The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Do games get better as they get more realistic? Do better graphics mean more fun?
I've looked at some of the newer games now that boast life-like graphics and near realitly gameplay. But I wondered, does this make the game any better than before? The obvious answer to most people would be yes, of course a game with life-like graphics that actually looked like you were watching a film would be good. It would be better because it would be more realistic.
We go back to some of the first ever games that were a major hit. Space invaders was one of the most unrealistic looking games that you could ever get. 2D blocks firing more blocks down at you! But apart from this, this was a great game, you could play for hours just shooting these 'little invaders' and you didn't worry a bit about the graphics. The lack of 3D graphics and amazing explosions makes that game better. In some ways, 'It's so bad it's good!'
Now games are coming out that are far far superior to this, GT3 is a prime example. These are some of the most realistic graphics that you can get at the moment and to add to it, this is a great game. The only problem is, developers are now trying to make the game look the best that they can and are now starting to stop taking so much effort on the gameplay itself. If developers could take as much time on the storylines and gameplay of games then we would have loads of really good games. This isn't the truth though, many games now are coming out with amazing graphics but are either too short or have some of the worst gameplay ever known to man!
There is also another question, can first person shooters or fighting games get anymore realistic now or have we reached the limit? I'm not talking about the graphics quality but the gore that is in many games now. Shooting somebody in the head in an older game just used to result in them falling to the ground and dying, but now when you shoot them, their whole head explodes with blood and brains flying all over the place. Do we really need this to make the game more fun? What was wrong with the older games where you just shot somebody and they fell to the ground? Do we really need this standard of realism?
I don't think that we do, games were fun when they were colourful and had great gameplay. I've stopped counting how many people have told me that Smash Brothers is rubbish because it is too 'cartoony.' They don't seem to realise that the lack of blood and gore make it a great game. Could you imagine Mario with a sword cutting Pikachu's head off and blood squirting all over the place? It doesn't sound right.
We don't need to worry about how amazing graphics are. Although they play a great part in the game, we are we forgetting about the main part, the game itself?
I've looked at some of the newer games now that boast life-like graphics and near realitly gameplay. But I wondered, does this make the game any better than before? The obvious answer to most people would be yes, of course a game with life-like graphics that actually looked like you were watching a film would be good. It would be better because it would be more realistic.
We go back to some of the first ever games that were a major hit. Space invaders was one of the most unrealistic looking games that you could ever get. 2D blocks firing more blocks down at you! But apart from this, this was a great game, you could play for hours just shooting these 'little invaders' and you didn't worry a bit about the graphics. The lack of 3D graphics and amazing explosions makes that game better. In some ways, 'It's so bad it's good!'
Now games are coming out that are far far superior to this, GT3 is a prime example. These are some of the most realistic graphics that you can get at the moment and to add to it, this is a great game. The only problem is, developers are now trying to make the game look the best that they can and are now starting to stop taking so much effort on the gameplay itself. If developers could take as much time on the storylines and gameplay of games then we would have loads of really good games. This isn't the truth though, many games now are coming out with amazing graphics but are either too short or have some of the worst gameplay ever known to man!
There is also another question, can first person shooters or fighting games get anymore realistic now or have we reached the limit? I'm not talking about the graphics quality but the gore that is in many games now. Shooting somebody in the head in an older game just used to result in them falling to the ground and dying, but now when you shoot them, their whole head explodes with blood and brains flying all over the place. Do we really need this to make the game more fun? What was wrong with the older games where you just shot somebody and they fell to the ground? Do we really need this standard of realism?
I don't think that we do, games were fun when they were colourful and had great gameplay. I've stopped counting how many people have told me that Smash Brothers is rubbish because it is too 'cartoony.' They don't seem to realise that the lack of blood and gore make it a great game. Could you imagine Mario with a sword cutting Pikachu's head off and blood squirting all over the place? It doesn't sound right.
We don't need to worry about how amazing graphics are. Although they play a great part in the game, we are we forgetting about the main part, the game itself?
Realism is always a touchy point. Hardcore gamers have been quick to say that "graphics are nothing- gameplay is everything". Although graphics don't mean a game is good, they are still important.
Would Command and Conquer have the same impact if it had the graphical quality of Cannon Fodder? Of course not.
However, that said, games don't HAVE to have realistic graphics to be good- Rez, Jet Set Radio and Super Monkey Ball prove this.
That said, games do HAVE to have realistic graphics to sell well. Rez, Jet Set Radio and Super Monkey Ball have all had mediocre commercial sales.
Sonic
Would Command and Conquer have the same impact if it had the graphical quality of Cannon Fodder? Of course not.
However, that said, games don't HAVE to have realistic graphics to be good- Rez, Jet Set Radio and Super Monkey Ball prove this.
That said, games do HAVE to have realistic graphics to sell well. Rez, Jet Set Radio and Super Monkey Ball have all had mediocre commercial sales.
Sonic
But that has always been true: there's a graphical leap forward, followed by a rash of terrible games using looks to cover up defiencies in other areas. My point is that the best games combine fantastic graphics AND gameplay, and that graphics are an integral part of the experience. The likes of GT3, for example, can only convey such a thrilling sense of speed because of their long draw distance and the high polygon count. Without this, it wouldn't matter how sophisticated the physics engine was, as a game the experience would suck.
Admittedly this applies only to certain genres: Civ 3 or Championship Manager do fine with their last-gen graphics because of their slower, more involved pace. But in general graphics are absolutely essential to (a) convince you that you are 'there', and (b) allow you to play the game to it's full potential.
Admittedly this applies only to certain genres: Civ 3 or Championship Manager do fine with their last-gen graphics because of their slower, more involved pace. But in general graphics are absolutely essential to (a) convince you that you are 'there', and (b) allow you to play the game to it's full potential.
How amny games though are coming out now with the best graphics but really poor gameplay? They are increasing!
My personal feeling is that graphics are extremely important in games. But I wouldn't equate realism with graphical prowess. Rez, for example, is only as good as it is because of it's wonderful graphics: it simply wouldn't have been possible to create the game on older platforms. But it's graphics aren't realistic.
In fact, I'd go some distance the other way: I prefer non-realistic graphics that look good to photo-realism. Adding polygons and shading is all very well, but if all you're going to use them for is recreations of actual objects then I'm pretty uninterested in the whole thing. On the whole, Japanese developers are better than their western counterparts at imaginative use of graphical power, and personally it's the approach I prefer.
In fact, I'd go some distance the other way: I prefer non-realistic graphics that look good to photo-realism. Adding polygons and shading is all very well, but if all you're going to use them for is recreations of actual objects then I'm pretty uninterested in the whole thing. On the whole, Japanese developers are better than their western counterparts at imaginative use of graphical power, and personally it's the approach I prefer.
Do games get better as they get more realistic? Do better graphics mean more fun?
I've looked at some of the newer games now that boast life-like graphics and near realitly gameplay. But I wondered, does this make the game any better than before? The obvious answer to most people would be yes, of course a game with life-like graphics that actually looked like you were watching a film would be good. It would be better because it would be more realistic.
We go back to some of the first ever games that were a major hit. Space invaders was one of the most unrealistic looking games that you could ever get. 2D blocks firing more blocks down at you! But apart from this, this was a great game, you could play for hours just shooting these 'little invaders' and you didn't worry a bit about the graphics. The lack of 3D graphics and amazing explosions makes that game better. In some ways, 'It's so bad it's good!'
Now games are coming out that are far far superior to this, GT3 is a prime example. These are some of the most realistic graphics that you can get at the moment and to add to it, this is a great game. The only problem is, developers are now trying to make the game look the best that they can and are now starting to stop taking so much effort on the gameplay itself. If developers could take as much time on the storylines and gameplay of games then we would have loads of really good games. This isn't the truth though, many games now are coming out with amazing graphics but are either too short or have some of the worst gameplay ever known to man!
There is also another question, can first person shooters or fighting games get anymore realistic now or have we reached the limit? I'm not talking about the graphics quality but the gore that is in many games now. Shooting somebody in the head in an older game just used to result in them falling to the ground and dying, but now when you shoot them, their whole head explodes with blood and brains flying all over the place. Do we really need this to make the game more fun? What was wrong with the older games where you just shot somebody and they fell to the ground? Do we really need this standard of realism?
I don't think that we do, games were fun when they were colourful and had great gameplay. I've stopped counting how many people have told me that Smash Brothers is rubbish because it is too 'cartoony.' They don't seem to realise that the lack of blood and gore make it a great game. Could you imagine Mario with a sword cutting Pikachu's head off and blood squirting all over the place? It doesn't sound right.
We don't need to worry about how amazing graphics are. Although they play a great part in the game, we are we forgetting about the main part, the game itself?
I've looked at some of the newer games now that boast life-like graphics and near realitly gameplay. But I wondered, does this make the game any better than before? The obvious answer to most people would be yes, of course a game with life-like graphics that actually looked like you were watching a film would be good. It would be better because it would be more realistic.
We go back to some of the first ever games that were a major hit. Space invaders was one of the most unrealistic looking games that you could ever get. 2D blocks firing more blocks down at you! But apart from this, this was a great game, you could play for hours just shooting these 'little invaders' and you didn't worry a bit about the graphics. The lack of 3D graphics and amazing explosions makes that game better. In some ways, 'It's so bad it's good!'
Now games are coming out that are far far superior to this, GT3 is a prime example. These are some of the most realistic graphics that you can get at the moment and to add to it, this is a great game. The only problem is, developers are now trying to make the game look the best that they can and are now starting to stop taking so much effort on the gameplay itself. If developers could take as much time on the storylines and gameplay of games then we would have loads of really good games. This isn't the truth though, many games now are coming out with amazing graphics but are either too short or have some of the worst gameplay ever known to man!
There is also another question, can first person shooters or fighting games get anymore realistic now or have we reached the limit? I'm not talking about the graphics quality but the gore that is in many games now. Shooting somebody in the head in an older game just used to result in them falling to the ground and dying, but now when you shoot them, their whole head explodes with blood and brains flying all over the place. Do we really need this to make the game more fun? What was wrong with the older games where you just shot somebody and they fell to the ground? Do we really need this standard of realism?
I don't think that we do, games were fun when they were colourful and had great gameplay. I've stopped counting how many people have told me that Smash Brothers is rubbish because it is too 'cartoony.' They don't seem to realise that the lack of blood and gore make it a great game. Could you imagine Mario with a sword cutting Pikachu's head off and blood squirting all over the place? It doesn't sound right.
We don't need to worry about how amazing graphics are. Although they play a great part in the game, we are we forgetting about the main part, the game itself?