The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
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?
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.
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!
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: