The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Not really! Graphics are very important, read on…
What makes a good game, obviously gameplay really, because if a game isn’t fun no-one is going to want to play it, but everyone says graphics aren’t important, is this strictly true?
If you came across two games in a shop that you had never ever heard of, and they were the only two whose descriptions appealed to you, after looking at the pictures which would you get, just because one has better graphics than the other definitely does not mean it will be the better game, but who is to say the other one does not have terrible graphics AND gameplay. (this is a completely theoretical situation, don’t come out with “I wouldn’t buy a game I’ve never heard of” please…)
The truth is the graphics would influence your decision, whether you like it or not, and in situations where people say graphics aren’t important that isn’t strictly true either, however much you like a series of game you don’t want to see horrible frame rates, or single-textured characters.
Graphics ARE important, can you imagine playing a fast paced game with very basic textures, or clashing colours, with loads of bright reds and the like, graphics are the fourth dimension of a game, the atmosphere, the tension and the communication between the game and the player are controlled by the graphics.
Graphics are an integral part of every game, and this is undeniable – as important as gameplay is, graphics cannot be discounted as unimportant.
Look at Resident Evil on the gamecube, as good as it was on the playstation, the gameplay itself remains almost unchanged, yet it is a vastly superior game, because of the atmosphere created by the sublime graphics.
Thoughts?
What makes a good game, obviously gameplay really, because if a game isn’t fun no-one is going to want to play it, but everyone says graphics aren’t important, is this strictly true?
If you came across two games in a shop that you had never ever heard of, and they were the only two whose descriptions appealed to you, after looking at the pictures which would you get, just because one has better graphics than the other definitely does not mean it will be the better game, but who is to say the other one does not have terrible graphics AND gameplay. (this is a completely theoretical situation, don’t come out with “I wouldn’t buy a game I’ve never heard of” please…)
The truth is the graphics would influence your decision, whether you like it or not, and in situations where people say graphics aren’t important that isn’t strictly true either, however much you like a series of game you don’t want to see horrible frame rates, or single-textured characters.
Graphics ARE important, can you imagine playing a fast paced game with very basic textures, or clashing colours, with loads of bright reds and the like, graphics are the fourth dimension of a game, the atmosphere, the tension and the communication between the game and the player are controlled by the graphics.
Graphics are an integral part of every game, and this is undeniable – as important as gameplay is, graphics cannot be discounted as unimportant.
Look at Resident Evil on the gamecube, as good as it was on the playstation, the gameplay itself remains almost unchanged, yet it is a vastly superior game, because of the atmosphere created by the sublime graphics.
Thoughts?
Page:
Graphics aren't important, as such, but you shouldn't discount them entirely.
FFX, for example, gave a stonger feel and put across emotions more easily than the predecessors with it's enhanced graphics and the speech definatly gave more feeling. It's quite hard to get submersed in the older FF's (4-6) as the graphics are pretty crap.
But, without any emotion to carry, story to tell or experiences to put across, good graphics would be useless.
They're not usless, and to be ignored, but can help enhance the emotions already portrayed, giving you a better feel for the story.
FFX, for example, gave a stonger feel and put across emotions more easily than the predecessors with it's enhanced graphics and the speech definatly gave more feeling. It's quite hard to get submersed in the older FF's (4-6) as the graphics are pretty crap.
But, without any emotion to carry, story to tell or experiences to put across, good graphics would be useless.
They're not usless, and to be ignored, but can help enhance the emotions already portrayed, giving you a better feel for the story.
> Memorandum wrote:
> I mean look at how GTA benefitted from jumping to the
> great looking 3D world.
Yep the 3D perspective did indeed make GTA a new experience. Nevertheless if it had no detail and was cel shaded it would still be as fun. That is what graphics aren't important means.
> I mean look at how GTA benefitted from jumping to the
> great looking 3D world.
Yep the 3D perspective did indeed make GTA a new experience. Nevertheless if it had no detail and was cel shaded it would still be as fun. That is what graphics aren't important means.
One of the most playable games ever has SNES age graphics (Prety much) but I play near to EVERY day, is Transport Tycoon. And they still sell it. If you don't have it get it! Wins over Sim City any day. Even though you're only building up a transport company.
I just came across this thread again while reading things. Thought I might chip in again.
Memorandum wrote:
> I mean look at how GTA benefitted from jumping to the
> great looking 3D world.
I'm one of the few people utterly unswayed by that argument. I enjoyed the original GTA, the newest two don't interest me at all.
Memorandum wrote:
> I mean look at how GTA benefitted from jumping to the
> great looking 3D world.
I'm one of the few people utterly unswayed by that argument. I enjoyed the original GTA, the newest two don't interest me at all.
Graphics are important, but so are game play, audio, and so on. Now, I can put up with "average" graphics if the rest of the game is really good. If a games has top of the line graphics, but the game play is rubbish - then I would keep clear of it, - what’s the point in buying a game because it looks good if you hate playing it!
BEARDS. wrote:
> And I still play
> the original Master Of Orion
Definitely one of the best games ever. I remember it must have been about 1998 when I came across a discount Microprose strategy game 'double header'. It had both UFO: Enemy Unknown and Master Of Orion, for a grand total of £4. I hadn't heard of MoO at the time, but I'd heard UFO had been a popular game in it's time, so I made the purchase.
Undoubtedly the best £4 I have ever spent in my life. What turned out to be two of my favourite games of all time, both in the same bundle. The only game which has ever come close to the amount of time I've spent on those two is Morrowind, and that still has a *lot* of catching up to do. UFO and MoO also both inspired me to collect the entire series od X-com and MoO games, though the sequels didn't have quite the same magic as the originals.
And now, I wait in anticipation of Master Of Orion 3...
> And I still play
> the original Master Of Orion
Definitely one of the best games ever. I remember it must have been about 1998 when I came across a discount Microprose strategy game 'double header'. It had both UFO: Enemy Unknown and Master Of Orion, for a grand total of £4. I hadn't heard of MoO at the time, but I'd heard UFO had been a popular game in it's time, so I made the purchase.
Undoubtedly the best £4 I have ever spent in my life. What turned out to be two of my favourite games of all time, both in the same bundle. The only game which has ever come close to the amount of time I've spent on those two is Morrowind, and that still has a *lot* of catching up to do. UFO and MoO also both inspired me to collect the entire series od X-com and MoO games, though the sequels didn't have quite the same magic as the originals.
And now, I wait in anticipation of Master Of Orion 3...
That is a good example, but if i had to choose between a game with okay graphics, and good gameplay, and a game with brilliant graphics, and okay gameplay, i'd choose the one with the gameplay, graphics win over everything.
Hmm, I can see this argument is going nowhere fast for me, and I do agree with you partially, but at the same time bad graphics utterly ruin some games, I mean look at how GTA benefitted from jumping to the great looking 3D world.
I'd say some utterly ruin some games. You start playing a game and then you realise that the reason it's really pretty is because they clearly skimped on the programmers to hire more artists. And I don't always want to see what it looks like when I could come up with something better. Such is the joy of text-adventures.
I will check back here in the morning, I'm off out.
Page: