The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 inside a magazine and you see the advertising picture of lets say... Link, you see a highly detailed image with a smooth outline and no flaws whatsoever. This is brilliant. It's amazing. It's... not the actual in-game picture visual. This is fine. It doesn't matter. How much more worse could the in-game visual be than this picture?
Here is a situation based on the visuals of a game. What do you do?
Situation 1
You buy a game and take it home. You've read the preview and it is gob-smacking. You've heard it lasts 6 months and the voice acting is perfect. Things couldn't be better. That is until you take the CD out and place it inside your console. The red light gleams off the console as you stare up towards the TV in excitment. "The Legend Of Zelda." But wait. The entire game itself appears to be cel-shaded. Now does this bother you? It may bother some. Does it annoy you? It may annoy some. Or is it an improvement of what you first expected? Some may think it's an improvement of what they first saw. The big question in desperate need of an answer though, is this. Do visuals matter?
After seeing situation 1 has it ever happened to you? I mean it's odd, when you look at games of the past and compare them to games now, you can see a major difference. Third generation is miles better. But yet, we seem to still be criticising the graphics nowadays. Why? Aren't they good enough still? Are 3D graphics still the same as old 2D.
Here is situation 2 again based on visuals of a game, but in another way.
Situation 2
You buy a game and are looking forward to playing it. The game is called Universal Studios. You put the CD inside the console and look in amazement at how the graphics can be this horrible. Now putting aside the awful gameplay, sound and lifespan do the terrible graphics make you want to burn this rubbish until there's nothing left?
Now I think there are two different ways in which graphics can be off-putting. Firstly is if the game is just damn right awful. If so then the greatest game in the world can be dropped down to lower standards. Then we have a newer issue. If the game is cel-shaded and you want normal 3D then it can be disappointing. This may put you off the game. If your not sure what the types of graphics are then look below.
As I see it I believe there are three types of graphics. Basic 2D, basic 3D and cel-shaded. Now the 2D graphics are well respected and a little dated, but proved by Nintendo's Game Boy Advance are still great. They are your basic scroll across the screen on a flat background. Examples are Sonic and Super Mario World. Next up is the well known and most used today 3D graphics. They are exploration based like Mario 64 and Metal Gear Solid 2. This is by far the favourite to many gamers and appears to be the best way to present a game. Finally is the newest comer to game designs, and that is the cel-shaded visuals. They may not be the most popular type of graphics but with games like Zelda and possibly another Jet Set Radio to be released with this type of graphics, we can expect to see great things.
Now do you have a favourite or do you have a least favourite of the three above? If one game you've always wanted i a type that you're not pleased with does it put you off the game completely?
When you play a game you've bought the most important thing you want is fun. It must be fun to play or else there's no point. Next would be lifespan. You really want it to last a while and not find a comfortable place in your drawers. After would be the controls and finally the sound and graphics. This is my opinion but I think this is the order. As you can see graphics are low and I consider them to be a side dish.
Overall I have to say this. Average or bad graphics shouldn't be off-putting and should just be considered as fine the way they are. I mean look at the past and see how much better they are now. Call me crazy but bad graphics shouldn't be a problem. If you think they are then you'll be missing out on some of the greatest games ever. And also cel-shaded or basic 3D, it doesn't matter, they both are great looking and fine as they are. Remember graphics are the side dish and shouldn't be shot in the forehead.
Thanks for reading.
Here is a situation based on the visuals of a game. What do you do?
Situation 1
You buy a game and take it home. You've read the preview and it is gob-smacking. You've heard it lasts 6 months and the voice acting is perfect. Things couldn't be better. That is until you take the CD out and place it inside your console. The red light gleams off the console as you stare up towards the TV in excitment. "The Legend Of Zelda." But wait. The entire game itself appears to be cel-shaded. Now does this bother you? It may bother some. Does it annoy you? It may annoy some. Or is it an improvement of what you first expected? Some may think it's an improvement of what they first saw. The big question in desperate need of an answer though, is this. Do visuals matter?
After seeing situation 1 has it ever happened to you? I mean it's odd, when you look at games of the past and compare them to games now, you can see a major difference. Third generation is miles better. But yet, we seem to still be criticising the graphics nowadays. Why? Aren't they good enough still? Are 3D graphics still the same as old 2D.
Here is situation 2 again based on visuals of a game, but in another way.
Situation 2
You buy a game and are looking forward to playing it. The game is called Universal Studios. You put the CD inside the console and look in amazement at how the graphics can be this horrible. Now putting aside the awful gameplay, sound and lifespan do the terrible graphics make you want to burn this rubbish until there's nothing left?
Now I think there are two different ways in which graphics can be off-putting. Firstly is if the game is just damn right awful. If so then the greatest game in the world can be dropped down to lower standards. Then we have a newer issue. If the game is cel-shaded and you want normal 3D then it can be disappointing. This may put you off the game. If your not sure what the types of graphics are then look below.
As I see it I believe there are three types of graphics. Basic 2D, basic 3D and cel-shaded. Now the 2D graphics are well respected and a little dated, but proved by Nintendo's Game Boy Advance are still great. They are your basic scroll across the screen on a flat background. Examples are Sonic and Super Mario World. Next up is the well known and most used today 3D graphics. They are exploration based like Mario 64 and Metal Gear Solid 2. This is by far the favourite to many gamers and appears to be the best way to present a game. Finally is the newest comer to game designs, and that is the cel-shaded visuals. They may not be the most popular type of graphics but with games like Zelda and possibly another Jet Set Radio to be released with this type of graphics, we can expect to see great things.
Now do you have a favourite or do you have a least favourite of the three above? If one game you've always wanted i a type that you're not pleased with does it put you off the game completely?
When you play a game you've bought the most important thing you want is fun. It must be fun to play or else there's no point. Next would be lifespan. You really want it to last a while and not find a comfortable place in your drawers. After would be the controls and finally the sound and graphics. This is my opinion but I think this is the order. As you can see graphics are low and I consider them to be a side dish.
Overall I have to say this. Average or bad graphics shouldn't be off-putting and should just be considered as fine the way they are. I mean look at the past and see how much better they are now. Call me crazy but bad graphics shouldn't be a problem. If you think they are then you'll be missing out on some of the greatest games ever. And also cel-shaded or basic 3D, it doesn't matter, they both are great looking and fine as they are. Remember graphics are the side dish and shouldn't be shot in the forehead.
Thanks for reading.
Page:
The graphics of Resident Evil are amazing! So do the Legend Of Zelda. Has anyone else seen them.
Good post,
I did one yesterday called 'The Concept of Gaming' but by the time I had posted it, it was already half way down the forum page so if anyone is interested no-one has replied to it yet but it was on a simliar topic but to do with gameplay!
I did one yesterday called 'The Concept of Gaming' but by the time I had posted it, it was already half way down the forum page so if anyone is interested no-one has replied to it yet but it was on a simliar topic but to do with gameplay!
What?!
custom_4 really explained a lot there! The way he says "*" is simply remarkable!
I check out the lifespan and fun factor of the game before I buy it. The graphics and sound don't really bother me.
Thanks for the feedback guys. I believe that we should not judge a book by it's cover so it should be the same with a game. Keep the feedback coming.
Excellent post Ghost Killer. Great topic, well put and not so long that it goes on and on and on and on and on and... what was I saying.
AfroJoe wrote:
> This is back to the whole Graphics vs Gameplay angle again, but
> there's nothing wrong with that. Graphics make a game look good, but
> Gameplay is needed to keep the game lasting, to make the game player
> happy, and to let us all enjoy gaming more.
If the graphics were the best ever, but there was only one level, people still wouldn't buy the game. However, I do agree that visuals are vital. It works both ways. No one would buy a game if it had wireframe graphics and limitless levels, either. It has to be a balance, I think.
SD
> This is back to the whole Graphics vs Gameplay angle again, but
> there's nothing wrong with that. Graphics make a game look good, but
> Gameplay is needed to keep the game lasting, to make the game player
> happy, and to let us all enjoy gaming more.
If the graphics were the best ever, but there was only one level, people still wouldn't buy the game. However, I do agree that visuals are vital. It works both ways. No one would buy a game if it had wireframe graphics and limitless levels, either. It has to be a balance, I think.
SD
Good post.
I'd have to say that visuals will help in the selling of the game, but if the gameplay inside isn't as good as was hoped for, then people will advise friends and family not to buy the game, losing the game sales.
This is back to the whole Graphics vs Gameplay angle again, but there's nothing wrong with that. Graphics make a game look good, but Gameplay is needed to keep the game lasting, to make the game player happy, and to let us all enjoy gaming more.
Visuals = Important
Gameplay = Much more important
I'd have to say that visuals will help in the selling of the game, but if the gameplay inside isn't as good as was hoped for, then people will advise friends and family not to buy the game, losing the game sales.
This is back to the whole Graphics vs Gameplay angle again, but there's nothing wrong with that. Graphics make a game look good, but Gameplay is needed to keep the game lasting, to make the game player happy, and to let us all enjoy gaming more.
Visuals = Important
Gameplay = Much more important
This is a good topic, and well put too. It's straight to the point and relates to stuff we know. I remember reading a huge topic by custom_4 the other day. If you want to read it, the link is (remember to take the space out):
http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk/display_messages.php? (space) threadid=48711&forumid=416
I warn you, it is very long, which is what I think put people off from reading it. This was nicely done, and not too long. Nice one Ghost Killer.
SD
http://ukchatforums.reserve.co.uk/display_messages.php? (space) threadid=48711&forumid=416
I warn you, it is very long, which is what I think put people off from reading it. This was nicely done, and not too long. Nice one Ghost Killer.
SD
Page: