. My friend belives graphics are most important. I haven't seen him in years. He was only recently released from a home :).
Many people to date still prefer the older games on the old generation consoles. I myself am I die hard RPG fan. I prefer Final Fantasy VI(Snes) than I do Final Fantasy IX (PSone). I remember when I was small I used to cherish Sonic like nothing else. A small blue hedgehog running around the screen. What made games like that fun, were the sheer amount of fun gushing from the gameplay. Lets face it if you want to watch a movie then watch a movie. Don't expect too much from a game that has mouth watering graphics. People have said to me that Devil May Cry would be one of the worst games if the graphics were of PSone standard. Look at Parasite Eve II though. That has some seriously easy going graphics and some really energetic gameplay.
If anyone has a Gamecube and Resident Evil then you will know what I mean. The original actually scared me a whole lot more than the shallow attempt of this Biohazard version. Gameplay is what actually makes the the game a game for crying out loud. Thats why people don't like the X-Box as much as other consoles. It may have the best and most powerfull processer but the games don't have as much substance and depth that the other games on other systems provied. Im sorry if you all disagree with me when I say that.
Personally, I prefer playing older games half the time. I have a SNES/Mega Drive emulator, as well as a collection of PS1 games, and quite a bit of the time I play them rather than the PS2 equivalent, Because the PS1 games actually last and aren't overly devoted to graphics (unless you count Fear Effects 1 and 2 - lesbian sex and anime-style ahoy). Even older games (Spectrum/Atari/Amiga are even better, because there were no graphical capabilities at all; merely the gameplay, and that is what I was raised on.
I would just like to hear other peoples views on this topic. Is gameplay the most important or are jaw dripping visuals the things that make a game what it is. Remember quantity over quality my friends. Please remember the greatest games which didn't rely on graphics. Games such as Mario 1 and 2, Sonic, Streets of Rage, all should remain close to our hearts.
Many people to date still prefer the older games on the old generation consoles. I myself am I die hard RPG fan. I prefer Final Fantasy VI(Snes) than I do Final Fantasy IX (PSone). I remember when I was small I used to cherish Sonic like nothing else. A small blue hedgehog running around the screen. What made games like that fun, were the sheer amount of fun gushing from the gameplay. Lets face it if you want to watch a movie then watch a movie. Don't expect too much from a game that has mouth watering graphics. People have said to me that Devil May Cry would be one of the worst games if the graphics were of PSone standard. Look at Parasite Eve II though. That has some seriously easy going graphics and some really energetic gameplay.
If anyone has a Gamecube and Resident Evil then you will know what I mean. The original actually scared me a whole lot more than the shallow attempt of this Biohazard version. Gameplay is what actually makes the the game a game for crying out loud. Thats why people don't like the X-Box as much as other consoles. It may have the best and most powerfull processer but the games don't have as much substance and depth that the other games on other systems provied. Im sorry if you all disagree with me when I say that.
Personally, I prefer playing older games half the time. I have a SNES/Mega Drive emulator, as well as a collection of PS1 games, and quite a bit of the time I play them rather than the PS2 equivalent, Because the PS1 games actually last and aren't overly devoted to graphics (unless you count Fear Effects 1 and 2 - lesbian sex and anime-style ahoy). Even older games (Spectrum/Atari/Amiga are even better, because there were no graphical capabilities at all; merely the gameplay, and that is what I was raised on.
I would just like to hear other peoples views on this topic. Is gameplay the most important or are jaw dripping visuals the things that make a game what it is. Remember quantity over quality my friends. Please remember the greatest games which didn't rely on graphics. Games such as Mario 1 and 2, Sonic, Streets of Rage, all should remain close to our hearts.