The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Lots of people have been complaining about the graphics of games, such as the new look Zelda, with it's pretty cool cel-shaded look. But if a game has excellent gameplay and is generally fun to play, why should graphics matter. Obviously if the game is rubbish as well as its graphics then steer clear but otherwise maybe we should take a look (or to be accurate, have a go) before we make our cynical, stereotyped comments.
The Xbox boasts about its huge processor and the rest but that doesn't mean the game is going to be great. Graphics aren't everything (my friend seems to think so, though) and thats why consoles like the PS2 and GC, with not as good graphical power still are high flyers in the console market.
The Xbox also has games, which, when you play them, has your average Joe graphics. The little movies developers like to show you are just the 'good' bits. In game, its a PS2 or a Gamecube. Nothing special, nothing great. Saying that, a game with good graphics is still fun to play than one with good gameplay and ok graphics. But would you not buy a game (or for that matter, a games console) because of its graphic (or size / look for consoles)? I don't think so somehow...
The we have games which it is obvious that they've spent hours and hours making great graphics, which are nice to look at and all, but the gameplay is not at that developers usual standard. This annoys me because gamers like myself will still play a game if its got ok (or even not ok) graphics. A prime example is the re-release of Final Fantasy
6. Sony / Square would not release this if they weren't confident it was going to succeed (for gameplay or for the demo of FFX..) but it certainly was going to succeed if all it relied on was its graphics. No-one cared 'back then' about graphics. Some tech freaks did, but most people just wanted the latest version of Pong, something simple and addictive. Leading me to my main point of has the market become far too addicted to graphics (and their progress) rather than the actual games themselves?
Games like Zelda. The public got a taste of whats to come when Shigeru Miyamoto showed the world his tech demo of Zelda for the GC. Lots of gasping and muttering of oooh...ahhh followed. But then he changes his mind, goes all
original on us and makes it cel shaded game. And what an
interesting reaction from the market. NOM magazine claimed it was a good idea (whether it be biased or not, im not sure). Letter's pages were filled to the brim with questions
about this new idea. And at first, I didn't hate the graphics, just thought they were 'original'. But then I asked myself 'why am i concerned about graphics when ive never even played the game'. So when the GC comes out, Ill buy one. When Zelda comes out Ill buy that too. But will some people not buy it just because of it's cel-shaded look?
I hope not, as my guess is more of that type of game is to come (Auto Modellista ... yay ...)
It works both ways as well, so those who dont buy a game because of non-superior graphics are left with very little choice of games.. If a game came out with rubbish gameplay but great graphics they still wouldn't buy it. So what do they buy? The rare game with both? Which is now, more than ever, rare. Then other factors will intervene. Will they not buy a game because it's colourful therfore kiddyish? I'd hope not. Spyro and Banjo Kazooie / Tooie are great games and not at all easy / boring. Will they not buy a party game or addictive puzzler because of its simplicity. All these questions are raised.
So what do you think? Any replies welcome.
Hope you enjoyed reading :)
The Xbox boasts about its huge processor and the rest but that doesn't mean the game is going to be great. Graphics aren't everything (my friend seems to think so, though) and thats why consoles like the PS2 and GC, with not as good graphical power still are high flyers in the console market.
The Xbox also has games, which, when you play them, has your average Joe graphics. The little movies developers like to show you are just the 'good' bits. In game, its a PS2 or a Gamecube. Nothing special, nothing great. Saying that, a game with good graphics is still fun to play than one with good gameplay and ok graphics. But would you not buy a game (or for that matter, a games console) because of its graphic (or size / look for consoles)? I don't think so somehow...
The we have games which it is obvious that they've spent hours and hours making great graphics, which are nice to look at and all, but the gameplay is not at that developers usual standard. This annoys me because gamers like myself will still play a game if its got ok (or even not ok) graphics. A prime example is the re-release of Final Fantasy
6. Sony / Square would not release this if they weren't confident it was going to succeed (for gameplay or for the demo of FFX..) but it certainly was going to succeed if all it relied on was its graphics. No-one cared 'back then' about graphics. Some tech freaks did, but most people just wanted the latest version of Pong, something simple and addictive. Leading me to my main point of has the market become far too addicted to graphics (and their progress) rather than the actual games themselves?
