The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
When you look for a game, I think that graphics influence you decision on buying a game. Whether it be a Gamecube game, GBA game or whatever, graphics are always going to be a main part of buying a game, but are they becoming too much of an influence?
Nowadays, with all the ‘Next-Gen consoles out and even before them with the Dreamcast and maybe even the Nintendo 64, graphics have to be good for a game to be successful. I can’t think of one game that hasn’t been successful with the buyers, that has had a good gameplay value, but rubbish graphics for what the console is capable of. I think that this even happened in the early stages of gaming. Back then, graphics were what there’ll like today. Games come out with graphics like no has seen before and that was exactly what happened then. I remember a game called Rise of the Robots. This came out at about 1996, I think, and it had absolutely great graphics but had such bad gameplay it only got about 10%.
So, I think graphics influence gamers a lot. I think this is why; games are coming out more and more with excellent graphics but lacking in gameplay. I think ‘less-experienced gamers,’ so to speak, get influence much, much more on whether a game is good by the way the graphics look. Games nowadays, as well, have a lot more violence and blood and gore. I think because of how advanced game development is now, putting a lot of blood and gore in games is much more easy. Don’t get me wrong, I think that games that need the blood and gore to make the game what it is, like Resident Evil, deserve to have the best graphics to make the zombies look good, but there are games that don’t need it, but have it because they know that it might sell more.
Cel Shading is the newest thing out, graphics wise. Some people are criticising this new thing, but personally Cel Shading for me looks pretty good. Take the new Zelda game on Gamecube. Personally I think that the new Zelda look excellent. After looking at the screenshots and downloading videos from E3, I have come to the conclusion that it looks great. I know that there has been a lot of conflict over this matter, but when Shigeru Miyamoto announced the Gamecube, he promised something different from the other consoles and that is what he delivered. I know that other games have followed in his footsteps, like Cel Damage on the Gamecube, which is no where near as good as Zelda, but still okay. I think Cel Shading is the new thing on the block graphically and I think it’s here to stay.
I know that I have been influenced by the way the graphics look. Final Fantasy X, made me change the way I looked at it. I had never really wanted it, but once I had got a video from CVG, and watched the trailer for FFX, the graphics amazed me. I think that made me want it more than anything. I already knew that it was a very good game, and the gameplay was excellent, but I was influenced tremendously by the way the graphics looked.
Overall, I think that graphics have a massive influence on not only me, but also a lot of other people. I know when I see some screenshots, I always comment on the graphics first, and the same goes with videos. It seems to me, that graphics are way ahead of our time and that is a major selling point in the gaming industry. This is all very well and good, but are game developers spending too much time on the graphics as a selling point, and forgetting about the gameplay value?
Thanks for taking time to read it.
Liquid
Nowadays, with all the ‘Next-Gen consoles out and even before them with the Dreamcast and maybe even the Nintendo 64, graphics have to be good for a game to be successful. I can’t think of one game that hasn’t been successful with the buyers, that has had a good gameplay value, but rubbish graphics for what the console is capable of. I think that this even happened in the early stages of gaming. Back then, graphics were what there’ll like today. Games come out with graphics like no has seen before and that was exactly what happened then. I remember a game called Rise of the Robots. This came out at about 1996, I think, and it had absolutely great graphics but had such bad gameplay it only got about 10%.
So, I think graphics influence gamers a lot. I think this is why; games are coming out more and more with excellent graphics but lacking in gameplay. I think ‘less-experienced gamers,’ so to speak, get influence much, much more on whether a game is good by the way the graphics look. Games nowadays, as well, have a lot more violence and blood and gore. I think because of how advanced game development is now, putting a lot of blood and gore in games is much more easy. Don’t get me wrong, I think that games that need the blood and gore to make the game what it is, like Resident Evil, deserve to have the best graphics to make the zombies look good, but there are games that don’t need it, but have it because they know that it might sell more.
Cel Shading is the newest thing out, graphics wise. Some people are criticising this new thing, but personally Cel Shading for me looks pretty good. Take the new Zelda game on Gamecube. Personally I think that the new Zelda look excellent. After looking at the screenshots and downloading videos from E3, I have come to the conclusion that it looks great. I know that there has been a lot of conflict over this matter, but when Shigeru Miyamoto announced the Gamecube, he promised something different from the other consoles and that is what he delivered. I know that other games have followed in his footsteps, like Cel Damage on the Gamecube, which is no where near as good as Zelda, but still okay. I think Cel Shading is the new thing on the block graphically and I think it’s here to stay.
I know that I have been influenced by the way the graphics look. Final Fantasy X, made me change the way I looked at it. I had never really wanted it, but once I had got a video from CVG, and watched the trailer for FFX, the graphics amazed me. I think that made me want it more than anything. I already knew that it was a very good game, and the gameplay was excellent, but I was influenced tremendously by the way the graphics looked.
Overall, I think that graphics have a massive influence on not only me, but also a lot of other people. I know when I see some screenshots, I always comment on the graphics first, and the same goes with videos. It seems to me, that graphics are way ahead of our time and that is a major selling point in the gaming industry. This is all very well and good, but are game developers spending too much time on the graphics as a selling point, and forgetting about the gameplay value?
Thanks for taking time to read it.
Liquid
Somehow I don't think so. Triple_H posted a well good post, so I think he will win. It would be nice now...
Liquid H²O wrote:
> I hadn't even been on yesterday till I posted my topic, so I couldn't
> have copied.
O.K
I believe you, it's just the way you posted a similar topic to me and commented on blood and gore too!
I'm not gonna complain, just if you win GAD I will be pressing legal charges!
> I hadn't even been on yesterday till I posted my topic, so I couldn't
> have copied.
O.K
I believe you, it's just the way you posted a similar topic to me and commented on blood and gore too!
I'm not gonna complain, just if you win GAD I will be pressing legal charges!
Old Turbonutter wrote:
> However, I discovered that if you
> take ASM off, drifing become easy.
Yes, It is really easy. The thing I don't understand though is that you have to turn the ASM off on each car in your garage individually. The Option in the menu turns ASM off in the Arcade mode, but not in the GT mode. Very Annoying when I want to test my powerdrift control by going for a blast in my 1000bhp+ TVR Cerbera Speed 12. I have to go and ferret about in the settings first.
bah. grrr. meh.
> However, I discovered that if you
> take ASM off, drifing become easy.
Yes, It is really easy. The thing I don't understand though is that you have to turn the ASM off on each car in your garage individually. The Option in the menu turns ASM off in the Arcade mode, but not in the GT mode. Very Annoying when I want to test my powerdrift control by going for a blast in my 1000bhp+ TVR Cerbera Speed 12. I have to go and ferret about in the settings first.
bah. grrr. meh.
I hadn't even been on yesterday till I posted my topic, so I couldn't have copied.
On the subject of GT3 -
I discovered it's the second best racing game ever today.
I originally though it to be about 10th, behind the other GTs, Rollcage, the WipEouts and Burnout. However, I discovered that if you take ASM off, drifing become easy.
Really, amazingly easy.
I suddenly realised why I was a God at GT[1-2], but not 3, and I realised that the others had no ASM.
I was saved! I whipped out my FTO LM and starting kicking butt!
Anyway, it's now 2nd best.
What's best?
WipEout 2097, obviously. Folol.
I discovered it's the second best racing game ever today.
I originally though it to be about 10th, behind the other GTs, Rollcage, the WipEouts and Burnout. However, I discovered that if you take ASM off, drifing become easy.
Really, amazingly easy.
I suddenly realised why I was a God at GT[1-2], but not 3, and I realised that the others had no ASM.
I was saved! I whipped out my FTO LM and starting kicking butt!
Anyway, it's now 2nd best.
What's best?
WipEout 2097, obviously. Folol.
Graphics are as important as the gameplay itself. GT3 with the best graphics and crap gameplay would be boring, but vice-versa would just be horrible to play on too!
It's very similar to my post from yesterday!
Did you write this before or after you saw my post? My post was a day earlier and commented on some of the same issues as you!
Interesting!
It's very similar to my post from yesterday!
Did you write this before or after you saw my post? My post was a day earlier and commented on some of the same issues as you!
Interesting!
I think graphics are too over-rated. If you have a bad game with amazing graphics chances are you won't play it very much before throwing it away in disgust. But, if you have a good game with less than average graphics then you probably will play it.
I mean, even if Shigeru Miyamoto decided to make the next Zelda game with the graphical finesse of the NES Zelda games, I probably would go and get it.
It's the same with consoles. Not with looks, but with power. The X-Box is pushed as being the most powerful console around, and hey, if you've got it flaunt it. But it's wrong for someone to chose that console for what it could be capable of. Sure it can pump out millions upon milllions of polygons a second and has 64 megs of RAM, but does that really matter if the developers make rubbish games for it?
I mean, even if Shigeru Miyamoto decided to make the next Zelda game with the graphical finesse of the NES Zelda games, I probably would go and get it.
It's the same with consoles. Not with looks, but with power. The X-Box is pushed as being the most powerful console around, and hey, if you've got it flaunt it. But it's wrong for someone to chose that console for what it could be capable of. Sure it can pump out millions upon milllions of polygons a second and has 64 megs of RAM, but does that really matter if the developers make rubbish games for it?
When you look for a game, I think that graphics influence you decision on buying a game. Whether it be a Gamecube game, GBA game or whatever, graphics are always going to be a main part of buying a game, but are they becoming too much of an influence?
Nowadays, with all the ‘Next-Gen consoles out and even before them with the Dreamcast and maybe even the Nintendo 64, graphics have to be good for a game to be successful. I can’t think of one game that hasn’t been successful with the buyers, that has had a good gameplay value, but rubbish graphics for what the console is capable of. I think that this even happened in the early stages of gaming. Back then, graphics were what there’ll like today. Games come out with graphics like no has seen before and that was exactly what happened then. I remember a game called Rise of the Robots. This came out at about 1996, I think, and it had absolutely great graphics but had such bad gameplay it only got about 10%.
So, I think graphics influence gamers a lot. I think this is why; games are coming out more and more with excellent graphics but lacking in gameplay. I think ‘less-experienced gamers,’ so to speak, get influence much, much more on whether a game is good by the way the graphics look. Games nowadays, as well, have a lot more violence and blood and gore. I think because of how advanced game development is now, putting a lot of blood and gore in games is much more easy. Don’t get me wrong, I think that games that need the blood and gore to make the game what it is, like Resident Evil, deserve to have the best graphics to make the zombies look good, but there are games that don’t need it, but have it because they know that it might sell more.
Cel Shading is the newest thing out, graphics wise. Some people are criticising this new thing, but personally Cel Shading for me looks pretty good. Take the new Zelda game on Gamecube. Personally I think that the new Zelda look excellent. After looking at the screenshots and downloading videos from E3, I have come to the conclusion that it looks great. I know that there has been a lot of conflict over this matter, but when Shigeru Miyamoto announced the Gamecube, he promised something different from the other consoles and that is what he delivered. I know that other games have followed in his footsteps, like Cel Damage on the Gamecube, which is no where near as good as Zelda, but still okay. I think Cel Shading is the new thing on the block graphically and I think it’s here to stay.
I know that I have been influenced by the way the graphics look. Final Fantasy X, made me change the way I looked at it. I had never really wanted it, but once I had got a video from CVG, and watched the trailer for FFX, the graphics amazed me. I think that made me want it more than anything. I already knew that it was a very good game, and the gameplay was excellent, but I was influenced tremendously by the way the graphics looked.
Overall, I think that graphics have a massive influence on not only me, but also a lot of other people. I know when I see some screenshots, I always comment on the graphics first, and the same goes with videos. It seems to me, that graphics are way ahead of our time and that is a major selling point in the gaming industry. This is all very well and good, but are game developers spending too much time on the graphics as a selling point, and forgetting about the gameplay value?
Thanks for taking time to read it.
Liquid
Nowadays, with all the ‘Next-Gen consoles out and even before them with the Dreamcast and maybe even the Nintendo 64, graphics have to be good for a game to be successful. I can’t think of one game that hasn’t been successful with the buyers, that has had a good gameplay value, but rubbish graphics for what the console is capable of. I think that this even happened in the early stages of gaming. Back then, graphics were what there’ll like today. Games come out with graphics like no has seen before and that was exactly what happened then. I remember a game called Rise of the Robots. This came out at about 1996, I think, and it had absolutely great graphics but had such bad gameplay it only got about 10%.
So, I think graphics influence gamers a lot. I think this is why; games are coming out more and more with excellent graphics but lacking in gameplay. I think ‘less-experienced gamers,’ so to speak, get influence much, much more on whether a game is good by the way the graphics look. Games nowadays, as well, have a lot more violence and blood and gore. I think because of how advanced game development is now, putting a lot of blood and gore in games is much more easy. Don’t get me wrong, I think that games that need the blood and gore to make the game what it is, like Resident Evil, deserve to have the best graphics to make the zombies look good, but there are games that don’t need it, but have it because they know that it might sell more.
Cel Shading is the newest thing out, graphics wise. Some people are criticising this new thing, but personally Cel Shading for me looks pretty good. Take the new Zelda game on Gamecube. Personally I think that the new Zelda look excellent. After looking at the screenshots and downloading videos from E3, I have come to the conclusion that it looks great. I know that there has been a lot of conflict over this matter, but when Shigeru Miyamoto announced the Gamecube, he promised something different from the other consoles and that is what he delivered. I know that other games have followed in his footsteps, like Cel Damage on the Gamecube, which is no where near as good as Zelda, but still okay. I think Cel Shading is the new thing on the block graphically and I think it’s here to stay.
I know that I have been influenced by the way the graphics look. Final Fantasy X, made me change the way I looked at it. I had never really wanted it, but once I had got a video from CVG, and watched the trailer for FFX, the graphics amazed me. I think that made me want it more than anything. I already knew that it was a very good game, and the gameplay was excellent, but I was influenced tremendously by the way the graphics looked.
Overall, I think that graphics have a massive influence on not only me, but also a lot of other people. I know when I see some screenshots, I always comment on the graphics first, and the same goes with videos. It seems to me, that graphics are way ahead of our time and that is a major selling point in the gaming industry. This is all very well and good, but are game developers spending too much time on the graphics as a selling point, and forgetting about the gameplay value?
Thanks for taking time to read it.
Liquid