The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Developers have never had it so good. Massive development teams have access to some great technology that allows them to realise their dreams in digital form. Developers are able to produce games of immense graphical quality across diverse styles with epic story lines. For perhaps the first time in gaming, the average game designer no longer has to restrict himself due to inadequate technology.
However, as with most things in life, developing games carries certain responsibilities. Developers form the foundation of the industry- without them there would be nothing. So it’s up to them to keep the quality of games as high as possible to keep the industry alive.
You may be thinking that I’m about to discuss the endless string of poor sequels, licensed games and copycat titles? That is just a factor of any entertainment industry that we’ll never be rid of- whether it be in films, music or games. Instead I’m more concerned about developers not thinking about the essence of their games when they design them.
You see, with consoles now able to render near photorealistic graphics, with brilliant sound effect and loads of cut scenes, too many developers have been blinded into believing that good games are ones that utilise all these features. Rather than sit down and design a game with fluid game dynamics and innovative gameplay, designers sit down and design a game that will squeeze the most power out of the console they’re developing for. The spend month developing new graphics engines and sound synthesisers with the aim to create a game that is more a technological achievement than a great game.
Often such tactics can sell games. Already gamers are hyping up “Republic: The Revolution” on the basis of it’s infinite graphic engine and lifelike AI. However, what possible bearing does this have on the game- very little is actually known about what you do in it! The same game could almost certainly be implemented on an old PC graphics engine allowing more time to be spent on designing the plot, characters and levels. Both the developer and the player have been sucked into the spiralling world of specs and figures.
Such naivety is not just seen when developing games from scratch. Whenever a sequel or update of a game is made the first question asked should be “how can we advance the game beyond the last one?” Could you introduce an innovative new control mechanism, new styles of play or a multiplayer option? Instead we see developers first asking how they can wow gamers with better graphics, usually not changing the actual game at all. What’s really amazing is that the original game’s graphics were more than good enough to convey a great game- so what’s changed?
The games industry is reaching an exciting age. Within ten years we’ll see photorealistic graphics, and an industry as well established as the film or music industry. However, when the time comes when all game developers have access to photorealistic graphics then they’ll have to find new ways to sell games. How about taking a step back and developing good games, not good technology?
Sonic
However, as with most things in life, developing games carries certain responsibilities. Developers form the foundation of the industry- without them there would be nothing. So it’s up to them to keep the quality of games as high as possible to keep the industry alive.
You may be thinking that I’m about to discuss the endless string of poor sequels, licensed games and copycat titles? That is just a factor of any entertainment industry that we’ll never be rid of- whether it be in films, music or games. Instead I’m more concerned about developers not thinking about the essence of their games when they design them.
You see, with consoles now able to render near photorealistic graphics, with brilliant sound effect and loads of cut scenes, too many developers have been blinded into believing that good games are ones that utilise all these features. Rather than sit down and design a game with fluid game dynamics and innovative gameplay, designers sit down and design a game that will squeeze the most power out of the console they’re developing for. The spend month developing new graphics engines and sound synthesisers with the aim to create a game that is more a technological achievement than a great game.
Often such tactics can sell games. Already gamers are hyping up “Republic: The Revolution” on the basis of it’s infinite graphic engine and lifelike AI. However, what possible bearing does this have on the game- very little is actually known about what you do in it! The same game could almost certainly be implemented on an old PC graphics engine allowing more time to be spent on designing the plot, characters and levels. Both the developer and the player have been sucked into the spiralling world of specs and figures.
Such naivety is not just seen when developing games from scratch. Whenever a sequel or update of a game is made the first question asked should be “how can we advance the game beyond the last one?” Could you introduce an innovative new control mechanism, new styles of play or a multiplayer option? Instead we see developers first asking how they can wow gamers with better graphics, usually not changing the actual game at all. What’s really amazing is that the original game’s graphics were more than good enough to convey a great game- so what’s changed?
The games industry is reaching an exciting age. Within ten years we’ll see photorealistic graphics, and an industry as well established as the film or music industry. However, when the time comes when all game developers have access to photorealistic graphics then they’ll have to find new ways to sell games. How about taking a step back and developing good games, not good technology?
Sonic
IB wrote:
"History shows us that games have sold with absolutely appaling graphics in the past. Anyone remember Elite on the NES?"
It does have rubbish graphics when you back to it today and look at it, but at the time it would have been considered acceptable. Look at something like Street Fighter 2. Don't tell me you weren't wowed by the graphics when you first saw the arcade cabinet. Yet when you look at it today, it's laughable.
My point? At the time, the graphics were impressive. It's only when you go back to them and compare them to todays standards that you think that they are poor.
As for graphics over gameplay? I agree that is a bad thing. But I think it is a good thing that developers are pushing the graphics of their titles. Why spend £300 on a PS2 if the graphics are the same as on the PSX? Why shell out £300 on an Xbox if the games look the same as on a SNES?
Graphics are the only universal constant in computer games. The actual gameplay is amazingly subjective. What one person will love, another will hate. Graphics aren't sugjective at all. A game either looks great, or it doesn't. No discussion needed.
Which is why development teams are "encouraged" to make the graphics look their best. Graphics are what sells games to the mass market. Graphics are portrayed in screenshots in magaznines and on the web. Gameplayis not. Graphics and sound are displayed in videoclips of games, again on magazines discs and on the web. Gameplay is not. Graphics are shown on the back on the box, gameplay is not.
Rav wrote:
"Massive development teams have access to some great technology that allows them to realise their dreams in digital form. Developers are able to produce games of immense graphical quality across diverse styles with epic story lines. For perhaps the first time in gaming, the average game designer no longer has to restrict himself due to inadequate technology."
That is indeed true. But with bigger teams comes bigger budgets, bigger pressure. If a 3 man team is running late with their latest title for the Amiga, the game is released later. End of story. If a 30 man team is running late with Tomb Raider 7 for the PS2. Tough, get it finished. We have budgets and schedules to stick to.
With gaming beco,ing bigger, the money involed becomes bigger, and the whole industry starts to revolve around that money, and not the ideas behind the industry, if you see what I mean?
"History shows us that games have sold with absolutely appaling graphics in the past. Anyone remember Elite on the NES?"
It does have rubbish graphics when you back to it today and look at it, but at the time it would have been considered acceptable. Look at something like Street Fighter 2. Don't tell me you weren't wowed by the graphics when you first saw the arcade cabinet. Yet when you look at it today, it's laughable.
My point? At the time, the graphics were impressive. It's only when you go back to them and compare them to todays standards that you think that they are poor.
As for graphics over gameplay? I agree that is a bad thing. But I think it is a good thing that developers are pushing the graphics of their titles. Why spend £300 on a PS2 if the graphics are the same as on the PSX? Why shell out £300 on an Xbox if the games look the same as on a SNES?
Graphics are the only universal constant in computer games. The actual gameplay is amazingly subjective. What one person will love, another will hate. Graphics aren't sugjective at all. A game either looks great, or it doesn't. No discussion needed.
Which is why development teams are "encouraged" to make the graphics look their best. Graphics are what sells games to the mass market. Graphics are portrayed in screenshots in magaznines and on the web. Gameplayis not. Graphics and sound are displayed in videoclips of games, again on magazines discs and on the web. Gameplay is not. Graphics are shown on the back on the box, gameplay is not.
Rav wrote:
"Massive development teams have access to some great technology that allows them to realise their dreams in digital form. Developers are able to produce games of immense graphical quality across diverse styles with epic story lines. For perhaps the first time in gaming, the average game designer no longer has to restrict himself due to inadequate technology."
That is indeed true. But with bigger teams comes bigger budgets, bigger pressure. If a 3 man team is running late with their latest title for the Amiga, the game is released later. End of story. If a 30 man team is running late with Tomb Raider 7 for the PS2. Tough, get it finished. We have budgets and schedules to stick to.
With gaming beco,ing bigger, the money involed becomes bigger, and the whole industry starts to revolve around that money, and not the ideas behind the industry, if you see what I mean?
"graphics a game does not make".
I don't think I've ever hear it put like that before, but we're on the same wavelength!
MGS2 is a game that keeps coming up in my topics. Simply put, I think the game is aiming to do the wrong things- it's trying to be a film and not a game. The stupidly long cut-scenes, B-rate style storyline and even packaging are all testiment to this.
Sonic
I don't think I've ever hear it put like that before, but we're on the same wavelength!
MGS2 is a game that keeps coming up in my topics. Simply put, I think the game is aiming to do the wrong things- it's trying to be a film and not a game. The stupidly long cut-scenes, B-rate style storyline and even packaging are all testiment to this.
Sonic
I agree 100%.
Yes, good graphics are very pretty, but as I've said several times before: "graphics a game does not make".
The vast majority of the industry is headed in the wrong direction. "spruce up the graphics", "enhance the lighting", "add more polygons". Why? History shows us that games have sold with absolutely appaling graphics in the past. Anyone remember Elite on the NES? The only way it could be converted was to make all the ships wire frame images. No space background, no ship detail, nothing. By all accounts, and to all intents and purposes, the graphics were an absolute travesty. And yet the game was a major hit. Every magazine gave the game a rating in excess of 90%, and anyone who owned would have lost days at a time playing it.
A breath of fresh air arrived on my doorstep the other day when I received a copy of Age Of Wonders II in the post. This sequel boasts only marginally improved graphics, they have almost not bothered improving them at all. However, they have changed parts of the combat system, experience system, alignments, spells, abilities, quests, units etc. The game has been turned around on how it is played, and not how it looks. And how does it play? It plays amazing. I lost the better part of my weekend to it.
Another breath of air so sweet is WarCraft III. Yes the graphics have noticably been spruced up, but the game has changed so much as to be almost unrecognisable in terms of gameplay. Indeed, Blizzard claim to have invented a new genre of game in WarCraft III, that being Role Playing Strategy (essentially a cross between Role Playing Game and Real Time Strategy). All these signs are encouraging.
But the downside is enough to tug at my heart. I hear people screaming at how wonderful games like MGS2 look, just as they did with MGS1. I have no intention of playing MGS2, based on my experience with MGS1. The game was nice and pretty, but it lacked depth and more importantly, longevity. The game was over in a far too short period, and had almost no replay value.
Why bother buying the game then? I can't think of a reason. Too often I see in game reviews that something is "graphically spectacular". People rave on about how a game looks, and they rant and rant about it. End of review. I mean, Hello? Gameplay? It's almost like gameplay has become a secondary feature to many developers now, who work their butts off to get the game graphically up to speed, and then if they have time before release, they'll try and put some gameplay in there somewhere.
People play games because they have gameplay. I don't see "graphics" anywhere in "gameplay". Developers need to get their priorities right.
Yes, good graphics are very pretty, but as I've said several times before: "graphics a game does not make".
The vast majority of the industry is headed in the wrong direction. "spruce up the graphics", "enhance the lighting", "add more polygons". Why? History shows us that games have sold with absolutely appaling graphics in the past. Anyone remember Elite on the NES? The only way it could be converted was to make all the ships wire frame images. No space background, no ship detail, nothing. By all accounts, and to all intents and purposes, the graphics were an absolute travesty. And yet the game was a major hit. Every magazine gave the game a rating in excess of 90%, and anyone who owned would have lost days at a time playing it.
A breath of fresh air arrived on my doorstep the other day when I received a copy of Age Of Wonders II in the post. This sequel boasts only marginally improved graphics, they have almost not bothered improving them at all. However, they have changed parts of the combat system, experience system, alignments, spells, abilities, quests, units etc. The game has been turned around on how it is played, and not how it looks. And how does it play? It plays amazing. I lost the better part of my weekend to it.
Another breath of air so sweet is WarCraft III. Yes the graphics have noticably been spruced up, but the game has changed so much as to be almost unrecognisable in terms of gameplay. Indeed, Blizzard claim to have invented a new genre of game in WarCraft III, that being Role Playing Strategy (essentially a cross between Role Playing Game and Real Time Strategy). All these signs are encouraging.
But the downside is enough to tug at my heart. I hear people screaming at how wonderful games like MGS2 look, just as they did with MGS1. I have no intention of playing MGS2, based on my experience with MGS1. The game was nice and pretty, but it lacked depth and more importantly, longevity. The game was over in a far too short period, and had almost no replay value.
Why bother buying the game then? I can't think of a reason. Too often I see in game reviews that something is "graphically spectacular". People rave on about how a game looks, and they rant and rant about it. End of review. I mean, Hello? Gameplay? It's almost like gameplay has become a secondary feature to many developers now, who work their butts off to get the game graphically up to speed, and then if they have time before release, they'll try and put some gameplay in there somewhere.