Games like Zelda. The public got a taste of whats to come when Shigeru Miyamoto showed the world his tech demo of Zelda for the GC. Lots of gasping and muttering of oooh...ahhh followed. But then he changes his mind, goes all
original on us and makes it cel shaded game. And what an
interesting reaction from the market. NOM magazine claimed it was a good idea (whether it be biased or not, im not sure). Letter's pages were filled to the brim with questions
about this new idea. And at first, I didn't hate the graphics, just thought they were 'original'. But then I asked myself 'why am i concerned about graphics when ive never even played the game'. So when the GC comes out, Ill buy one. When Zelda comes out Ill buy that too. But will some people not buy it just because of it's cel-shaded look?
I hope not, as my guess is more of that type of game is to come (Auto Modellista ... yay ...)
It works both ways as well, so those who dont buy a game because of non-superior graphics are left with very little choice of games.. If a game came out with rubbish gameplay but great graphics they still wouldn't buy it. So what do they buy? The rare game with both? Which is now, more than ever, rare. Then other factors will intervene. Will they not buy a game because it's colourful therfore kiddyish? I'd hope not. Spyro and Banjo Kazooie / Tooie are great games and not at all easy / boring. Will they not buy a party game or addictive puzzler because of its simplicity. All these questions are raised.
So what do you think? Any replies welcome.
Hope you enjoyed reading :)
Page:
Graphics?
No not really, look at civilisation, what a brilliant strategy game!
No not really, look at civilisation, what a brilliant strategy game!
I've read it...
I think that graphics don't matter in some circumstances. For brand new games I think new developers feel a need to have good graphics to show off their game. Zelda could have rubbish graphics and still people would buy it
I think that graphics don't matter in some circumstances. For brand new games I think new developers feel a need to have good graphics to show off their game. Zelda could have rubbish graphics and still people would buy it
i havnt read it but after reading the subject line this is what i think...
YES and NO
YES,
where would a game like Shenmue be without the graphics? Cheesy plot bad storyline, AMAZING graphics, the main selling point.
NO,
then there are the games like Chu Chu Rocket who have what could very well be the worst graphics seen in the world...
YES and NO
YES,
where would a game like Shenmue be without the graphics? Cheesy plot bad storyline, AMAZING graphics, the main selling point.
NO,
then there are the games like Chu Chu Rocket who have what could very well be the worst graphics seen in the world...
Lots of people have been complaining about the graphics of games, such as the new look Zelda, with it's pretty cool cel-shaded look. But if a game has excellent gameplay and is generally fun to play, why should graphics matter. Obviously if the game is rubbish as well as its graphics then steer clear but otherwise maybe we should take a look (or to be accurate, have a go) before we make our cynical, stereotyped comments.
The Xbox boasts about its huge processor and the rest but that doesn't mean the game is going to be great. Graphics aren't everything (my friend seems to think so, though) and thats why consoles like the PS2 and GC, with not as good graphical power still are high flyers in the console market.
The Xbox also has games, which, when you play them, has your average Joe graphics. The little movies developers like to show you are just the 'good' bits. In game, its a PS2 or a Gamecube. Nothing special, nothing great. Saying that, a game with good graphics is still fun to play than one with good gameplay and ok graphics. But would you not buy a game (or for that matter, a games console) because of its graphic (or size / look for consoles)? I don't think so somehow...
The we have games which it is obvious that they've spent hours and hours making great graphics, which are nice to look at and all, but the gameplay is not at that developers usual standard. This annoys me because gamers like myself will still play a game if its got ok (or even not ok) graphics. A prime example is the re-release of Final Fantasy
6. Sony / Square would not release this if they weren't confident it was going to succeed (for gameplay or for the demo of FFX..) but it certainly was going to succeed if all it relied on was its graphics. No-one cared 'back then' about graphics. Some tech freaks did, but most people just wanted the latest version of Pong, something simple and addictive. Leading me to my main point of has the market become far too addicted to graphics (and their progress) rather than the actual games themselves?
