The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
There used to be a time when gamers would argue endlessly over which console had the best graphics. The N64 had muddy colours, the PS2 was jaggy and had popup. Cases for the defence included the fact that one was a 64-bit console and the other was only 32-bit. Cases for the prosecution went as far as to say at one stage that Nintys were all blinded by Mario and therefore couldn't make a definitive judgement on the issue, whilst Sonyphiles were accused of being swayed by the graphics in Gran Turismo 2 and Metal Gear Solid so much so that they tended to forget that there were over 600 other games out there for the PSX that just didn't cut the mustard.
Now we have the Gamecube, PS2 and XBox. Anyone who has played on all 3 without any bias would have a hard time distinguishing which console was which if they only had the screen image to go on. The fact that you really can't tell which console is running just by looking at the screen gives some indication of how close the big 3 are now to providing 'perfection' in graphical display.
Today's gamers expect this high quality of graphics as the norm, not the exception. And most developers now attain this high level with every release. Most dedicated gaming magazines still insist on scoring games by four criteria: Graphics, Sound, Gameplay and Lifespan, but aren't we're getting close to the stage now, surely, where only the last two criteria are all that really count?
Sound, in particular, must be out of date. Hooked up to a decent surround sound system, all games of any note now sound good, no matter which modern console is playing them. It seems to me that 'loading times' and 'performance' would be better criteria for scoring a game these days.
For example, compare Wipeout Fusion to Final Fantasy X. Graphically they are on a par, because they do everything that is required of their respective genres. In terms of sound, again, what more could you ask for from either game? But Wipeout Fusion's loading times? Abhorrent if you compare them to the seemingly non-existent loading times in Final Fantasy X. And performance? Well, Wipeout Fusion is good, but if there's enough onscreen action going on there's always the odd jitter in the framerate, enough to cause a player to make the odd mistake from time to time, yet there's no slowdown in Final Fantasy X to my knowledge.
A counter argument to this is that should a game have great longevity, it stands to reason that you'll be watching it for a long time as you play, therefore at least the very least the graphics should be aesthetically pleasing to the eye. This doesn't have much to do with the technical side (polygon count, pixels being pushed per second and so on) but more to do with artistic touches like cel-shading and special effects, texturing and sheer variety between the different levels. So again, 'graphics' isn't the right word for what we are judging the game on, perhaps 'Artistry' or 'Aesthetics' would be a more appropriate heading.
Gamers have been demanding high quality graphics for a long time, and to me it seems that developers have met and mostly exceeded those demands. We shouldn't have to judge games by how they look anymore, but concentrate more on how they play and how we experience them. Therefore we should start looking for different categories to judge them on.
Sure, first impressions can be great, but if you buy any decent game these days you've got 30+ hours of gaming included with it, so really your first impressions should be the last thing on your mind once you get into the game.
Now we have the Gamecube, PS2 and XBox. Anyone who has played on all 3 without any bias would have a hard time distinguishing which console was which if they only had the screen image to go on. The fact that you really can't tell which console is running just by looking at the screen gives some indication of how close the big 3 are now to providing 'perfection' in graphical display.
Today's gamers expect this high quality of graphics as the norm, not the exception. And most developers now attain this high level with every release. Most dedicated gaming magazines still insist on scoring games by four criteria: Graphics, Sound, Gameplay and Lifespan, but aren't we're getting close to the stage now, surely, where only the last two criteria are all that really count?
Sound, in particular, must be out of date. Hooked up to a decent surround sound system, all games of any note now sound good, no matter which modern console is playing them. It seems to me that 'loading times' and 'performance' would be better criteria for scoring a game these days.
For example, compare Wipeout Fusion to Final Fantasy X. Graphically they are on a par, because they do everything that is required of their respective genres. In terms of sound, again, what more could you ask for from either game? But Wipeout Fusion's loading times? Abhorrent if you compare them to the seemingly non-existent loading times in Final Fantasy X. And performance? Well, Wipeout Fusion is good, but if there's enough onscreen action going on there's always the odd jitter in the framerate, enough to cause a player to make the odd mistake from time to time, yet there's no slowdown in Final Fantasy X to my knowledge.
A counter argument to this is that should a game have great longevity, it stands to reason that you'll be watching it for a long time as you play, therefore at least the very least the graphics should be aesthetically pleasing to the eye. This doesn't have much to do with the technical side (polygon count, pixels being pushed per second and so on) but more to do with artistic touches like cel-shading and special effects, texturing and sheer variety between the different levels. So again, 'graphics' isn't the right word for what we are judging the game on, perhaps 'Artistry' or 'Aesthetics' would be a more appropriate heading.
Gamers have been demanding high quality graphics for a long time, and to me it seems that developers have met and mostly exceeded those demands. We shouldn't have to judge games by how they look anymore, but concentrate more on how they play and how we experience them. Therefore we should start looking for different categories to judge them on.
Sure, first impressions can be great, but if you buy any decent game these days you've got 30+ hours of gaming included with it, so really your first impressions should be the last thing on your mind once you get into the game.
I really like the criteria on which the Official Xbox mag reviews are based:
-Power: How techniqually adept is the game? How impressive is it?
-Style: How stylish is the game? How well is each aspect of it designed?
-Immersion: How involving is the game? Are the controls instinctive or awkward?
-Lifespan: -
This seems a good way to do it.
-Power: How techniqually adept is the game? How impressive is it?
-Style: How stylish is the game? How well is each aspect of it designed?
-Immersion: How involving is the game? Are the controls instinctive or awkward?
-Lifespan: -
This seems a good way to do it.
There used to be a time when gamers would argue endlessly over which console had the best graphics. The N64 had muddy colours, the PS2 was jaggy and had popup. Cases for the defence included the fact that one was a 64-bit console and the other was only 32-bit. Cases for the prosecution went as far as to say at one stage that Nintys were all blinded by Mario and therefore couldn't make a definitive judgement on the issue, whilst Sonyphiles were accused of being swayed by the graphics in Gran Turismo 2 and Metal Gear Solid so much so that they tended to forget that there were over 600 other games out there for the PSX that just didn't cut the mustard.
Now we have the Gamecube, PS2 and XBox. Anyone who has played on all 3 without any bias would have a hard time distinguishing which console was which if they only had the screen image to go on. The fact that you really can't tell which console is running just by looking at the screen gives some indication of how close the big 3 are now to providing 'perfection' in graphical display.
Today's gamers expect this high quality of graphics as the norm, not the exception. And most developers now attain this high level with every release. Most dedicated gaming magazines still insist on scoring games by four criteria: Graphics, Sound, Gameplay and Lifespan, but aren't we're getting close to the stage now, surely, where only the last two criteria are all that really count?
Sound, in particular, must be out of date. Hooked up to a decent surround sound system, all games of any note now sound good, no matter which modern console is playing them. It seems to me that 'loading times' and 'performance' would be better criteria for scoring a game these days.
For example, compare Wipeout Fusion to Final Fantasy X. Graphically they are on a par, because they do everything that is required of their respective genres. In terms of sound, again, what more could you ask for from either game? But Wipeout Fusion's loading times? Abhorrent if you compare them to the seemingly non-existent loading times in Final Fantasy X. And performance? Well, Wipeout Fusion is good, but if there's enough onscreen action going on there's always the odd jitter in the framerate, enough to cause a player to make the odd mistake from time to time, yet there's no slowdown in Final Fantasy X to my knowledge.
A counter argument to this is that should a game have great longevity, it stands to reason that you'll be watching it for a long time as you play, therefore at least the very least the graphics should be aesthetically pleasing to the eye. This doesn't have much to do with the technical side (polygon count, pixels being pushed per second and so on) but more to do with artistic touches like cel-shading and special effects, texturing and sheer variety between the different levels. So again, 'graphics' isn't the right word for what we are judging the game on, perhaps 'Artistry' or 'Aesthetics' would be a more appropriate heading.
Gamers have been demanding high quality graphics for a long time, and to me it seems that developers have met and mostly exceeded those demands. We shouldn't have to judge games by how they look anymore, but concentrate more on how they play and how we experience them. Therefore we should start looking for different categories to judge them on.
Sure, first impressions can be great, but if you buy any decent game these days you've got 30+ hours of gaming included with it, so really your first impressions should be the last thing on your mind once you get into the game.
Now we have the Gamecube, PS2 and XBox. Anyone who has played on all 3 without any bias would have a hard time distinguishing which console was which if they only had the screen image to go on. The fact that you really can't tell which console is running just by looking at the screen gives some indication of how close the big 3 are now to providing 'perfection' in graphical display.
Today's gamers expect this high quality of graphics as the norm, not the exception. And most developers now attain this high level with every release. Most dedicated gaming magazines still insist on scoring games by four criteria: Graphics, Sound, Gameplay and Lifespan, but aren't we're getting close to the stage now, surely, where only the last two criteria are all that really count?
Sound, in particular, must be out of date. Hooked up to a decent surround sound system, all games of any note now sound good, no matter which modern console is playing them. It seems to me that 'loading times' and 'performance' would be better criteria for scoring a game these days.
For example, compare Wipeout Fusion to Final Fantasy X. Graphically they are on a par, because they do everything that is required of their respective genres. In terms of sound, again, what more could you ask for from either game? But Wipeout Fusion's loading times? Abhorrent if you compare them to the seemingly non-existent loading times in Final Fantasy X. And performance? Well, Wipeout Fusion is good, but if there's enough onscreen action going on there's always the odd jitter in the framerate, enough to cause a player to make the odd mistake from time to time, yet there's no slowdown in Final Fantasy X to my knowledge.
A counter argument to this is that should a game have great longevity, it stands to reason that you'll be watching it for a long time as you play, therefore at least the very least the graphics should be aesthetically pleasing to the eye. This doesn't have much to do with the technical side (polygon count, pixels being pushed per second and so on) but more to do with artistic touches like cel-shading and special effects, texturing and sheer variety between the different levels. So again, 'graphics' isn't the right word for what we are judging the game on, perhaps 'Artistry' or 'Aesthetics' would be a more appropriate heading.
Gamers have been demanding high quality graphics for a long time, and to me it seems that developers have met and mostly exceeded those demands. We shouldn't have to judge games by how they look anymore, but concentrate more on how they play and how we experience them. Therefore we should start looking for different categories to judge them on.
Sure, first impressions can be great, but if you buy any decent game these days you've got 30+ hours of gaming included with it, so really your first impressions should be the last thing on your mind once you get into the game.