The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Gronti_v wrote:
loads!!!
Yes it is true that RPGs do deteriarate on the graphical side of things, but that is because developers concentrate on making a descent storyline which would role successfully, without any confusing mishaps into a cut scene. This will take up loads of memory on the cartridge or disc, and therefore leaves less room for graciously detailed textures, or completely different textures on every surface.
loads!!!
Yes it is true that RPGs do deteriarate on the graphical side of things, but that is because developers concentrate on making a descent storyline which would role successfully, without any confusing mishaps into a cut scene. This will take up loads of memory on the cartridge or disc, and therefore leaves less room for graciously detailed textures, or completely different textures on every surface.
RìÇkø§$ wrote:
> Well done Gaming Boy! You should get MSN, i haven't talked to you
> since the now deceased Ninty UK...
Yo, Ricky! Long time no see. I didn't notice this message earlier. I think, when I get the PC which I've been craving for for ages, I might get MSN. But that's a long time away at the moment. I've only got about 80 of the 1000 pounds needed for it, but for now, my mum won't let me. She says Supanet is good enough.
Sorry!
> Well done Gaming Boy! You should get MSN, i haven't talked to you
> since the now deceased Ninty UK...
Yo, Ricky! Long time no see. I didn't notice this message earlier. I think, when I get the PC which I've been craving for for ages, I might get MSN. But that's a long time away at the moment. I've only got about 80 of the 1000 pounds needed for it, but for now, my mum won't let me. She says Supanet is good enough.
Sorry!
Most good RPGs to date haven't had super graphics but had great gameplay. Okay so the spell effects in Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Torment and the like can be nice and shiny but they're hardly the pinnacle of graphics technology. RTSs are similar, Red Alert 2 was not full of beautiful graphics but it was a darned good game. Of course nowadays these types of games are trying to move to 3D but still they don't seem to be trying to compete with the likes of Unreal II in the graphics stakes.
Really it's depressing how many people haven't enjoyed the pleasures of true PC gaming, especially with excuses all drying up. An X-Box for £300 or a PC that'll last years of quality gaming and has all sorts of extra functions for just £700. Okay more than twice as much but PCs have got plenty to offer to make up for it, and cheaper games too. Of course some people prefer consoles for the multiplayer and pick up and play factors so that's reasonable. Anyway, get a PC and play great games like Giants, Startopia, Baldur's Gate (or a newer RPG if you like). Plus you'll soon see that originality isn't dead with the above and plenty of others. Like Freedom Force (superhero RPG where you can create your own hero from scratch with lots of options), republic and other up and coming titles. Consoles may be cheaper and more accessible but gamings future is with the PC. Disagree? Well tell me then why every new console tries to sell itself with features that were already available on PCs? Consoles with Hard drives, internet access, a multitude of application abilities and everything else a good PC should have is what we'll be seeing unless there's a drastic surge of originality in the console development market.
On the original subject Anachronox is a great adventure game with RPG type elements (not really a true RPG, more like Final Fantasy style) which didn't have great graphics (considering what was available). I strongly suggest buying it if you can to encourage a sequel to be made because it's got everything. Especially great humour and mixtures of all sorts of storytelling elements and gameplay (including fun mini-games). One of the best stories in a game for some time, on par with the entire Baldur's Gate series and any other Bioware RPG. Far better than games which are called the "best game ever", such as Half-Life (especially the ending and final levels) and Medal of Honour: Allied Assault which gets away with a shoddy remake of the Saving Private Ryan Omaha Beach (not as good as Conker's) and don't even ask about the non-existent ending (not worth buying the game to find out what I mean). It's so sad to see games not getting due credit while blatantly average or "okay with some nice features" games get called the best game ever. Even Deus Ex never got it's full credit, maybe not the best game ever but better than Half-Life and Medal Of Honour: Allied Assault put together. Oh and if you've read my review of Medal Of Honour: Allied Assault you'll notice I said it was a good game, that's true up to a point but it's not nearly as good as you've been told and my score was a little high (I think it was 92% instead of the more likely 82% which might be slightly low actually, just one or two percent though).