Games like Zelda. The public got a taste of whats to come when Shigeru Miyamoto showed the world his tech demo of Zelda for the GC. Lots of gasping and muttering of oooh...ahhh followed. But then he changes his mind, goes all
original on us and makes it cel shaded game. And what an
interesting reaction from the market. NOM magazine claimed it was a good idea (whether it be biased or not, im not sure). Letter's pages were filled to the brim with questions
about this new idea. And at first, I didn't hate the graphics, just thought they were 'original'. But then I asked myself 'why am i concerned about graphics when ive never even played the game'. So when the GC comes out, Ill buy one. When Zelda comes out Ill buy that too. But will some people not buy it just because of it's cel-shaded look?
I hope not, as my guess is more of that type of game is to come (Auto Modellista ... yay ...)
It works both ways as well, so those who dont buy a game because of non-superior graphics are left with very little choice of games.. If a game came out with rubbish gameplay but great graphics they still wouldn't buy it. So what do they buy? The rare game with both? Which is now, more than ever, rare. Then other factors will intervene. Will they not buy a game because it's colourful therfore kiddyish? I'd hope not. Spyro and Banjo Kazooie / Tooie are great games and not at all easy / boring. Will they not buy a party game or addictive puzzler because of its simplicity. All these questions are raised.
So what do you think? Any replies welcome.
Hope you enjoyed reading :)
The Xbox boasts about its huge processor and the rest but that doesn't mean the game is going to be great. Graphics aren't everything (my friend seems to think so, though) and thats why consoles like the PS2 and GC, with not as good graphical power still are high flyers in the console market.
The Xbox also has games, which, when you play them, has your average Joe graphics. The little movies developers like to show you are just the 'good' bits. In game, its a PS2 or a Gamecube. Nothing special, nothing great. Saying that, a game with good graphics is still fun to play than one with good gameplay and ok graphics. But would you not buy a game (or for that matter, a games console) because of its graphic (or size / look for consoles)? I don't think so somehow...
The we have games which it is obvious that they've spent hours and hours making great graphics, which are nice to look at and all, but the gameplay is not at that developers usual standard. This annoys me because gamers like myself will still play a game if its got ok (or even not ok) graphics. A prime example is the re-release of Final Fantasy
6. Sony / Square would not release this if they weren't confident it was going to succeed (for gameplay or for the demo of FFX..) but it certainly was going to succeed if all it relied on was its graphics. No-one cared 'back then' about graphics. Some tech freaks did, but most people just wanted the latest version of Pong, something simple and addictive. Leading me to my main point of has the market become far too addicted to graphics (and their progress) rather than the actual games themselves?
Games like Zelda. The public got a taste of whats to come when Shigeru Miyamoto showed the world his tech demo of Zelda for the GC. Lots of gasping and muttering of oooh...ahhh followed. But then he changes his mind, goes all
original on us and makes it cel shaded game. And what an
interesting reaction from the market. NOM magazine claimed it was a good idea (whether it be biased or not, im not sure). Letter's pages were filled to the brim with questions
about this new idea. And at first, I didn't hate the graphics, just thought they were 'original'. But then I asked myself 'why am i concerned about graphics when ive never even played the game'. So when the GC comes out, Ill buy one. When Zelda comes out Ill buy that too. But will some people not buy it just because of it's cel-shaded look?
I hope not, as my guess is more of that type of game is to come (Auto Modellista ... yay ...)
It works both ways as well, so those who dont buy a game because of non-superior graphics are left with very little choice of games.. If a game came out with rubbish gameplay but great graphics they still wouldn't buy it. So what do they buy? The rare game with both? Which is now, more than ever, rare. Then other factors will intervene. Will they not buy a game because it's colourful therfore kiddyish? I'd hope not. Spyro and Banjo Kazooie / Tooie are great games and not at all easy / boring. Will they not buy a party game or addictive puzzler because of its simplicity. All these questions are raised.
So what do you think? Any replies welcome.
Hope you enjoyed reading :)
Page: