The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
It is 1992. There are two types of console gamers. People who love Nintendo and the SNES, and people who love Sega and the Mega Drive. Me? Well, I'm in the middle. I love both.
Back then, as with today, consoles totally depended on the games. Great games would mean a console would do well, poor games, and a small selection of titles would often put a company bust. But what, back then, made a great game? Was it storyline? Graphics? Gameplay? For the uneducated and often casual gamers, they'd say graphics. But that would be wrong, because it was actually the third option. Gameplay.
Back in the 16bit era, there was only so much that you could do with graphics. After a certain point, when jagged lines weren't visible and a poor framerate wasn't an issue, 2D graphics could not progress any further. Back then, games wouldn't sell by looks alone, but by gameplay. Nobody would care if a certain game could shift 10,000,000 pixels or whatever, it made no difference to the visuals. So developers would focus on what a game played like. Innovation ran rampant, and many new genres which you see today are the result of this creativity.
After breaking through the three-dimensional barrier, games started to become dull. 3D racer after 3D racer came along, all attempting things from Wipeout to Ridge Racer. No longer did we see that all consuming innovation, games which would suck you in for months and months. These kind of games were few and far between. And why? Because now that technology had prevailed, developers would sell things by looks alone. Nobody cared about the smart, clever little jems, they wanted cute, blond bimbo-games which were both unrewarding and boring. Reality bites. Reality bytes.
Come on, admit it. You haven't seem too many great games lately. And almost all of them have fantasy aspects to them, whether it be the likes of SSX to Oddworld. Simulation games are the in thing, whether it be 'tactical espionage' (where the tactics are pretty much 'hide behind wall - shoot guard in back) or the 'real' driving simulator. Life is dull enough to need 'real' games, 'life-like' graphics or 'photo-realistic' environments. Don't get me wrong, the select few games like Gran Turismo and Tony Hawk's do offer some great experiences, but that's because they have depth and originality. Grand Prix titles are boring. The Sims are terribly normal, as in, they simulate life. Now don't get me wrong, I love the gaming part of my life, but after doing my game-funding paper round, sitting down only to do it again in virtual reality isn't the most appealing of prospects.
And so we've gone through this process of revolution really. Games used to be great, they used to be innovative and they almost always were there to improve upon what went before, in terms of immersion and gameplay. Nowadays, the only improvements are seen in realism. I don't care if I'm able to count the eyelashes on each spectator in a crowd of ten thousand, I want fun.
And this revolution has almost come to an end. Nothing lasts forever, even diamonds. With the multi-million polygon rates and constant 60 frames per second, graphics will hit a brick wall, and developers will then strive to create the perfect gaming experience. Developers have already gone off on a tangent in games like Rez and the new Zelda. I think they realise that looks aren't everything, and have gone for subtlety rather than eye candy. And I think that's a good word to describe 'graphics' because they are eye candy. They might taste nice, but they can have nasty effects. Want a perfect example? Wreckless on the Xbox. Also described as a videogame blonde.
And so when these graphics hit this brick wall, we will finally see an expansion on what is fun about games, the gameplay. And when the next revolution arrives, be it on the scale of the third dimensional jump or greater, we will again see developers strive to make full use of a console's graphical capabilities, and forget what the most important thing about gaming is. The gameplay. The game.
Back then, as with today, consoles totally depended on the games. Great games would mean a console would do well, poor games, and a small selection of titles would often put a company bust. But what, back then, made a great game? Was it storyline? Graphics? Gameplay? For the uneducated and often casual gamers, they'd say graphics. But that would be wrong, because it was actually the third option. Gameplay.
Back in the 16bit era, there was only so much that you could do with graphics. After a certain point, when jagged lines weren't visible and a poor framerate wasn't an issue, 2D graphics could not progress any further. Back then, games wouldn't sell by looks alone, but by gameplay. Nobody would care if a certain game could shift 10,000,000 pixels or whatever, it made no difference to the visuals. So developers would focus on what a game played like. Innovation ran rampant, and many new genres which you see today are the result of this creativity.
After breaking through the three-dimensional barrier, games started to become dull. 3D racer after 3D racer came along, all attempting things from Wipeout to Ridge Racer. No longer did we see that all consuming innovation, games which would suck you in for months and months. These kind of games were few and far between. And why? Because now that technology had prevailed, developers would sell things by looks alone. Nobody cared about the smart, clever little jems, they wanted cute, blond bimbo-games which were both unrewarding and boring. Reality bites. Reality bytes.