Really it's depressing how many people haven't enjoyed the pleasures of true PC gaming, especially with excuses all drying up. An X-Box for £300 or a PC that'll last years of quality gaming and has all sorts of extra functions for just £700. Okay more than twice as much but PCs have got plenty to offer to make up for it, and cheaper games too. Of course some people prefer consoles for the multiplayer and pick up and play factors so that's reasonable. Anyway, get a PC and play great games like Giants, Startopia, Baldur's Gate (or a newer RPG if you like). Plus you'll soon see that originality isn't dead with the above and plenty of others. Like Freedom Force (superhero RPG where you can create your own hero from scratch with lots of options), republic and other up and coming titles. Consoles may be cheaper and more accessible but gamings future is with the PC. Disagree? Well tell me then why every new console tries to sell itself with features that were already available on PCs? Consoles with Hard drives, internet access, a multitude of application abilities and everything else a good PC should have is what we'll be seeing unless there's a drastic surge of originality in the console development market.
On the original subject Anachronox is a great adventure game with RPG type elements (not really a true RPG, more like Final Fantasy style) which didn't have great graphics (considering what was available). I strongly suggest buying it if you can to encourage a sequel to be made because it's got everything. Especially great humour and mixtures of all sorts of storytelling elements and gameplay (including fun mini-games). One of the best stories in a game for some time, on par with the entire Baldur's Gate series and any other Bioware RPG. Far better than games which are called the "best game ever", such as Half-Life (especially the ending and final levels) and Medal of Honour: Allied Assault which gets away with a shoddy remake of the Saving Private Ryan Omaha Beach (not as good as Conker's) and don't even ask about the non-existent ending (not worth buying the game to find out what I mean). It's so sad to see games not getting due credit while blatantly average or "okay with some nice features" games get called the best game ever. Even Deus Ex never got it's full credit, maybe not the best game ever but better than Half-Life and Medal Of Honour: Allied Assault put together. Oh and if you've read my review of Medal Of Honour: Allied Assault you'll notice I said it was a good game, that's true up to a point but it's not nearly as good as you've been told and my score was a little high (I think it was 92% instead of the more likely 82% which might be slightly low actually, just one or two percent though).
Twain wrote:
and cars
> have wheels which could poke an eye out.
LoL, Twain you're a funny guy
and cars
> have wheels which could poke an eye out.
LoL, Twain you're a funny guy
sPiKe2k wrote:
> Well done on the win!
> It is funny though when you pick up a game, i personally look at who
> is making the game and i think thats down to the reputation of the
> developer as to whether or not i double check that the game will
> actually be decent or a plain bad one. But don't get me wrong new
> developers are easily capable of pushing out new games with decent
> graphics and good engines.
That really depends on the laziness of the developers. Rare, for example, work really hard to produce a crisp, quality game with everything worked out to perfection
> i think the main reason the graphics are that important as well as the
> gameplay is that it 'wows' people just that bit more with nice
> graphics and it makes them notice it more, although some people pick
> games because of their graphics gameplay plays just as bigger part.
> Poor Frame rates are one thing that annoys me especially when they
> effect the gameplay, i'd rather have a game with a smooth framerate
> and average graphics than a game with good ones and a poor frame rate,
> in order for graphics to be good sometimes other aspects get effected
> and its certainly most of time the framerate, which is a shame but
> soon every game should run at top speeds when developers can use the
> hardware better and newer technology is released to combat the
> problem.
I think, unless the frame rate is artificially re-vamped (if "artificially is the word for it), games will run far too quick on future consoles, because they will have the power to do things faster, once they've finished one job, they get onto adjusting the frames accordingly, but may be too quick at doing so, if you see what I mean. This will mean the same thing as I mentioned before. You'll be fighting on the bridge on GTA3, and the next thing you know your car is on it's roof, flipping far too quickly for you too notice it and hence do anything about it.
> Well done on the win!
> It is funny though when you pick up a game, i personally look at who
> is making the game and i think thats down to the reputation of the
> developer as to whether or not i double check that the game will
> actually be decent or a plain bad one. But don't get me wrong new
> developers are easily capable of pushing out new games with decent
> graphics and good engines.
That really depends on the laziness of the developers. Rare, for example, work really hard to produce a crisp, quality game with everything worked out to perfection
> i think the main reason the graphics are that important as well as the
> gameplay is that it 'wows' people just that bit more with nice
> graphics and it makes them notice it more, although some people pick
> games because of their graphics gameplay plays just as bigger part.
> Poor Frame rates are one thing that annoys me especially when they
> effect the gameplay, i'd rather have a game with a smooth framerate
> and average graphics than a game with good ones and a poor frame rate,
> in order for graphics to be good sometimes other aspects get effected
> and its certainly most of time the framerate, which is a shame but
> soon every game should run at top speeds when developers can use the
> hardware better and newer technology is released to combat the
> problem.
I think, unless the frame rate is artificially re-vamped (if "artificially is the word for it), games will run far too quick on future consoles, because they will have the power to do things faster, once they've finished one job, they get onto adjusting the frames accordingly, but may be too quick at doing so, if you see what I mean. This will mean the same thing as I mentioned before. You'll be fighting on the bridge on GTA3, and the next thing you know your car is on it's roof, flipping far too quickly for you too notice it and hence do anything about it.
Shocktrooper wrote:
> Well done on the win, Twain.
Thanks! My very first win, that is!
> Anywho, I'd just like to point out that every single game that I have
> enjoyed has had good graphics.
Most of the games which I have enjoyed have had good graphics. Perfect Dark and CBFD especially. It just goes to show what you can do with a little bit of time. A lot of developers rush their games in order to get them out early or to reach a particular show/date.
> I've never played a game that has had poor graphics and has actually played well.
I have. *cough*Hybrid Heaven*cough*
> I've played games with swell graphics and poor gameplay, but not the
> other way around.
I can't really say that Zelda OOT didn't have bad gameplay, but, in my opinion, I didn't enjoy it. But it did have fantastic graphics.
> Now, I know the majority of the N64 games were excellent gameplay-wise, > but at the same time the graphics were top class, and the gameplay is
> better than most PS2 games that try to compete against them. Doesn't
> that show you how developers can get distracted and focus on graphics
> rather than gameplay when the power of the console has increased.
Yes, I have noticed that. A lot of the PS2 games which I have played are all pretty short, but the graphics are truely remarkable, especially the two Silent Scope games. Very short, but every scratch on every brick was in perfect proportion.
> Now, don't get me wrong, but Halo has got good graphics - but they ain't
> spectacular, and there ain't no Xbox game that looks more impressive
> than either a Cube's or PS2's version of that genre.
I wouldn't know. I haven't played an Xbox. Yet, anyway.
> Of course, if there are any games out there that you can recall had
> particularly drab graphics but rather stupidly-good gameplay, just let
> me know :-D
Well, they look crap nowadays, I know, compared to the N64, PS2 and Xbox, but Donkey Kong Country on the SNES pushed the consoles graphical power to the limits. Every colour in the palette must've been used.
> Well done on the win, Twain.
Thanks! My very first win, that is!
> Anywho, I'd just like to point out that every single game that I have
> enjoyed has had good graphics.
Most of the games which I have enjoyed have had good graphics. Perfect Dark and CBFD especially. It just goes to show what you can do with a little bit of time. A lot of developers rush their games in order to get them out early or to reach a particular show/date.
> I've never played a game that has had poor graphics and has actually played well.
I have. *cough*Hybrid Heaven*cough*
> I've played games with swell graphics and poor gameplay, but not the
> other way around.
I can't really say that Zelda OOT didn't have bad gameplay, but, in my opinion, I didn't enjoy it. But it did have fantastic graphics.
> Now, I know the majority of the N64 games were excellent gameplay-wise, > but at the same time the graphics were top class, and the gameplay is
> better than most PS2 games that try to compete against them. Doesn't
> that show you how developers can get distracted and focus on graphics
> rather than gameplay when the power of the console has increased.
Yes, I have noticed that. A lot of the PS2 games which I have played are all pretty short, but the graphics are truely remarkable, especially the two Silent Scope games. Very short, but every scratch on every brick was in perfect proportion.
> Now, don't get me wrong, but Halo has got good graphics - but they ain't
> spectacular, and there ain't no Xbox game that looks more impressive
> than either a Cube's or PS2's version of that genre.
I wouldn't know. I haven't played an Xbox. Yet, anyway.
> Of course, if there are any games out there that you can recall had
> particularly drab graphics but rather stupidly-good gameplay, just let
> me know :-D
Well, they look crap nowadays, I know, compared to the N64, PS2 and Xbox, but Donkey Kong Country on the SNES pushed the consoles graphical power to the limits. Every colour in the palette must've been used.
Nice post Twain, worthy GAD win that :-D
Well done Gaming Boy! You should get MSN, i haven't talked to you since the now deceased Ninty UK...
Well done on the win!
It is funny though when you pick up a game, i personally look at who is making the game and i think thats down to the reputation of the developer as to whether or not i double check that the game will actually be decent or a plain bad one. But don't get me wrong new developers are easily capable of pushing out new games with decent graphics and good engines.
i think the main reason the graphics are that important as well as the gameplay is that it 'wows' people just that bit more with nice graphics and it makes them notice it more, although some people pick games because of their graphics gameplay plays just as bigger part.
Poor Frame rates are one thing that annoys me especially when they effect the gameplay, i'd rather have a game with a smooth framerate and average graphics than a game with good ones and a poor frame rate, in order for graphics to be good sometimes other aspects get effected and its certainly most of time the framerate, which is a shame but soon every game should run at top speeds when developers can use the hardware better and newer technology is released to combat the problem.
you can tell most of the time who a game is made by i think, but sometimes you can't, some companies use a particular style, mgs/mgs2 both seem to be a greeny,gray colour, which suits the game well, naughty dogs jack and daxter reminds me a lot of crash in certain parts, i suppose if their style is good then its good to keep it in newer games as well :)
It is funny though when you pick up a game, i personally look at who is making the game and i think thats down to the reputation of the developer as to whether or not i double check that the game will actually be decent or a plain bad one. But don't get me wrong new developers are easily capable of pushing out new games with decent graphics and good engines.
i think the main reason the graphics are that important as well as the gameplay is that it 'wows' people just that bit more with nice graphics and it makes them notice it more, although some people pick games because of their graphics gameplay plays just as bigger part.
Poor Frame rates are one thing that annoys me especially when they effect the gameplay, i'd rather have a game with a smooth framerate and average graphics than a game with good ones and a poor frame rate, in order for graphics to be good sometimes other aspects get effected and its certainly most of time the framerate, which is a shame but soon every game should run at top speeds when developers can use the hardware better and newer technology is released to combat the problem.
you can tell most of the time who a game is made by i think, but sometimes you can't, some companies use a particular style, mgs/mgs2 both seem to be a greeny,gray colour, which suits the game well, naughty dogs jack and daxter reminds me a lot of crash in certain parts, i suppose if their style is good then its good to keep it in newer games as well :)
Well done on the win, Twain.
Anywho, I'd just like to point out that every single game that I have enjoyed has had good graphics. I've never played a game that has had poor graphics and has actually played well. I've played games with swell graphics and poor gameplay, but not the other way around. Now, I know the majority of the N64 games were excellent gameplay-wise, but at the same time the graphics were top class, and the gameplay is better than most PS2 games that try to compete against them. Doesn't that show you how developers can get distracted and focus on graphics rather than gameplay when the power of the console has increased. Now, don't get me wrong, but Halo has got good graphics - but they ain't spectacular, and there ain't no Xbox game that looks more impressive than either a Cube's or PS2's version of that genre.
Of course, if there are any games out there that you can recall had particularly drab graphics but rather stupidly-good gameplay, just let me know :-D
Anywho, I'd just like to point out that every single game that I have enjoyed has had good graphics. I've never played a game that has had poor graphics and has actually played well. I've played games with swell graphics and poor gameplay, but not the other way around. Now, I know the majority of the N64 games were excellent gameplay-wise, but at the same time the graphics were top class, and the gameplay is better than most PS2 games that try to compete against them. Doesn't that show you how developers can get distracted and focus on graphics rather than gameplay when the power of the console has increased. Now, don't get me wrong, but Halo has got good graphics - but they ain't spectacular, and there ain't no Xbox game that looks more impressive than either a Cube's or PS2's version of that genre.
Of course, if there are any games out there that you can recall had particularly drab graphics but rather stupidly-good gameplay, just let me know :-D
Page: