The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
A vast majority of the games we play are purchased under the influence of its graphical features. Quite often, a review will be shown on the telly, and your brother will say, "Whoa! Look at those beautiful graphics. We'll have to get that when it's released!"
Developers know that if a game is to be successful, then graphics are one of the highest priorities. But why is this? Isn't it the gameplay that is most important? I mean, in my view, what's a game with good graphics if it's just pushing a ball down a long corridor? Other people will obviously think differently. We're all entitled to our own opinions, aren't we? Other people will say, "Without graphics, there isn't anything to see, and so you don't have a game." And others will think, "That looks crap. All the textures look all messy." People who would go along the lines of that last comment might be missing out on one of the best, most popular games around at the time.
Yes, it is true that games are becoming more realistic in the graphical sense, as consoles have been evolving to the standard of being able to generate shapes, worlds and environments where objects have taken the shape of the thing they are supposed to be. 8-ball in GTA3 actually looks like a bald man, rather than one of the coneheads! And, before you say anything, I already know that I always make this comment about polygons, but it covers such a wide range of things in the gaming world, where Jo Dark looks real in the GC version of Perfect Dark, but on the N64, Bond looks like a blockhead, and cars have wheels which could poke an eye out.
Frame rates also play a vital part in the graphics department. Have you ever played a game with a painfully slow frame rate? The game keeps track of where you should be even before you appear there, because the frames have knocked your view back?I think Hybrid Heaven is the best example of this, on the N64, in Hi-Res mode. If an object moves quickly, but the frame rate stops the picture from updating wquickly enough, you find yourself shooting at the wall where your enemy once stood, and still appears to be stood there, if you know what I mean. It usually occurs when you have loads of action being generated t one time, like when your fighting two Red Jacks in GTA3, when they've chased you all the way to the drawbridge. If you get into the centre of the bridge when it goes up, you find the frame rate slows a hell of a lot, and the next thing you know, you see yourself in the centre, away from the edge, but then you suddenly appear below the bridge, where you've driven off, but the picture didn't update fast enough. That usually happens there because it's a place where you'd normally be able to see the whole city, and so the PS2 has to generate everything that the game throws at it, everything visible from that point, plus the action with you and the Red JAck, AND the movement of the bridge, AND the movement and extra polygons needed for any pedestrians or cars which you might be able to see at the time. Quite often, this happens with DVD movies on a slow PC, like mine, but I won't go into that. What's it got to do with the graphics in games?
If you have been tendancy to buy games by a particular developer, it is easy to notice the graphical style which they use. If you've ever played Duke Nukem: Zero Hour and TWINE after the other, you'll notice, they have a particular Eurocom-ish feel to them, all because of the way they look. I noticed the same with Silent Scope on the PS2 and Probotector on the SNES. Both made by Konami. If I hadn't seen the logos at the start of both of the games, I would still know that they were developed by Konami, because of the feeling they give you. I mean like atmosphere. You will notice, if you've played them both, that minor effefcts which you don't take much notice of, like wall textures, explosion animations, bullet-flying-through-the-air effects and the way cracks are drawn, they are all distnctive styles which would give away the identity of the developer.
Try it. The next time you buy a game, don't look at the developers logo or name. Cover it up if you must, and play it when you get home, without looking at the logo sequences at the start. See if you can guess who made it.
Happy Days
Twain
Developers know that if a game is to be successful, then graphics are one of the highest priorities. But why is this? Isn't it the gameplay that is most important? I mean, in my view, what's a game with good graphics if it's just pushing a ball down a long corridor? Other people will obviously think differently. We're all entitled to our own opinions, aren't we? Other people will say, "Without graphics, there isn't anything to see, and so you don't have a game." And others will think, "That looks crap. All the textures look all messy." People who would go along the lines of that last comment might be missing out on one of the best, most popular games around at the time.
Yes, it is true that games are becoming more realistic in the graphical sense, as consoles have been evolving to the standard of being able to generate shapes, worlds and environments where objects have taken the shape of the thing they are supposed to be. 8-ball in GTA3 actually looks like a bald man, rather than one of the coneheads! And, before you say anything, I already know that I always make this comment about polygons, but it covers such a wide range of things in the gaming world, where Jo Dark looks real in the GC version of Perfect Dark, but on the N64, Bond looks like a blockhead, and cars have wheels which could poke an eye out.
Frame rates also play a vital part in the graphics department. Have you ever played a game with a painfully slow frame rate? The game keeps track of where you should be even before you appear there, because the frames have knocked your view back?I think Hybrid Heaven is the best example of this, on the N64, in Hi-Res mode. If an object moves quickly, but the frame rate stops the picture from updating wquickly enough, you find yourself shooting at the wall where your enemy once stood, and still appears to be stood there, if you know what I mean. It usually occurs when you have loads of action being generated t one time, like when your fighting two Red Jacks in GTA3, when they've chased you all the way to the drawbridge. If you get into the centre of the bridge when it goes up, you find the frame rate slows a hell of a lot, and the next thing you know, you see yourself in the centre, away from the edge, but then you suddenly appear below the bridge, where you've driven off, but the picture didn't update fast enough. That usually happens there because it's a place where you'd normally be able to see the whole city, and so the PS2 has to generate everything that the game throws at it, everything visible from that point, plus the action with you and the Red JAck, AND the movement of the bridge, AND the movement and extra polygons needed for any pedestrians or cars which you might be able to see at the time. Quite often, this happens with DVD movies on a slow PC, like mine, but I won't go into that. What's it got to do with the graphics in games?
If you have been tendancy to buy games by a particular developer, it is easy to notice the graphical style which they use. If you've ever played Duke Nukem: Zero Hour and TWINE after the other, you'll notice, they have a particular Eurocom-ish feel to them, all because of the way they look. I noticed the same with Silent Scope on the PS2 and Probotector on the SNES. Both made by Konami. If I hadn't seen the logos at the start of both of the games, I would still know that they were developed by Konami, because of the feeling they give you. I mean like atmosphere. You will notice, if you've played them both, that minor effefcts which you don't take much notice of, like wall textures, explosion animations, bullet-flying-through-the-air effects and the way cracks are drawn, they are all distnctive styles which would give away the identity of the developer.
Try it. The next time you buy a game, don't look at the developers logo or name. Cover it up if you must, and play it when you get home, without looking at the logo sequences at the start. See if you can guess who made it.
Happy Days
Twain
Page:
A vast majority of the games we play are purchased under the influence of its graphical features. Quite often, a review will be shown on the telly, and your brother will say, "Whoa! Look at those beautiful graphics. We'll have to get that when it's released!"
Developers know that if a game is to be successful, then graphics are one of the highest priorities. But why is this? Isn't it the gameplay that is most important? I mean, in my view, what's a game with good graphics if it's just pushing a ball down a long corridor? Other people will obviously think differently. We're all entitled to our own opinions, aren't we? Other people will say, "Without graphics, there isn't anything to see, and so you don't have a game." And others will think, "That looks crap. All the textures look all messy." People who would go along the lines of that last comment might be missing out on one of the best, most popular games around at the time.
Yes, it is true that games are becoming more realistic in the graphical sense, as consoles have been evolving to the standard of being able to generate shapes, worlds and environments where objects have taken the shape of the thing they are supposed to be. 8-ball in GTA3 actually looks like a bald man, rather than one of the coneheads! And, before you say anything, I already know that I always make this comment about polygons, but it covers such a wide range of things in the gaming world, where Jo Dark looks real in the GC version of Perfect Dark, but on the N64, Bond looks like a blockhead, and cars have wheels which could poke an eye out.
Frame rates also play a vital part in the graphics department. Have you ever played a game with a painfully slow frame rate? The game keeps track of where you should be even before you appear there, because the frames have knocked your view back?I think Hybrid Heaven is the best example of this, on the N64, in Hi-Res mode. If an object moves quickly, but the frame rate stops the picture from updating wquickly enough, you find yourself shooting at the wall where your enemy once stood, and still appears to be stood there, if you know what I mean. It usually occurs when you have loads of action being generated t one time, like when your fighting two Red Jacks in GTA3, when they've chased you all the way to the drawbridge. If you get into the centre of the bridge when it goes up, you find the frame rate slows a hell of a lot, and the next thing you know, you see yourself in the centre, away from the edge, but then you suddenly appear below the bridge, where you've driven off, but the picture didn't update fast enough. That usually happens there because it's a place where you'd normally be able to see the whole city, and so the PS2 has to generate everything that the game throws at it, everything visible from that point, plus the action with you and the Red JAck, AND the movement of the bridge, AND the movement and extra polygons needed for any pedestrians or cars which you might be able to see at the time. Quite often, this happens with DVD movies on a slow PC, like mine, but I won't go into that. What's it got to do with the graphics in games?
If you have been tendancy to buy games by a particular developer, it is easy to notice the graphical style which they use. If you've ever played Duke Nukem: Zero Hour and TWINE after the other, you'll notice, they have a particular Eurocom-ish feel to them, all because of the way they look. I noticed the same with Silent Scope on the PS2 and Probotector on the SNES. Both made by Konami. If I hadn't seen the logos at the start of both of the games, I would still know that they were developed by Konami, because of the feeling they give you. I mean like atmosphere. You will notice, if you've played them both, that minor effefcts which you don't take much notice of, like wall textures, explosion animations, bullet-flying-through-the-air effects and the way cracks are drawn, they are all distnctive styles which would give away the identity of the developer.
Try it. The next time you buy a game, don't look at the developers logo or name. Cover it up if you must, and play it when you get home, without looking at the logo sequences at the start. See if you can guess who made it.
Happy Days
Twain
Developers know that if a game is to be successful, then graphics are one of the highest priorities. But why is this? Isn't it the gameplay that is most important? I mean, in my view, what's a game with good graphics if it's just pushing a ball down a long corridor? Other people will obviously think differently. We're all entitled to our own opinions, aren't we? Other people will say, "Without graphics, there isn't anything to see, and so you don't have a game." And others will think, "That looks crap. All the textures look all messy." People who would go along the lines of that last comment might be missing out on one of the best, most popular games around at the time.
Yes, it is true that games are becoming more realistic in the graphical sense, as consoles have been evolving to the standard of being able to generate shapes, worlds and environments where objects have taken the shape of the thing they are supposed to be. 8-ball in GTA3 actually looks like a bald man, rather than one of the coneheads! And, before you say anything, I already know that I always make this comment about polygons, but it covers such a wide range of things in the gaming world, where Jo Dark looks real in the GC version of Perfect Dark, but on the N64, Bond looks like a blockhead, and cars have wheels which could poke an eye out.
Frame rates also play a vital part in the graphics department. Have you ever played a game with a painfully slow frame rate? The game keeps track of where you should be even before you appear there, because the frames have knocked your view back?I think Hybrid Heaven is the best example of this, on the N64, in Hi-Res mode. If an object moves quickly, but the frame rate stops the picture from updating wquickly enough, you find yourself shooting at the wall where your enemy once stood, and still appears to be stood there, if you know what I mean. It usually occurs when you have loads of action being generated t one time, like when your fighting two Red Jacks in GTA3, when they've chased you all the way to the drawbridge. If you get into the centre of the bridge when it goes up, you find the frame rate slows a hell of a lot, and the next thing you know, you see yourself in the centre, away from the edge, but then you suddenly appear below the bridge, where you've driven off, but the picture didn't update fast enough. That usually happens there because it's a place where you'd normally be able to see the whole city, and so the PS2 has to generate everything that the game throws at it, everything visible from that point, plus the action with you and the Red JAck, AND the movement of the bridge, AND the movement and extra polygons needed for any pedestrians or cars which you might be able to see at the time. Quite often, this happens with DVD movies on a slow PC, like mine, but I won't go into that. What's it got to do with the graphics in games?
If you have been tendancy to buy games by a particular developer, it is easy to notice the graphical style which they use. If you've ever played Duke Nukem: Zero Hour and TWINE after the other, you'll notice, they have a particular Eurocom-ish feel to them, all because of the way they look. I noticed the same with Silent Scope on the PS2 and Probotector on the SNES. Both made by Konami. If I hadn't seen the logos at the start of both of the games, I would still know that they were developed by Konami, because of the feeling they give you. I mean like atmosphere. You will notice, if you've played them both, that minor effefcts which you don't take much notice of, like wall textures, explosion animations, bullet-flying-through-the-air effects and the way cracks are drawn, they are all distnctive styles which would give away the identity of the developer.
Try it. The next time you buy a game, don't look at the developers logo or name. Cover it up if you must, and play it when you get home, without looking at the logo sequences at the start. See if you can guess who made it.
Happy Days
Twain
I not bothered by how a game looks or who it's made by when i'm deciding what to buy or look into. I don't know exactly why this is, but I think it may be something to do with my early gaming days, when the 8-bit NES and co. were around, with very poor graphics compared to now. Anyway....
Even though i'm not bothered about who developed it, I do still look into games made by Rare - because I like their other work. To be honest, I did't realise who Rare really were untill the N64 days with the likes of Goldeneye! But they are one team of develpers that stands out from the rest for me - and not just because of Nintendo or because they're English.
I'm still very dissapointed that we won't see the new Zelda as realistic as we had hoped, but i'm sure games with that quality aren't too far away into the future!
Even though i'm not bothered about who developed it, I do still look into games made by Rare - because I like their other work. To be honest, I did't realise who Rare really were untill the N64 days with the likes of Goldeneye! But they are one team of develpers that stands out from the rest for me - and not just because of Nintendo or because they're English.