People play games because they have gameplay. I don't see "graphics" anywhere in "gameplay". Developers need to get their priorities right.
Developers have never had it so good. Massive development teams have access to some great technology that allows them to realise their dreams in digital form. Developers are able to produce games of immense graphical quality across diverse styles with epic story lines. For perhaps the first time in gaming, the average game designer no longer has to restrict himself due to inadequate technology.
However, as with most things in life, developing games carries certain responsibilities. Developers form the foundation of the industry- without them there would be nothing. So it’s up to them to keep the quality of games as high as possible to keep the industry alive.
You may be thinking that I’m about to discuss the endless string of poor sequels, licensed games and copycat titles? That is just a factor of any entertainment industry that we’ll never be rid of- whether it be in films, music or games. Instead I’m more concerned about developers not thinking about the essence of their games when they design them.
You see, with consoles now able to render near photorealistic graphics, with brilliant sound effect and loads of cut scenes, too many developers have been blinded into believing that good games are ones that utilise all these features. Rather than sit down and design a game with fluid game dynamics and innovative gameplay, designers sit down and design a game that will squeeze the most power out of the console they’re developing for. The spend month developing new graphics engines and sound synthesisers with the aim to create a game that is more a technological achievement than a great game.
Often such tactics can sell games. Already gamers are hyping up “Republic: The Revolution” on the basis of it’s infinite graphic engine and lifelike AI. However, what possible bearing does this have on the game- very little is actually known about what you do in it! The same game could almost certainly be implemented on an old PC graphics engine allowing more time to be spent on designing the plot, characters and levels. Both the developer and the player have been sucked into the spiralling world of specs and figures.
Such naivety is not just seen when developing games from scratch. Whenever a sequel or update of a game is made the first question asked should be “how can we advance the game beyond the last one?” Could you introduce an innovative new control mechanism, new styles of play or a multiplayer option? Instead we see developers first asking how they can wow gamers with better graphics, usually not changing the actual game at all. What’s really amazing is that the original game’s graphics were more than good enough to convey a great game- so what’s changed?
The games industry is reaching an exciting age. Within ten years we’ll see photorealistic graphics, and an industry as well established as the film or music industry. However, when the time comes when all game developers have access to photorealistic graphics then they’ll have to find new ways to sell games. How about taking a step back and developing good games, not good technology?
Sonic
However, as with most things in life, developing games carries certain responsibilities. Developers form the foundation of the industry- without them there would be nothing. So it’s up to them to keep the quality of games as high as possible to keep the industry alive.
You may be thinking that I’m about to discuss the endless string of poor sequels, licensed games and copycat titles? That is just a factor of any entertainment industry that we’ll never be rid of- whether it be in films, music or games. Instead I’m more concerned about developers not thinking about the essence of their games when they design them.
You see, with consoles now able to render near photorealistic graphics, with brilliant sound effect and loads of cut scenes, too many developers have been blinded into believing that good games are ones that utilise all these features. Rather than sit down and design a game with fluid game dynamics and innovative gameplay, designers sit down and design a game that will squeeze the most power out of the console they’re developing for. The spend month developing new graphics engines and sound synthesisers with the aim to create a game that is more a technological achievement than a great game.
Often such tactics can sell games. Already gamers are hyping up “Republic: The Revolution” on the basis of it’s infinite graphic engine and lifelike AI. However, what possible bearing does this have on the game- very little is actually known about what you do in it! The same game could almost certainly be implemented on an old PC graphics engine allowing more time to be spent on designing the plot, characters and levels. Both the developer and the player have been sucked into the spiralling world of specs and figures.
Such naivety is not just seen when developing games from scratch. Whenever a sequel or update of a game is made the first question asked should be “how can we advance the game beyond the last one?” Could you introduce an innovative new control mechanism, new styles of play or a multiplayer option? Instead we see developers first asking how they can wow gamers with better graphics, usually not changing the actual game at all. What’s really amazing is that the original game’s graphics were more than good enough to convey a great game- so what’s changed?
The games industry is reaching an exciting age. Within ten years we’ll see photorealistic graphics, and an industry as well established as the film or music industry. However, when the time comes when all game developers have access to photorealistic graphics then they’ll have to find new ways to sell games. How about taking a step back and developing good games, not good technology?
Sonic