Viewing Thread:
"Is there too much detail?"

It’s those little details that make the games what they are. You don’t really notice them but thats what make the game special, it makes them stand out. Take Shenmue 2 for example. The detail is amazing. You look at the buildings and every brick is a different shade of orange, the clouds move when you look up at the sky. Plus the every shop has it’s own personality.

Another example is Metal Gear Solid 2. On the ‘Making of’ DvD that comes with the game, it shows the way the rain moved before they had really thought about it and planned it out properly and it looked good but not that good. But when they planned it out properly it looked very realistic. The rain moved in different directions as the wind changes direction, when the rain hit Snake’s head and back, you could see that Kojima had spent time thinking about how he could make it look as realstic as possible.

But I think the start of all this was Zelda: Ocarina of Time. The character had a lot of detail on, he was blinking like a human would, and the land that the story was set in was very detailed. I think this was the start of all the little details that game developers have become obbsesed over.

This is all very well and good, but are game developers spending too much time on graphics and little detail too make the game look good, and not enough time on the gameplay. Is that why we aren’t having quality games coming out all the time? If game developers spent as much time as they did on graphics as gameplay we would have the great game coming out all the time.

Looking back on some of the old NES/SNES games, I think they have better gameplay value than most of the games coming out today, and I think thats because old consoles couldn’t produce really good graphics so they worked on gameplay to make a game sell, but today with the ‘Next-Gen’ consoles out that can produce life-like graphics, there spending too much tiome on the graphics side of things and not enough time on the gameplay side.

Don’t get me wrong, not all games are like that. Metal Gear Solid 2 offers both. The graphics are stunning and the gameplay is great too. It’s a win win situation.

So, the little details are important, and they are good to look at, but are game developers getting obsessed with those little details and the graphics and forgetting about gameplay?

Answer, I think not for all games.

Thanks for reading.

Liquid Snake

$alvatore wrote:
> great post Liquid.Another exampe of detail is Simon on PC,when you let him for
> to long he grew old and died of old age

Simon the Sorcerer ahh what a great series of games those first 2 were, so funny and with great puzzles i prefered them to the Monkey Island series.

Anyway good post Liquid i believe that the little touchs and attention to detail are what makes games great, and that developers should spend as long as needed getting them right. Although they should also concentrate greatly on gameplay and the feel of the game, because graphics and little touches are great but unless you have good gameplay and an intresting story it might aswell be all made with a few pixels and look poor aswell as play poor.

cheers to all of you that relpied and said ggod post. I wanted to know if there was anything i could have done to improved it.

Pro Evo wrote:

In short, i believe that with good graphics, usually comes good
> gameplay with the better games...unless its The Bouncer.

lol true :)

This sort of comes back to the game play of graphics arguement, which is really the best that makes a game? I think that most people would agree that is a bit of both to a certain degree.

The thing is though, with the consoles becomeing more powerful and everyone knowing what they are capable of, these excellent graphics with there little details are becoming to be expected from gamers, and we at times want nothing less. Think about it, if MGS2 had the same graphics as MGS1 would it still be as bigger hit as it is right now? I dont think so. Basicly graphics are the thing that people look out for first, and its them that sell the game.

Good game play always follows good graphics, i think that you will agree that there are far more good graphical games with good game play than there are bad graphics and good game play. The modern gaming criteriar is graphics and that sets the base for a game, and what better way to do that than have a game that looks stunning and has many excellent details in.

These small details in the graphics are what sets some games apart. At times there not needed, for example, how many of us shot the ice cubes at the bar in MGS2? Not nessercary really was it? but many of us happened to play with them. These details dont make the game, and on the other hand thet do, they show a sign of how much work has been put into the game and this usually means a good game coming out.

In short, i believe that with good graphics, usually comes good gameplay with the better games...unless its The Bouncer.

Well done - I think some producers are getting far to embroiled in detail at the expense of gameplay.

This was very evident with the release of PS 2 and also with the release of he X Box - look at wreckless, great looking game but from all the reviews ive read about 30 minutes worth of gameplay.

Games producers should work on making the game right first and then add the finishing details at the end. Yes I might be a sad old whatever but alot of the older games (retro to you young whipersnappers) were much more addictive at the time than most of the current crop of get through them and trade em in games.

good post LS.

great post Liquid.Another exampe of detail is Simon on PC,when you let him for to long he grew old and died of old age

good post liquid :D

We're brothers btw, before anyone reports me

for a loser