The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Is console gaming as fun as it used to be?
Personally I think no. I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but I still have my opinion. Don’t get me wrong; console gaming has improved, but only in one aspect – graphics.
The first example that comes into my mind is Sonic the Hedgehog. I remember when this game started out on the Megadrive. It was a fun innocent game with simple graphics but great gameplay. The simplicity of the game, in my opinion, is what made it so great. Then Sonic came out on the Dreamcast, with new improved graphics and I think this ruined the game. Some games such as sonic just aren’t suited to 3D graphics. I had a go on Sonic Adventure, and I just don’t think it was as fun as the Megadrive version of this Hedgehog. It never drew me back, and I wasn’t craving to go on the game again (like I did with its predecessor).
I think that games developers are starting to concentrate on the graphics too much. They are forgetting the key issue of gameplay. An example of this is the much-anticipated game ‘The Bouncer’ on the PS2. As screen shots were released, it had gamers across the world drooling. The graphics looked better every time. Unfortunately, when the game was released it left a sad look on a lot of gamer’s faces. There were too many cut scenes, and not enough of the actual game. As a result of this the game didn’t do too well.
The issue of gameplay may not be the developer’s fault. Nowadays, unless a game has good graphics, it barely gets a first look at before the total mark for it is decreased. A game can have excellent gameplay, but poor graphics and as a result it will most likely not sell well, (unless it has already built up a name for itself such as GTA II). As a result of this, a game has to have great graphics AND gameplay in order to score well (like GT3). I fear that a lot of developers are choosing the option that will gain their game the most hype, like with the bouncer (which is graphics), and they are not concentrating enough on the gameplay.
A perfect example of this is the Army Men series on the PS2. I haven’t played on one myself but I have looked at the box, and heard peoples’ opinions. When I look at the screen shots of these games, the characters look nicely rendered. The scenery looks great, and the characters are rounded to look good. Overall I would class it as good graphics. Then there is the gameplay. I’m sure every gamer knows to stay away from these games, and this is because the gameplay is rubbish. The game is boring and never makes you want to play this. Surely if the games makers had spent less time on the graphics and more time on the gameplay, these games could have done well.
By now, a lot of you probably think that I should stop being so obsessed with the gameplay. But is this not what makes a game so great? Megadrive games did well because of their gameplay, and obviously not their graphics. I think a lot of companies could learn a lesson from this. Great graphics aren’t going to (or shouldn’t) sell a game. A game should only do well because of gameplay, such as the original Sonic.
Luckily there are a few games that do incorporate both gameplay and graphics, such as GTA3, GT3, Jak and Dexter, I only know PS2 games, as I have a PS2 and those are what I’ve tried. Unfortunately I think the number of these games is going to decrease as we move towards the Xbox and Gamecube. Maybe it won’t be so bad for the GC as a lot of games have new ideas, and sound like they could be fun. Either way, I know the good times with Sonic of the Megadrive have gone. Now we are in a graphics dependant world.
What do you think?
Personally I think no. I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but I still have my opinion. Don’t get me wrong; console gaming has improved, but only in one aspect – graphics.
The first example that comes into my mind is Sonic the Hedgehog. I remember when this game started out on the Megadrive. It was a fun innocent game with simple graphics but great gameplay. The simplicity of the game, in my opinion, is what made it so great. Then Sonic came out on the Dreamcast, with new improved graphics and I think this ruined the game. Some games such as sonic just aren’t suited to 3D graphics. I had a go on Sonic Adventure, and I just don’t think it was as fun as the Megadrive version of this Hedgehog. It never drew me back, and I wasn’t craving to go on the game again (like I did with its predecessor).
I think that games developers are starting to concentrate on the graphics too much. They are forgetting the key issue of gameplay. An example of this is the much-anticipated game ‘The Bouncer’ on the PS2. As screen shots were released, it had gamers across the world drooling. The graphics looked better every time. Unfortunately, when the game was released it left a sad look on a lot of gamer’s faces. There were too many cut scenes, and not enough of the actual game. As a result of this the game didn’t do too well.
The issue of gameplay may not be the developer’s fault. Nowadays, unless a game has good graphics, it barely gets a first look at before the total mark for it is decreased. A game can have excellent gameplay, but poor graphics and as a result it will most likely not sell well, (unless it has already built up a name for itself such as GTA II). As a result of this, a game has to have great graphics AND gameplay in order to score well (like GT3). I fear that a lot of developers are choosing the option that will gain their game the most hype, like with the bouncer (which is graphics), and they are not concentrating enough on the gameplay.
A perfect example of this is the Army Men series on the PS2. I haven’t played on one myself but I have looked at the box, and heard peoples’ opinions. When I look at the screen shots of these games, the characters look nicely rendered. The scenery looks great, and the characters are rounded to look good. Overall I would class it as good graphics. Then there is the gameplay. I’m sure every gamer knows to stay away from these games, and this is because the gameplay is rubbish. The game is boring and never makes you want to play this. Surely if the games makers had spent less time on the graphics and more time on the gameplay, these games could have done well.
By now, a lot of you probably think that I should stop being so obsessed with the gameplay. But is this not what makes a game so great? Megadrive games did well because of their gameplay, and obviously not their graphics. I think a lot of companies could learn a lesson from this. Great graphics aren’t going to (or shouldn’t) sell a game. A game should only do well because of gameplay, such as the original Sonic.
Luckily there are a few games that do incorporate both gameplay and graphics, such as GTA3, GT3, Jak and Dexter, I only know PS2 games, as I have a PS2 and those are what I’ve tried. Unfortunately I think the number of these games is going to decrease as we move towards the Xbox and Gamecube. Maybe it won’t be so bad for the GC as a lot of games have new ideas, and sound like they could be fun. Either way, I know the good times with Sonic of the Megadrive have gone. Now we are in a graphics dependant world.
What do you think?
I know what you mean, the gameplay aspects aren't always a lot different to before. I also think that we find games slightly less-enjoyable as we get older. When we're kids we can enjoy almost any game type, but when we're older we only stick to a select number of genres.
Is console gaming as fun as it used to be?
Personally I think no. I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but I still have my opinion. Don’t get me wrong; console gaming has improved, but only in one aspect – graphics.
The first example that comes into my mind is Sonic the Hedgehog. I remember when this game started out on the Megadrive. It was a fun innocent game with simple graphics but great gameplay. The simplicity of the game, in my opinion, is what made it so great. Then Sonic came out on the Dreamcast, with new improved graphics and I think this ruined the game. Some games such as sonic just aren’t suited to 3D graphics. I had a go on Sonic Adventure, and I just don’t think it was as fun as the Megadrive version of this Hedgehog. It never drew me back, and I wasn’t craving to go on the game again (like I did with its predecessor).
I think that games developers are starting to concentrate on the graphics too much. They are forgetting the key issue of gameplay. An example of this is the much-anticipated game ‘The Bouncer’ on the PS2. As screen shots were released, it had gamers across the world drooling. The graphics looked better every time. Unfortunately, when the game was released it left a sad look on a lot of gamer’s faces. There were too many cut scenes, and not enough of the actual game. As a result of this the game didn’t do too well.
The issue of gameplay may not be the developer’s fault. Nowadays, unless a game has good graphics, it barely gets a first look at before the total mark for it is decreased. A game can have excellent gameplay, but poor graphics and as a result it will most likely not sell well, (unless it has already built up a name for itself such as GTA II). As a result of this, a game has to have great graphics AND gameplay in order to score well (like GT3). I fear that a lot of developers are choosing the option that will gain their game the most hype, like with the bouncer (which is graphics), and they are not concentrating enough on the gameplay.
A perfect example of this is the Army Men series on the PS2. I haven’t played on one myself but I have looked at the box, and heard peoples’ opinions. When I look at the screen shots of these games, the characters look nicely rendered. The scenery looks great, and the characters are rounded to look good. Overall I would class it as good graphics. Then there is the gameplay. I’m sure every gamer knows to stay away from these games, and this is because the gameplay is rubbish. The game is boring and never makes you want to play this. Surely if the games makers had spent less time on the graphics and more time on the gameplay, these games could have done well.
By now, a lot of you probably think that I should stop being so obsessed with the gameplay. But is this not what makes a game so great? Megadrive games did well because of their gameplay, and obviously not their graphics. I think a lot of companies could learn a lesson from this. Great graphics aren’t going to (or shouldn’t) sell a game. A game should only do well because of gameplay, such as the original Sonic.
Luckily there are a few games that do incorporate both gameplay and graphics, such as GTA3, GT3, Jak and Dexter, I only know PS2 games, as I have a PS2 and those are what I’ve tried. Unfortunately I think the number of these games is going to decrease as we move towards the Xbox and Gamecube. Maybe it won’t be so bad for the GC as a lot of games have new ideas, and sound like they could be fun. Either way, I know the good times with Sonic of the Megadrive have gone. Now we are in a graphics dependant world.
What do you think?
Personally I think no. I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but I still have my opinion. Don’t get me wrong; console gaming has improved, but only in one aspect – graphics.
The first example that comes into my mind is Sonic the Hedgehog. I remember when this game started out on the Megadrive. It was a fun innocent game with simple graphics but great gameplay. The simplicity of the game, in my opinion, is what made it so great. Then Sonic came out on the Dreamcast, with new improved graphics and I think this ruined the game. Some games such as sonic just aren’t suited to 3D graphics. I had a go on Sonic Adventure, and I just don’t think it was as fun as the Megadrive version of this Hedgehog. It never drew me back, and I wasn’t craving to go on the game again (like I did with its predecessor).
I think that games developers are starting to concentrate on the graphics too much. They are forgetting the key issue of gameplay. An example of this is the much-anticipated game ‘The Bouncer’ on the PS2. As screen shots were released, it had gamers across the world drooling. The graphics looked better every time. Unfortunately, when the game was released it left a sad look on a lot of gamer’s faces. There were too many cut scenes, and not enough of the actual game. As a result of this the game didn’t do too well.
The issue of gameplay may not be the developer’s fault. Nowadays, unless a game has good graphics, it barely gets a first look at before the total mark for it is decreased. A game can have excellent gameplay, but poor graphics and as a result it will most likely not sell well, (unless it has already built up a name for itself such as GTA II). As a result of this, a game has to have great graphics AND gameplay in order to score well (like GT3). I fear that a lot of developers are choosing the option that will gain their game the most hype, like with the bouncer (which is graphics), and they are not concentrating enough on the gameplay.
A perfect example of this is the Army Men series on the PS2. I haven’t played on one myself but I have looked at the box, and heard peoples’ opinions. When I look at the screen shots of these games, the characters look nicely rendered. The scenery looks great, and the characters are rounded to look good. Overall I would class it as good graphics. Then there is the gameplay. I’m sure every gamer knows to stay away from these games, and this is because the gameplay is rubbish. The game is boring and never makes you want to play this. Surely if the games makers had spent less time on the graphics and more time on the gameplay, these games could have done well.
By now, a lot of you probably think that I should stop being so obsessed with the gameplay. But is this not what makes a game so great? Megadrive games did well because of their gameplay, and obviously not their graphics. I think a lot of companies could learn a lesson from this. Great graphics aren’t going to (or shouldn’t) sell a game. A game should only do well because of gameplay, such as the original Sonic.
Luckily there are a few games that do incorporate both gameplay and graphics, such as GTA3, GT3, Jak and Dexter, I only know PS2 games, as I have a PS2 and those are what I’ve tried. Unfortunately I think the number of these games is going to decrease as we move towards the Xbox and Gamecube. Maybe it won’t be so bad for the GC as a lot of games have new ideas, and sound like they could be fun. Either way, I know the good times with Sonic of the Megadrive have gone. Now we are in a graphics dependant world.
What do you think?