I'm still very dissapointed that we won't see the new Zelda as realistic as we had hoped, but i'm sure games with that quality aren't too far away into the future!
Finally! A desscent reply!
I'm not really bothered about who makes a game or graphics either, as long as the game itself is good.
The first time I played a Rare game was when I got Donkey Kong Country for the SNES. Pure class, that was! But, I didn't know who Rare really were either, until the N64 came out, after the success of Goldeneye.
Zelda being un-realistic has disappointed me, too, but then, every Zelda game has, to be honest.
I'm not really bothered about who makes a game or graphics either, as long as the game itself is good.
The first time I played a Rare game was when I got Donkey Kong Country for the SNES. Pure class, that was! But, I didn't know who Rare really were either, until the N64 came out, after the success of Goldeneye.
Zelda being un-realistic has disappointed me, too, but then, every Zelda game has, to be honest.
Every game is unrealistic when you think about it. I mean you can't come back from the dead in really life can you? Or start again from game over?
YEah, you have a point there. And you can't go smashing a race car into barriers and they don't have a scratch on them either.
But that isn't really the point. This is looking at realism from the graphical side of gaming.
But that isn't really the point. This is looking at realism from the graphical side of gaming.
The point is the cars handles exactly like their real life counterparts. People who complain the cars don't crunch really doesn't understand the meaning of realistic, and should be executed.
I must admit Graphics are very important to me.
If I buy a game and I spot graphical flaws like say, pop-up or a dodgy frame-rate or flickering polygons or whatever, it does concern me.
If the gameplay is good enough I can overlook it. But if it's not, it eats away at my soul.
If I buy a game and I spot graphical flaws like say, pop-up or a dodgy frame-rate or flickering polygons or whatever, it does concern me.
If the gameplay is good enough I can overlook it. But if it's not, it eats away at my soul.
Money, money, money,
Must be funny,
in a rich man's world.
Much as I'm against quoting Abba on principle, you're failing to see the big picture. Graphics are an essential marketing tool for the publishers of games to reach out to the game-buying public and assure them that their game is worth 40 quid.
Even us snobby 'gamers' get caught by the prettiness of a game. Honestly, when was the last time you saw a game that looked ropy and thought - ooo, I'll get that.
But, my point is that the publisher needs a game to look good to sell it. Darwin would be chuffed - it's natural selection at work. If developers make games without good graphics, they have trouble finding publishers, as the publishers know that they will have trouble making a sizable return on their investment. Those developers do not flourish.
But I agree with the gist of your post. God knows, I've lost the last week of my life to Harvest Moon, a 3D isometric PS1 pixel-fest. Metal Gear 2, and the rest of the PS2 spankiness has been firmly resigned to the cupboard for the time being. It's the gameplay that shines through.
Must be funny,
in a rich man's world.
Much as I'm against quoting Abba on principle, you're failing to see the big picture. Graphics are an essential marketing tool for the publishers of games to reach out to the game-buying public and assure them that their game is worth 40 quid.
Even us snobby 'gamers' get caught by the prettiness of a game. Honestly, when was the last time you saw a game that looked ropy and thought - ooo, I'll get that.
But, my point is that the publisher needs a game to look good to sell it. Darwin would be chuffed - it's natural selection at work. If developers make games without good graphics, they have trouble finding publishers, as the publishers know that they will have trouble making a sizable return on their investment. Those developers do not flourish.
But I agree with the gist of your post. God knows, I've lost the last week of my life to Harvest Moon, a 3D isometric PS1 pixel-fest. Metal Gear 2, and the rest of the PS2 spankiness has been firmly resigned to the cupboard for the time being. It's the gameplay that shines through.
Very good post, and definately one of the first things I feel the urge to reply to for a long time.
Basically, you can sit down and guess which company made a game, if that company makes it's own game engines. There is a ver good reason for this, and it's to do with programming techniques.
Every 3D game needs a game engine, which basically controls the way thing appear on the screen. If your into PC gaming, you'll know how many games follow that same old Quake 3 engine routine, and it easily shows in the look and feels of the game. So if a developer doesn't pinch its engine from another company, then yes it would be relatively easy. Look at thee likes of EA, it's very easy to see the links between all the FIFA games, or the NHL games, and the reason most people will complain about relatively little change in the look of these games from one generation to the next is mainly due to programming technique.
A company who have made a game and are planning on a sequel don't turn around and code the sequel from scratch. It makes much more sense to use the libraries of already existing code and making alterations and optimisations to that code to better suit another platform, or advances in the platform you are already working on. This is where most developers got a bit miffed at Sony for releasing the PS2, because the architecture was revolutionaryily different from anthing else, developers had to sit down a rewrite many of their existing libraries, and in the most extremem cases write games from scratch. This works out to be very time consuming, very difficult and very expensive for little developers to handle.
Many people like to comment on the relative success and failures in GTA3 as it was develoed and designed for the PS2 by a relatively tiny company, but they didn't design their own game engine. GTA3 was developed using a game engine produced by a company called Lithtech. This redused the developemt constraints of the progect dramatically, but the game was limited to the abilities of this external engine, rather than the abilities of the team behind the game.
Basically, larger companies are going to have a much stronger style in their games than little developers, because they have the resources to create their own game engines, or simply modify engines they already have in operation.
Basically, you can sit down and guess which company made a game, if that company makes it's own game engines. There is a ver good reason for this, and it's to do with programming techniques.
Every 3D game needs a game engine, which basically controls the way thing appear on the screen. If your into PC gaming, you'll know how many games follow that same old Quake 3 engine routine, and it easily shows in the look and feels of the game. So if a developer doesn't pinch its engine from another company, then yes it would be relatively easy. Look at thee likes of EA, it's very easy to see the links between all the FIFA games, or the NHL games, and the reason most people will complain about relatively little change in the look of these games from one generation to the next is mainly due to programming technique.
A company who have made a game and are planning on a sequel don't turn around and code the sequel from scratch. It makes much more sense to use the libraries of already existing code and making alterations and optimisations to that code to better suit another platform, or advances in the platform you are already working on. This is where most developers got a bit miffed at Sony for releasing the PS2, because the architecture was revolutionaryily different from anthing else, developers had to sit down a rewrite many of their existing libraries, and in the most extremem cases write games from scratch. This works out to be very time consuming, very difficult and very expensive for little developers to handle.
Many people like to comment on the relative success and failures in GTA3 as it was develoed and designed for the PS2 by a relatively tiny company, but they didn't design their own game engine. GTA3 was developed using a game engine produced by a company called Lithtech. This redused the developemt constraints of the progect dramatically, but the game was limited to the abilities of this external engine, rather than the abilities of the team behind the game.
Basically, larger companies are going to have a much stronger style in their games than little developers, because they have the resources to create their own game engines, or simply modify engines they already have in operation.
Its all very true though a very common argument. Games these days just can't be looked upon for their gameplay but their graphicxs have to be up to scratch to aswell as their storyline etc. The developers really need to get EVERYTHING right.
Thats what seems to make the classics, the games that get nearly everything right, every single pixel. And if they do, well done to them for getting it all so good but their are infact games from the past and the present even that beat that game on the lines of gameplay.
If we look back at the days when nearly all the games looked quite the same as high graphical realism could not be made then this is where the classic come from. Why is this? It's because we're not all going around moaning that "these games are for kids" or "its not realistic enough" we knew then the standard for gaming graphics and were happy. We found the graphics very good in a sense.
Just think back to one of your old console games and try and remeber how you felt when you first played that game...you were amazed weren't you. I go back and play some of my old games today and I am like "Woah, I can't believe this actually looked good back then", Graphics moves on with time very fast whilst gameplay moves very slowly.
I see what you say about the developers and their styles in using graphics and it is very true...but it would be wouldn't it. Say one development team made one game you WOULD see simularites in their next game and their next etc. It's because they use the same methods maybe in some places as a trademark but in many it is just the way they code and make their games. Everything from level design to character design to gameplay or even controls is included in this.
Congrats to those games that have every element to make the game a MUST play and to their development teams.
Thats what seems to make the classics, the games that get nearly everything right, every single pixel. And if they do, well done to them for getting it all so good but their are infact games from the past and the present even that beat that game on the lines of gameplay.
If we look back at the days when nearly all the games looked quite the same as high graphical realism could not be made then this is where the classic come from. Why is this? It's because we're not all going around moaning that "these games are for kids" or "its not realistic enough" we knew then the standard for gaming graphics and were happy. We found the graphics very good in a sense.
Just think back to one of your old console games and try and remeber how you felt when you first played that game...you were amazed weren't you. I go back and play some of my old games today and I am like "Woah, I can't believe this actually looked good back then", Graphics moves on with time very fast whilst gameplay moves very slowly.
I see what you say about the developers and their styles in using graphics and it is very true...but it would be wouldn't it. Say one development team made one game you WOULD see simularites in their next game and their next etc. It's because they use the same methods maybe in some places as a trademark but in many it is just the way they code and make their games. Everything from level design to character design to gameplay or even controls is included in this.
Congrats to those games that have every element to make the game a MUST play and to their development teams.
Page: