The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Being someone who has enjoyed videogames since the era of the NES I have always firmly believed that games should put gameplay over graphics. Graphics, to me, were only important so far as to offer something that wasn’t hard on the eyes, and allowed you to play the game effectively. Eye candy was all very well and good, but it wasn’t the reason I played games. Now of course, graphics have moved on, and what is acceptable as graphics that just get the job done has also changed. I mean, I would no longer say it was acceptable for a developer to release a FPS with graphics like Wolfenstein 3D on one of the current home consoles, because nowadays, those graphics are hard on the eyes, very pixely and generally not very eye-friendly.
But I have found myself wondering if graphics really are important for a gaming experience. In some cases I know this is not true. More often than not the graphical style is simply there to match the style of game, bright, fun colours for the Mario series, realistic graphics for formula 1 racers, etc. But, thinking about it now, I see that sometimes graphics are an absolutely vital part of the gaming experience. Granted, I still don’t believe this to be the case for most games, but for some.
What made me realise this? Resident Evil. Playing that game a fair amount on the PlayStation, it wasn’t scary. The giant spiders made my skin crawl, but then I am not a big fan of spiders, but for the most part there wasn’t much scary about the experience. Why? Well, think about this. If you watch any of those old horror films now, like say Nightmare On Elm Street or something similar, you look at the ‘scary’ bits and half the time will find yourself laughing at the ‘realistic’ looking blood and special effects, that by today’s standards are, well, laughable. Same with Resident Evil. Except that when that was released movie’s had moved on a lot, and had better special effects and that to scare audiences with. But videogames were far behind films, so the original Resident Evil couldn’t really be that tense or scary.
But with more powerful consoles now almost capable of photo-realistic graphics the new Resident Evil game could become actually scary. And I’m not just talking the shock value scary, I mean seeing a zombie’s rotting flesh up close as it tries to chow down on your neck scary. Why would that be more scary now? Because it looks more real. Now you’ll be able to see the zombie’s lifeless eyes staring back at you, and the marks where the previously human body was bitten and infected rather than something looking like a pixelated albino with a torn shirt and a limp.
In a game where the atmosphere and shock value are almost as (maybe even more...?) important than gameplay, then the graphics do count for a lot. But I still maintain that for the vast majority of games developers should still be spending more time on gameplay than flashy visuals.
With this in mind then, can you justify re-releasing a game that is years old with just graphical improvements? Well, yes, I think so. Because while the original seemed like a poorly scripted B-movie with a non-existent effects budget, the re-make looks set to be atmospheric and actually scary. But of course the re-make isn’t just a graphical update, it does have some extra areas to uncover and more of the story to unravel. But the main point of the re-make remains. To scare you. As much as possible. Here’s hoping it delivers.
But I have found myself wondering if graphics really are important for a gaming experience. In some cases I know this is not true. More often than not the graphical style is simply there to match the style of game, bright, fun colours for the Mario series, realistic graphics for formula 1 racers, etc. But, thinking about it now, I see that sometimes graphics are an absolutely vital part of the gaming experience. Granted, I still don’t believe this to be the case for most games, but for some.
What made me realise this? Resident Evil. Playing that game a fair amount on the PlayStation, it wasn’t scary. The giant spiders made my skin crawl, but then I am not a big fan of spiders, but for the most part there wasn’t much scary about the experience. Why? Well, think about this. If you watch any of those old horror films now, like say Nightmare On Elm Street or something similar, you look at the ‘scary’ bits and half the time will find yourself laughing at the ‘realistic’ looking blood and special effects, that by today’s standards are, well, laughable. Same with Resident Evil. Except that when that was released movie’s had moved on a lot, and had better special effects and that to scare audiences with. But videogames were far behind films, so the original Resident Evil couldn’t really be that tense or scary.
But with more powerful consoles now almost capable of photo-realistic graphics the new Resident Evil game could become actually scary. And I’m not just talking the shock value scary, I mean seeing a zombie’s rotting flesh up close as it tries to chow down on your neck scary. Why would that be more scary now? Because it looks more real. Now you’ll be able to see the zombie’s lifeless eyes staring back at you, and the marks where the previously human body was bitten and infected rather than something looking like a pixelated albino with a torn shirt and a limp.
In a game where the atmosphere and shock value are almost as (maybe even more...?) important than gameplay, then the graphics do count for a lot. But I still maintain that for the vast majority of games developers should still be spending more time on gameplay than flashy visuals.
With this in mind then, can you justify re-releasing a game that is years old with just graphical improvements? Well, yes, I think so. Because while the original seemed like a poorly scripted B-movie with a non-existent effects budget, the re-make looks set to be atmospheric and actually scary. But of course the re-make isn’t just a graphical update, it does have some extra areas to uncover and more of the story to unravel. But the main point of the re-make remains. To scare you. As much as possible. Here’s hoping it delivers.
Ah, back in the good old days eh? :D
Graphics have always mattered.
People just got annoyed because at one point, devellopers were concentrating on pretty graphics and FMV sequences and leaving really crap gameplay.
As for what you say about Resident Evil. Yes, the Playstation version looks dated now, but back in it's day, it was THE thing.
Graphics had never been so good before, neither had a game been so scary.
The best survival horror graphics before came from Alone in the Dark (a game that Resi shamelessly ripped off). Now dig up a copy of that and see if PS Resident Evil looks bad.
Think Alone in the Dark looks bad?
Well when THAT was first released...
People just got annoyed because at one point, devellopers were concentrating on pretty graphics and FMV sequences and leaving really crap gameplay.
As for what you say about Resident Evil. Yes, the Playstation version looks dated now, but back in it's day, it was THE thing.
Graphics had never been so good before, neither had a game been so scary.
The best survival horror graphics before came from Alone in the Dark (a game that Resi shamelessly ripped off). Now dig up a copy of that and see if PS Resident Evil looks bad.
Think Alone in the Dark looks bad?
Well when THAT was first released...
Cheers for the reply. Resi Evil is looking good to me, although I will probably be more tempted by Resi 0 because it's a different plotline and different areas. Which should be interesting and equally as spine chilling... MWA HA HA HA...
ahem.
ahem.
Resident Evil really does build up the atmosphere with it's almost real looking game. One technique they've used a lot to build up this real looking game is lighting effects. Take a look at most of the screenshots and you'll see that almost shot using lighting to create an eery and spine chilling feel. The best thing is that you could actually imagine yourself in a room like that. It makes everything seem so real, therefore more scary.
Nice post Sibs. GAD worthy ;-)
Nice post Sibs. GAD worthy ;-)
Being someone who has enjoyed videogames since the era of the NES I have always firmly believed that games should put gameplay over graphics. Graphics, to me, were only important so far as to offer something that wasn’t hard on the eyes, and allowed you to play the game effectively. Eye candy was all very well and good, but it wasn’t the reason I played games. Now of course, graphics have moved on, and what is acceptable as graphics that just get the job done has also changed. I mean, I would no longer say it was acceptable for a developer to release a FPS with graphics like Wolfenstein 3D on one of the current home consoles, because nowadays, those graphics are hard on the eyes, very pixely and generally not very eye-friendly.
But I have found myself wondering if graphics really are important for a gaming experience. In some cases I know this is not true. More often than not the graphical style is simply there to match the style of game, bright, fun colours for the Mario series, realistic graphics for formula 1 racers, etc. But, thinking about it now, I see that sometimes graphics are an absolutely vital part of the gaming experience. Granted, I still don’t believe this to be the case for most games, but for some.
What made me realise this? Resident Evil. Playing that game a fair amount on the PlayStation, it wasn’t scary. The giant spiders made my skin crawl, but then I am not a big fan of spiders, but for the most part there wasn’t much scary about the experience. Why? Well, think about this. If you watch any of those old horror films now, like say Nightmare On Elm Street or something similar, you look at the ‘scary’ bits and half the time will find yourself laughing at the ‘realistic’ looking blood and special effects, that by today’s standards are, well, laughable. Same with Resident Evil. Except that when that was released movie’s had moved on a lot, and had better special effects and that to scare audiences with. But videogames were far behind films, so the original Resident Evil couldn’t really be that tense or scary.
But with more powerful consoles now almost capable of photo-realistic graphics the new Resident Evil game could become actually scary. And I’m not just talking the shock value scary, I mean seeing a zombie’s rotting flesh up close as it tries to chow down on your neck scary. Why would that be more scary now? Because it looks more real. Now you’ll be able to see the zombie’s lifeless eyes staring back at you, and the marks where the previously human body was bitten and infected rather than something looking like a pixelated albino with a torn shirt and a limp.
In a game where the atmosphere and shock value are almost as (maybe even more...?) important than gameplay, then the graphics do count for a lot. But I still maintain that for the vast majority of games developers should still be spending more time on gameplay than flashy visuals.
With this in mind then, can you justify re-releasing a game that is years old with just graphical improvements? Well, yes, I think so. Because while the original seemed like a poorly scripted B-movie with a non-existent effects budget, the re-make looks set to be atmospheric and actually scary. But of course the re-make isn’t just a graphical update, it does have some extra areas to uncover and more of the story to unravel. But the main point of the re-make remains. To scare you. As much as possible. Here’s hoping it delivers.
But I have found myself wondering if graphics really are important for a gaming experience. In some cases I know this is not true. More often than not the graphical style is simply there to match the style of game, bright, fun colours for the Mario series, realistic graphics for formula 1 racers, etc. But, thinking about it now, I see that sometimes graphics are an absolutely vital part of the gaming experience. Granted, I still don’t believe this to be the case for most games, but for some.
What made me realise this? Resident Evil. Playing that game a fair amount on the PlayStation, it wasn’t scary. The giant spiders made my skin crawl, but then I am not a big fan of spiders, but for the most part there wasn’t much scary about the experience. Why? Well, think about this. If you watch any of those old horror films now, like say Nightmare On Elm Street or something similar, you look at the ‘scary’ bits and half the time will find yourself laughing at the ‘realistic’ looking blood and special effects, that by today’s standards are, well, laughable. Same with Resident Evil. Except that when that was released movie’s had moved on a lot, and had better special effects and that to scare audiences with. But videogames were far behind films, so the original Resident Evil couldn’t really be that tense or scary.
But with more powerful consoles now almost capable of photo-realistic graphics the new Resident Evil game could become actually scary. And I’m not just talking the shock value scary, I mean seeing a zombie’s rotting flesh up close as it tries to chow down on your neck scary. Why would that be more scary now? Because it looks more real. Now you’ll be able to see the zombie’s lifeless eyes staring back at you, and the marks where the previously human body was bitten and infected rather than something looking like a pixelated albino with a torn shirt and a limp.
In a game where the atmosphere and shock value are almost as (maybe even more...?) important than gameplay, then the graphics do count for a lot. But I still maintain that for the vast majority of games developers should still be spending more time on gameplay than flashy visuals.
With this in mind then, can you justify re-releasing a game that is years old with just graphical improvements? Well, yes, I think so. Because while the original seemed like a poorly scripted B-movie with a non-existent effects budget, the re-make looks set to be atmospheric and actually scary. But of course the re-make isn’t just a graphical update, it does have some extra areas to uncover and more of the story to unravel. But the main point of the re-make remains. To scare you. As much as possible. Here’s hoping it delivers.