The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
“The Jeckle and Hyde syndrome”
What’s this you might ask? Well, its something that many games suffer from, and very much so at this time of year. On one hand, the game in question maybe very nice, all signs seem to be pointing to a good game and your looking forward to playing it. But then, the full moon appears, and the dark side of the game appears, here things turn bad and the once promising title suddenly throws out it rage, and all is not as it seems. What are we talking about? Not the plot, the age-old game play and graphics argument.
It’s a safe bet for us all to presume that most of us know what goes down with this argument. Which is better, and what should the game have in this day and age to be a good title? Some of us argue that a game needs to look good. Consoles these days are capable of some astonishing things to simple take our breath away as we gaze on them. There are the games that littlerally look too good to be true and you really can’t believe what you are seeing. Of course, then you have the people who take the view up that games need to have good game play in then to be good, regardless of the graphics. As long as the game play is great then the game will not suffer any way or anyhow. Both these arguments are valid, and it depends on which side of the gaming fence you sit, or whether, like me and most others, you sit on top, and think that for a truly brilliant game in this day and age, you really need to have both graphics and game play. Of course that has changed over time.
Back on the old consoles, the graphics by today’s standards as well all know were nowhere in comparison. Back then we didn’t expect great graphics as we knew that the consoles were not capable of this, none of us ever compared them to the things we saw on TV and so on. We were all pleased enough by the more often than not good game play that the games gave us. There was only one real side to the gaming at this time, as long as the graphics were neat and colourful, and game play was great, we were happy. Times change, and so did the graphics, and the expectations of games. As technology improved people began to expect the graphics of all games to be at there best, and developers tried to give this us, but sometimes, as we know, they succeeded in this, but often forgot the game play side. And this often happens.
Thus, “The Jeckle and Hyde syndrome” was born.
In short, this sums up a lot of games that we see around the year, and as I said, many games that often come out around the Christmas time. What it means is that, one half of what makes up the game is good, and is proving to have been done well, while the other half was seriously neglected and in the end, left to wither and die. And this can go either way, either the graphics, or the game play.
Most commonly, with the demand of the graphics to be high by most people these days, in most games this is the area that’s had the most time spent on them. The games look astonishing, like there suppose to, often creating the situation they are meant to perfectly. The sub-urban metropolis or the screaming racing car or even the football player on the field all look like they should, often in an attempt to defy the fact that this is a game. Or it could be the other way round, the developers spend lots of time on the game play, making sure the game runs perfect, and is meant to play like it does in real life, or just making the fact that the game is fun to play. This is the Dr Jeckle side of the syndrome. The first part of the games are looking really well. Half of the game is well on track to making the game look well. This is the nice part of the game. But, just like Dr Jeckle did, something happens, and the game soon changes with some abnormalities into something else.
More often than not, as the developer has spent so much time on the graphics, the game play has been neglected, and for all the looks the game may have, its seriously hampered by the defects that it holds. If the game doesn’t play well then the gamer just isn’t going to like it. Dodgy collision detectors, ropey frame rates or repetitive gaming, we have all seen it. It’s a poor state of affairs. Or maybe it’s the other way round, in today’s gaming age, does good game play equal good games even if the graphics are poor? Probably not, people expect both to be on par now, and when there not, things don’t look good. And just like poor old Mr Hyde, these games stagger along, suffering from the poor development they received in one area. The games had so much going for them, but when put together, they slump to a poor excuse for a release.
It’s a sad state of affairs. Yet for as long as the problem has been around, and become common knowledge, its still around now, and every Friday, and every Christmas another new game comes out suffering from this often common syndrome. What’s the cause of this? Well, there are many things, maybe the developers are poor at there job, not spending enough time on there games on both accounts, leading to things like the Bouncer, maybe there is pressure to show off what a console to do? Or maybe it’s the fact that the game holds a license, and as long as it looks good it will sell. Making money plays a big part, as long as people go into shops and judge the game by its cover (showing the best graphics ever) then the games will keep selling, as many people do this. So as people still buy the games, the games will be still made.
Its like a viscous cycle, “The Jeckle and Hyde syndrome” vs “The human condition”. As the games come out, many people buy the games on merit of the graphics.
For this to end, one of them has to disappear. Question is, which first? Or even more so, will they ever?
What’s this you might ask? Well, its something that many games suffer from, and very much so at this time of year. On one hand, the game in question maybe very nice, all signs seem to be pointing to a good game and your looking forward to playing it. But then, the full moon appears, and the dark side of the game appears, here things turn bad and the once promising title suddenly throws out it rage, and all is not as it seems. What are we talking about? Not the plot, the age-old game play and graphics argument.
It’s a safe bet for us all to presume that most of us know what goes down with this argument. Which is better, and what should the game have in this day and age to be a good title? Some of us argue that a game needs to look good. Consoles these days are capable of some astonishing things to simple take our breath away as we gaze on them. There are the games that littlerally look too good to be true and you really can’t believe what you are seeing. Of course, then you have the people who take the view up that games need to have good game play in then to be good, regardless of the graphics. As long as the game play is great then the game will not suffer any way or anyhow. Both these arguments are valid, and it depends on which side of the gaming fence you sit, or whether, like me and most others, you sit on top, and think that for a truly brilliant game in this day and age, you really need to have both graphics and game play. Of course that has changed over time.
Back on the old consoles, the graphics by today’s standards as well all know were nowhere in comparison. Back then we didn’t expect great graphics as we knew that the consoles were not capable of this, none of us ever compared them to the things we saw on TV and so on. We were all pleased enough by the more often than not good game play that the games gave us. There was only one real side to the gaming at this time, as long as the graphics were neat and colourful, and game play was great, we were happy. Times change, and so did the graphics, and the expectations of games. As technology improved people began to expect the graphics of all games to be at there best, and developers tried to give this us, but sometimes, as we know, they succeeded in this, but often forgot the game play side. And this often happens.
Thus, “The Jeckle and Hyde syndrome” was born.
In short, this sums up a lot of games that we see around the year, and as I said, many games that often come out around the Christmas time. What it means is that, one half of what makes up the game is good, and is proving to have been done well, while the other half was seriously neglected and in the end, left to wither and die. And this can go either way, either the graphics, or the game play.
Most commonly, with the demand of the graphics to be high by most people these days, in most games this is the area that’s had the most time spent on them. The games look astonishing, like there suppose to, often creating the situation they are meant to perfectly. The sub-urban metropolis or the screaming racing car or even the football player on the field all look like they should, often in an attempt to defy the fact that this is a game. Or it could be the other way round, the developers spend lots of time on the game play, making sure the game runs perfect, and is meant to play like it does in real life, or just making the fact that the game is fun to play. This is the Dr Jeckle side of the syndrome. The first part of the games are looking really well. Half of the game is well on track to making the game look well. This is the nice part of the game. But, just like Dr Jeckle did, something happens, and the game soon changes with some abnormalities into something else.
More often than not, as the developer has spent so much time on the graphics, the game play has been neglected, and for all the looks the game may have, its seriously hampered by the defects that it holds. If the game doesn’t play well then the gamer just isn’t going to like it. Dodgy collision detectors, ropey frame rates or repetitive gaming, we have all seen it. It’s a poor state of affairs. Or maybe it’s the other way round, in today’s gaming age, does good game play equal good games even if the graphics are poor? Probably not, people expect both to be on par now, and when there not, things don’t look good. And just like poor old Mr Hyde, these games stagger along, suffering from the poor development they received in one area. The games had so much going for them, but when put together, they slump to a poor excuse for a release.
It’s a sad state of affairs. Yet for as long as the problem has been around, and become common knowledge, its still around now, and every Friday, and every Christmas another new game comes out suffering from this often common syndrome. What’s the cause of this? Well, there are many things, maybe the developers are poor at there job, not spending enough time on there games on both accounts, leading to things like the Bouncer, maybe there is pressure to show off what a console to do? Or maybe it’s the fact that the game holds a license, and as long as it looks good it will sell. Making money plays a big part, as long as people go into shops and judge the game by its cover (showing the best graphics ever) then the games will keep selling, as many people do this. So as people still buy the games, the games will be still made.
Its like a viscous cycle, “The Jeckle and Hyde syndrome” vs “The human condition”. As the games come out, many people buy the games on merit of the graphics.
For this to end, one of them has to disappear. Question is, which first? Or even more so, will they ever?
'The jeckly and hyde syndrome' is a perfect way of explaining the art trying to balance a game, as you said more often than not, a developer tends to spend so much time on making a game look good that he has limited time to spend on graphics and this is vice versa. I think a lot of this has to do with the demand from gamers these days, but as we all know things take time to develop if it's going to avoid the J&H sydrome. Take for example MGS 2, after the initial game on the PS 1, I longed for the sequel to be released and after it didn't for a while, I felt deprived in some way. However, Konami did take their time, but released a superb game, evenly balanced out with graphics and gameplay - this is something that the gamer wants, but we just have to wait a while to get that little more and developer's have to understand not to rush a game just so that they can make a profit out of it.
Ah jekyll and hyde quite a good book if you dont have to study it.
pop
“The Jeckle and Hyde syndrome”
What’s this you might ask? Well, its something that many games suffer from, and very much so at this time of year. On one hand, the game in question maybe very nice, all signs seem to be pointing to a good game and your looking forward to playing it. But then, the full moon appears, and the dark side of the game appears, here things turn bad and the once promising title suddenly throws out it rage, and all is not as it seems. What are we talking about? Not the plot, the age-old game play and graphics argument.
It’s a safe bet for us all to presume that most of us know what goes down with this argument. Which is better, and what should the game have in this day and age to be a good title? Some of us argue that a game needs to look good. Consoles these days are capable of some astonishing things to simple take our breath away as we gaze on them. There are the games that littlerally look too good to be true and you really can’t believe what you are seeing. Of course, then you have the people who take the view up that games need to have good game play in then to be good, regardless of the graphics. As long as the game play is great then the game will not suffer any way or anyhow. Both these arguments are valid, and it depends on which side of the gaming fence you sit, or whether, like me and most others, you sit on top, and think that for a truly brilliant game in this day and age, you really need to have both graphics and game play. Of course that has changed over time.
Back on the old consoles, the graphics by today’s standards as well all know were nowhere in comparison. Back then we didn’t expect great graphics as we knew that the consoles were not capable of this, none of us ever compared them to the things we saw on TV and so on. We were all pleased enough by the more often than not good game play that the games gave us. There was only one real side to the gaming at this time, as long as the graphics were neat and colourful, and game play was great, we were happy. Times change, and so did the graphics, and the expectations of games. As technology improved people began to expect the graphics of all games to be at there best, and developers tried to give this us, but sometimes, as we know, they succeeded in this, but often forgot the game play side. And this often happens.
Thus, “The Jeckle and Hyde syndrome” was born.
In short, this sums up a lot of games that we see around the year, and as I said, many games that often come out around the Christmas time. What it means is that, one half of what makes up the game is good, and is proving to have been done well, while the other half was seriously neglected and in the end, left to wither and die. And this can go either way, either the graphics, or the game play.
Most commonly, with the demand of the graphics to be high by most people these days, in most games this is the area that’s had the most time spent on them. The games look astonishing, like there suppose to, often creating the situation they are meant to perfectly. The sub-urban metropolis or the screaming racing car or even the football player on the field all look like they should, often in an attempt to defy the fact that this is a game. Or it could be the other way round, the developers spend lots of time on the game play, making sure the game runs perfect, and is meant to play like it does in real life, or just making the fact that the game is fun to play. This is the Dr Jeckle side of the syndrome. The first part of the games are looking really well. Half of the game is well on track to making the game look well. This is the nice part of the game. But, just like Dr Jeckle did, something happens, and the game soon changes with some abnormalities into something else.
More often than not, as the developer has spent so much time on the graphics, the game play has been neglected, and for all the looks the game may have, its seriously hampered by the defects that it holds. If the game doesn’t play well then the gamer just isn’t going to like it. Dodgy collision detectors, ropey frame rates or repetitive gaming, we have all seen it. It’s a poor state of affairs. Or maybe it’s the other way round, in today’s gaming age, does good game play equal good games even if the graphics are poor? Probably not, people expect both to be on par now, and when there not, things don’t look good. And just like poor old Mr Hyde, these games stagger along, suffering from the poor development they received in one area. The games had so much going for them, but when put together, they slump to a poor excuse for a release.
It’s a sad state of affairs. Yet for as long as the problem has been around, and become common knowledge, its still around now, and every Friday, and every Christmas another new game comes out suffering from this often common syndrome. What’s the cause of this? Well, there are many things, maybe the developers are poor at there job, not spending enough time on there games on both accounts, leading to things like the Bouncer, maybe there is pressure to show off what a console to do? Or maybe it’s the fact that the game holds a license, and as long as it looks good it will sell. Making money plays a big part, as long as people go into shops and judge the game by its cover (showing the best graphics ever) then the games will keep selling, as many people do this. So as people still buy the games, the games will be still made.
Its like a viscous cycle, “The Jeckle and Hyde syndrome” vs “The human condition”. As the games come out, many people buy the games on merit of the graphics.
For this to end, one of them has to disappear. Question is, which first? Or even more so, will they ever?
What’s this you might ask? Well, its something that many games suffer from, and very much so at this time of year. On one hand, the game in question maybe very nice, all signs seem to be pointing to a good game and your looking forward to playing it. But then, the full moon appears, and the dark side of the game appears, here things turn bad and the once promising title suddenly throws out it rage, and all is not as it seems. What are we talking about? Not the plot, the age-old game play and graphics argument.
It’s a safe bet for us all to presume that most of us know what goes down with this argument. Which is better, and what should the game have in this day and age to be a good title? Some of us argue that a game needs to look good. Consoles these days are capable of some astonishing things to simple take our breath away as we gaze on them. There are the games that littlerally look too good to be true and you really can’t believe what you are seeing. Of course, then you have the people who take the view up that games need to have good game play in then to be good, regardless of the graphics. As long as the game play is great then the game will not suffer any way or anyhow. Both these arguments are valid, and it depends on which side of the gaming fence you sit, or whether, like me and most others, you sit on top, and think that for a truly brilliant game in this day and age, you really need to have both graphics and game play. Of course that has changed over time.
Back on the old consoles, the graphics by today’s standards as well all know were nowhere in comparison. Back then we didn’t expect great graphics as we knew that the consoles were not capable of this, none of us ever compared them to the things we saw on TV and so on. We were all pleased enough by the more often than not good game play that the games gave us. There was only one real side to the gaming at this time, as long as the graphics were neat and colourful, and game play was great, we were happy. Times change, and so did the graphics, and the expectations of games. As technology improved people began to expect the graphics of all games to be at there best, and developers tried to give this us, but sometimes, as we know, they succeeded in this, but often forgot the game play side. And this often happens.
Thus, “The Jeckle and Hyde syndrome” was born.
In short, this sums up a lot of games that we see around the year, and as I said, many games that often come out around the Christmas time. What it means is that, one half of what makes up the game is good, and is proving to have been done well, while the other half was seriously neglected and in the end, left to wither and die. And this can go either way, either the graphics, or the game play.
Most commonly, with the demand of the graphics to be high by most people these days, in most games this is the area that’s had the most time spent on them. The games look astonishing, like there suppose to, often creating the situation they are meant to perfectly. The sub-urban metropolis or the screaming racing car or even the football player on the field all look like they should, often in an attempt to defy the fact that this is a game. Or it could be the other way round, the developers spend lots of time on the game play, making sure the game runs perfect, and is meant to play like it does in real life, or just making the fact that the game is fun to play. This is the Dr Jeckle side of the syndrome. The first part of the games are looking really well. Half of the game is well on track to making the game look well. This is the nice part of the game. But, just like Dr Jeckle did, something happens, and the game soon changes with some abnormalities into something else.
More often than not, as the developer has spent so much time on the graphics, the game play has been neglected, and for all the looks the game may have, its seriously hampered by the defects that it holds. If the game doesn’t play well then the gamer just isn’t going to like it. Dodgy collision detectors, ropey frame rates or repetitive gaming, we have all seen it. It’s a poor state of affairs. Or maybe it’s the other way round, in today’s gaming age, does good game play equal good games even if the graphics are poor? Probably not, people expect both to be on par now, and when there not, things don’t look good. And just like poor old Mr Hyde, these games stagger along, suffering from the poor development they received in one area. The games had so much going for them, but when put together, they slump to a poor excuse for a release.
It’s a sad state of affairs. Yet for as long as the problem has been around, and become common knowledge, its still around now, and every Friday, and every Christmas another new game comes out suffering from this often common syndrome. What’s the cause of this? Well, there are many things, maybe the developers are poor at there job, not spending enough time on there games on both accounts, leading to things like the Bouncer, maybe there is pressure to show off what a console to do? Or maybe it’s the fact that the game holds a license, and as long as it looks good it will sell. Making money plays a big part, as long as people go into shops and judge the game by its cover (showing the best graphics ever) then the games will keep selling, as many people do this. So as people still buy the games, the games will be still made.
Its like a viscous cycle, “The Jeckle and Hyde syndrome” vs “The human condition”. As the games come out, many people buy the games on merit of the graphics.
For this to end, one of them has to disappear. Question is, which first? Or even more so, will they ever?