Come on, admit it. You haven't seem too many great games lately. And almost all of them have fantasy aspects to them, whether it be the likes of SSX to Oddworld. Simulation games are the in thing, whether it be 'tactical espionage' (where the tactics are pretty much 'hide behind wall - shoot guard in back) or the 'real' driving simulator. Life is dull enough to need 'real' games, 'life-like' graphics or 'photo-realistic' environments. Don't get me wrong, the select few games like Gran Turismo and Tony Hawk's do offer some great experiences, but that's because they have depth and originality. Grand Prix titles are boring. The Sims are terribly normal, as in, they simulate life. Now don't get me wrong, I love the gaming part of my life, but after doing my game-funding paper round, sitting down only to do it again in virtual reality isn't the most appealing of prospects.
And so we've gone through this process of revolution really. Games used to be great, they used to be innovative and they almost always were there to improve upon what went before, in terms of immersion and gameplay. Nowadays, the only improvements are seen in realism. I don't care if I'm able to count the eyelashes on each spectator in a crowd of ten thousand, I want fun.
And this revolution has almost come to an end. Nothing lasts forever, even diamonds. With the multi-million polygon rates and constant 60 frames per second, graphics will hit a brick wall, and developers will then strive to create the perfect gaming experience. Developers have already gone off on a tangent in games like Rez and the new Zelda. I think they realise that looks aren't everything, and have gone for subtlety rather than eye candy. And I think that's a good word to describe 'graphics' because they are eye candy. They might taste nice, but they can have nasty effects. Want a perfect example? Wreckless on the Xbox. Also described as a videogame blonde.
And so when these graphics hit this brick wall, we will finally see an expansion on what is fun about games, the gameplay. And when the next revolution arrives, be it on the scale of the third dimensional jump or greater, we will again see developers strive to make full use of a console's graphical capabilities, and forget what the most important thing about gaming is. The gameplay. The game.
I can see what you mean about The Sims being dull because that basically is real life, but I personally like realism in games such as Gran Turismo, MGS etc. Of course I don't mind a bit of fantasy, although Mario and Zelda have never been to my liking I was a big fan of Spyro.
Also, I think MGS is a bit more than your rather simple description. In fact, MGS could almost be described as an RPG. Can one man really destroy a Helicopter? Are there really Ninjas like that out there? Are there really Vampires out there? I've never seen someone like Vulcan Raven myself, and the same goes for Psycho Mantis. MGS may've been ultra-realistic in gameplay, but it wasn't in plot, and it worked perfectly.
In my view, graphics add to gameplay. Graphics can also give new dimensions to gameplay. Think about it, a lot of the gameplay in MGS2 wouldn't be possible if it were in 2D, right?
Also, I think MGS is a bit more than your rather simple description. In fact, MGS could almost be described as an RPG. Can one man really destroy a Helicopter? Are there really Ninjas like that out there? Are there really Vampires out there? I've never seen someone like Vulcan Raven myself, and the same goes for Psycho Mantis. MGS may've been ultra-realistic in gameplay, but it wasn't in plot, and it worked perfectly.
In my view, graphics add to gameplay. Graphics can also give new dimensions to gameplay. Think about it, a lot of the gameplay in MGS2 wouldn't be possible if it were in 2D, right?
It is 1992. There are two types of console gamers. People who love Nintendo and the SNES, and people who love Sega and the Mega Drive. Me? Well, I'm in the middle. I love both.
Back then, as with today, consoles totally depended on the games. Great games would mean a console would do well, poor games, and a small selection of titles would often put a company bust. But what, back then, made a great game? Was it storyline? Graphics? Gameplay? For the uneducated and often casual gamers, they'd say graphics. But that would be wrong, because it was actually the third option. Gameplay.
Back in the 16bit era, there was only so much that you could do with graphics. After a certain point, when jagged lines weren't visible and a poor framerate wasn't an issue, 2D graphics could not progress any further. Back then, games wouldn't sell by looks alone, but by gameplay. Nobody would care if a certain game could shift 10,000,000 pixels or whatever, it made no difference to the visuals. So developers would focus on what a game played like. Innovation ran rampant, and many new genres which you see today are the result of this creativity.
After breaking through the three-dimensional barrier, games started to become dull. 3D racer after 3D racer came along, all attempting things from Wipeout to Ridge Racer. No longer did we see that all consuming innovation, games which would suck you in for months and months. These kind of games were few and far between. And why? Because now that technology had prevailed, developers would sell things by looks alone. Nobody cared about the smart, clever little jems, they wanted cute, blond bimbo-games which were both unrewarding and boring. Reality bites. Reality bytes.
Come on, admit it. You haven't seem too many great games lately. And almost all of them have fantasy aspects to them, whether it be the likes of SSX to Oddworld. Simulation games are the in thing, whether it be 'tactical espionage' (where the tactics are pretty much 'hide behind wall - shoot guard in back) or the 'real' driving simulator. Life is dull enough to need 'real' games, 'life-like' graphics or 'photo-realistic' environments. Don't get me wrong, the select few games like Gran Turismo and Tony Hawk's do offer some great experiences, but that's because they have depth and originality. Grand Prix titles are boring. The Sims are terribly normal, as in, they simulate life. Now don't get me wrong, I love the gaming part of my life, but after doing my game-funding paper round, sitting down only to do it again in virtual reality isn't the most appealing of prospects.
And so we've gone through this process of revolution really. Games used to be great, they used to be innovative and they almost always were there to improve upon what went before, in terms of immersion and gameplay. Nowadays, the only improvements are seen in realism. I don't care if I'm able to count the eyelashes on each spectator in a crowd of ten thousand, I want fun.
And this revolution has almost come to an end. Nothing lasts forever, even diamonds. With the multi-million polygon rates and constant 60 frames per second, graphics will hit a brick wall, and developers will then strive to create the perfect gaming experience. Developers have already gone off on a tangent in games like Rez and the new Zelda. I think they realise that looks aren't everything, and have gone for subtlety rather than eye candy. And I think that's a good word to describe 'graphics' because they are eye candy. They might taste nice, but they can have nasty effects. Want a perfect example? Wreckless on the Xbox. Also described as a videogame blonde.
And so when these graphics hit this brick wall, we will finally see an expansion on what is fun about games, the gameplay. And when the next revolution arrives, be it on the scale of the third dimensional jump or greater, we will again see developers strive to make full use of a console's graphical capabilities, and forget what the most important thing about gaming is. The gameplay. The game.
Back then, as with today, consoles totally depended on the games. Great games would mean a console would do well, poor games, and a small selection of titles would often put a company bust. But what, back then, made a great game? Was it storyline? Graphics? Gameplay? For the uneducated and often casual gamers, they'd say graphics. But that would be wrong, because it was actually the third option. Gameplay.
Back in the 16bit era, there was only so much that you could do with graphics. After a certain point, when jagged lines weren't visible and a poor framerate wasn't an issue, 2D graphics could not progress any further. Back then, games wouldn't sell by looks alone, but by gameplay. Nobody would care if a certain game could shift 10,000,000 pixels or whatever, it made no difference to the visuals. So developers would focus on what a game played like. Innovation ran rampant, and many new genres which you see today are the result of this creativity.
After breaking through the three-dimensional barrier, games started to become dull. 3D racer after 3D racer came along, all attempting things from Wipeout to Ridge Racer. No longer did we see that all consuming innovation, games which would suck you in for months and months. These kind of games were few and far between. And why? Because now that technology had prevailed, developers would sell things by looks alone. Nobody cared about the smart, clever little jems, they wanted cute, blond bimbo-games which were both unrewarding and boring. Reality bites. Reality bytes.
Come on, admit it. You haven't seem too many great games lately. And almost all of them have fantasy aspects to them, whether it be the likes of SSX to Oddworld. Simulation games are the in thing, whether it be 'tactical espionage' (where the tactics are pretty much 'hide behind wall - shoot guard in back) or the 'real' driving simulator. Life is dull enough to need 'real' games, 'life-like' graphics or 'photo-realistic' environments. Don't get me wrong, the select few games like Gran Turismo and Tony Hawk's do offer some great experiences, but that's because they have depth and originality. Grand Prix titles are boring. The Sims are terribly normal, as in, they simulate life. Now don't get me wrong, I love the gaming part of my life, but after doing my game-funding paper round, sitting down only to do it again in virtual reality isn't the most appealing of prospects.
And so we've gone through this process of revolution really. Games used to be great, they used to be innovative and they almost always were there to improve upon what went before, in terms of immersion and gameplay. Nowadays, the only improvements are seen in realism. I don't care if I'm able to count the eyelashes on each spectator in a crowd of ten thousand, I want fun.
And this revolution has almost come to an end. Nothing lasts forever, even diamonds. With the multi-million polygon rates and constant 60 frames per second, graphics will hit a brick wall, and developers will then strive to create the perfect gaming experience. Developers have already gone off on a tangent in games like Rez and the new Zelda. I think they realise that looks aren't everything, and have gone for subtlety rather than eye candy. And I think that's a good word to describe 'graphics' because they are eye candy. They might taste nice, but they can have nasty effects. Want a perfect example? Wreckless on the Xbox. Also described as a videogame blonde.
And so when these graphics hit this brick wall, we will finally see an expansion on what is fun about games, the gameplay. And when the next revolution arrives, be it on the scale of the third dimensional jump or greater, we will again see developers strive to make full use of a console's graphical capabilities, and forget what the most important thing about gaming is. The gameplay. The game.