Viewing Thread:
"Are Graphics all you would want in a computer game?"

What I am tending to find increasing more in computer games nowadays is that developers are tending to rely more on creating lavish graphics in games rather than trying to make good gameplay and make it interesting to play. With technology increasingly improving all the time, and three new consoles due out by the end of next year, we have to ask ourselves if games developers are more interested in creating games that look good rather than creating games tha play good. Graphics are good as a first impression, some games like for example Metal Gear Solid 2, look absolutely mind boggling, but the problem is that with some games, once you get under the lavish graphics, the game is very shallow in terms of gameplay. Let me make an example- Zelda. Zelda-Link to the Past, was released many years ago on the SNES and was a basic 3D RPG. However, what it lost in graphics made up I believe in gameplay- I must have played it and completed it so many times and I never get bored of it. With the N64 remake Zelda:Ocarina of Time, that was released a couple of years ago, it had very nice looking graphics, but after I had completed it, I never really wanted to play it again- it didnt hold my interest. This kind of scenerio happens in many sequels that are released in technologically more advanced systems. I hope that when the new systems are launched, the Xbox, PS2 and PS2, which are capable of producing even more higher quality games- that games developers dont ignore gameplay over making games that look good.

What I am tending to find increasing more in computer games nowadays is that developers are tending to rely more on creating lavish graphics in games rather than trying to make good gameplay and make it interesting to play. With technology increasingly improving all the time, and three new consoles due out by the end of next year, we have to ask ourselves if games developers are more interested in creating games that look good rather than creating games tha play good. Graphics are good as a first impression, some games like for example Metal Gear Solid 2, look absolutely mind boggling, but the problem is that with some games, once you get under the lavish graphics, the game is very shallow in terms of gameplay. Let me make an example- Zelda. Zelda-Link to the Past, was released many years ago on the SNES and was a basic 3D RPG. However, what it lost in graphics made up I believe in gameplay- I must have played it and completed it so many times and I never get bored of it. With the N64 remake Zelda:Ocarina of Time, that was released a couple of years ago, it had very nice looking graphics, but after I had completed it, I never really wanted to play it again- it didnt hold my interest. This kind of scenerio happens in many sequels that are released in technologically more advanced systems. I hope that when the new systems are launched, the Xbox, PS2 and PS2, which are capable of producing even more higher quality games- that games developers dont ignore gameplay over making games that look good.

Nope we don't need good graphics in the games. The classic paperboiy was good but they brought a 3D version of it and it was rubbish. Graphics only make you go wow, until you move on the next level and find it is dull.
Basic games like centipide didn't need any snazy graphics to make it another classic. It gave you the fun factor (raking up your scores and going up the game's table of best scores). The game doesn't need to be complex to be a good game. Zelda OoT had nice graphics and great gameplay that made it a amazing experience although it didn't last long it was good. Like the ISS series the core of the gameplay stayed the same but the rest of it changed.
Game Developers should spend more time on the gameplay rather than touching up the graphics. And games on next gen consoles may take longer to make because of fitting all the special effects in plus the main gameplay inside, it could take ages if they spend 2 years on improving the graphics and framerate.

Totally agree with you Lock, I do think that developers though tend to go for first impacts to encourage gamers to buy their games, as most of the time people tend to look on the back of the box before they buy... I do say that good graphics SOMETIMES benefit the game, but most of the time all the do is enhanse, not improve the overall quality of the game, i.e a game that looks good does not always PLAY good.

Great graphics enhance a good game, but don't make them play any better - unless you consider that frame rates and good graphics engine design can avoid all those nasty camera angles and dodgy ledges etc.
Mostly people will buy games if they see the graphics, then play the game. First impressions count so it's important for a game to stand out. Also, having good gameplay is great, having this AND good graphics is better. It doesn't mean that you have to sacrifice one to get the other.

Just asking a question, i've claimed my gamea day prize why isn't it on the list.

I don't think they appear for a few days, I guess Ali is busy :-)

Mine was mailed off a few days ago, but don't forget that they have to look through all these postings we send as well as all the mails they must get. I'm guessing it seems like there is only one person in charge of all of this, am I right?

BTW: I'll get back on topic in a minute