The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Looks are everything. It doesn’t matter if a game is awful – if the back of the box looks absolutely gob smacking, people are going to buy it. After all, it doesn’t matter if a game is great in every respect but looks – if it’s got crap graphics it won’t sell for that and that alone. Sure, a prime example of a ‘blonde’ game is Wreckless on the Xbox – it has absolutely fantastic graphics but that’s pretty much all that it is. It's a great looker and is good for a night, but is essentially shallow and dull and worth nothing more than a night. However, as is the case in life, you can get good lookers which have depth. Such as Halo, a prime example of a game which gets everything right.
The key theme which I’m trying to say, though, is that simplicity is the key. Fancy graphics are all good and fine if a console can handle it, but all too often I’m seeing games which strive to be brilliant looking, but fail and look ugly on the basis that they’re setting targets which are too out of reach. I’m not being biased or against any console in particular, but it is a very usual theme to see a PlayStation 2 game which has hi resolution textures and a really high polygon counts, but an aweful frame rate and poor draw distance. This results in a game which just can’t be what it wants to be. You want to know what my theory is? Be simple. Simplicity can be joined with complexity in its own way.
Take Super Mario 64 – a game on a very low-spec system, which has terrible textures. In fact, the textures aren’t that at all – more planes of colour and yes, in some places which may go from dark green to dark brown. The thing is, with simple textures, you can get great draw distance, a smooth frame rate and most importantly some brilliant effects. Mario 64 has very simple graphics, but because of this it does look very nice – it doesn’t slow down when there are lots of enemies on screen or when there is a particularly action-packed section. The thing is, because it’s such a great game, the graphics aren’t much of a problem. Because they aren’t annoyingly ugly, you tend not to notice them and just have fun. That’s the thing – if the graphics are ugly they get in the way of the gameplay.
The same can be said for Mario Sunshine. Technically, the textures are not very good. They’re low resolution, not very detailed and compared to, say, the grass on Halo (looks fantastic!), they’re very last-generation. However, as I said, this means that everything from great water effects to silky smooth character animation can be implemented, and without taking a toll on the frame rate. Plus, it isn’t horrible to look at when you play, and none of those frame rate niggles are present.
So what am I saying? I’m saying that developers shouldn’t strive to achieve the impossible. Sure, the standard of graphics does improve as a console ages, much like a fine wine, in the sense that developers get more experienced with the platform they’re working on and can consequently exploit it more. The thing is, when developers do get over-enthusiastic, things can start to get hectic. Stuntman is also a good example, in that it wants to have really good graphics, and because of that the console just can’t handle certain scenes when such a lot is happening in the game. There isn’t anything particularly wrong with it, but amazingly detailed textures often aren’t the answer. The result is a game which is fun to play but the graphical incompetence is really annoying.
Another example which I should talk about is Rez. Rez uses surprisingly simple graphics, but they still look amazing because they’re in a particularly stylish mood, which fits the gameplay. They’re simple, yet effective, but because of it the game doesn’t slow down at all. Rez is designed to be fast and flowing, and that it is.
I remember playing Stunt Race FX on the SNES. Brilliant game, one of the first SNES games to use proper 3D, not ‘Mode 7’ or whatever. Anyway, the game had extremely simple graphics, no textures as such, and much like Mario 64 (in terms of characters) the graphics consisted of coloured planes. But the game was still brilliant in spite of this, and it also looked really nice. Developers trying to add detail which can’t be handled will result in characters which look horrible.
Simplicity isn’t only good in terms of graphics, it can be good for gameplay, controls, sound and more. I eagerly await the UK release of ‘Tekki’ (I can’t remember the UK name) and it’s absolutely massive controller. This will also be a test of simplicity over detail – will all the buttons be to good effect, or is it just developers striving to achieve the unachievable. I’m certain that there will be un-pressed buttons by the time the game is completed.
But what about gameplay? Couldn’t it be said that a game which is just too complex can be daunting? Morrowind. A massive, fairly free-roaming game world which supposedly lets you do what you want. The problem with this game, is that while its fun to walk around and kill things, there is no set task and so you get confused and lost, and the game loses its appeal. The game world is too complex to be interesting. Remember what I said, simplicity is the key.
Controls also should be simple. With the now common place use of use of dual analogue sticks, controls can be made very simple. In fact, Ape Escape on the PSone managed just that. All it used mainly were the two sticks and some shoulder buttons, resulting in some very free flowing gameplay without really complex controls. No aiming or rhubarb, but because analogue gives a very accurate control method it can be utilised. Or whatever.
What I’m saying, is that graphics don’t have to be flash. I don’t see a reason for them to be over the top, super detailed or especially flashy. All they need is a well-rounded look, with bold textures and a steady, nice frame rate. Developers should remember that graphics aren’t the only part of a game, and that concentrating all efforts on that aspect will mean a lack of gameplay or another aspect.
I think the main thing is that simple is still effective. I don’t want any rough-around-the-edges graphics which just don’t work. Graphics which can be ignored, essentially, are what’s needed. No niggles, nothing too fancy, just bold, great graphics. And you know what? Super Mario Sunshine manages that, which is why it looks so lovely. Metal Gear Solid 2 doesn’t have particularly complex textures, but because all the models are nicely detailed and the graphics look proper, it has a really nice look to it. I’m probably just going on about nothing, but if you understand what I mean, I’m sure you’ll agree with me. There’s no point in striving for beautiful graphics and sacrificing the gameplay.
Be simple yet stylish, not complex and clumsy.
The key theme which I’m trying to say, though, is that simplicity is the key. Fancy graphics are all good and fine if a console can handle it, but all too often I’m seeing games which strive to be brilliant looking, but fail and look ugly on the basis that they’re setting targets which are too out of reach. I’m not being biased or against any console in particular, but it is a very usual theme to see a PlayStation 2 game which has hi resolution textures and a really high polygon counts, but an aweful frame rate and poor draw distance. This results in a game which just can’t be what it wants to be. You want to know what my theory is? Be simple. Simplicity can be joined with complexity in its own way.
Take Super Mario 64 – a game on a very low-spec system, which has terrible textures. In fact, the textures aren’t that at all – more planes of colour and yes, in some places which may go from dark green to dark brown. The thing is, with simple textures, you can get great draw distance, a smooth frame rate and most importantly some brilliant effects. Mario 64 has very simple graphics, but because of this it does look very nice – it doesn’t slow down when there are lots of enemies on screen or when there is a particularly action-packed section. The thing is, because it’s such a great game, the graphics aren’t much of a problem. Because they aren’t annoyingly ugly, you tend not to notice them and just have fun. That’s the thing – if the graphics are ugly they get in the way of the gameplay.
The same can be said for Mario Sunshine. Technically, the textures are not very good. They’re low resolution, not very detailed and compared to, say, the grass on Halo (looks fantastic!), they’re very last-generation. However, as I said, this means that everything from great water effects to silky smooth character animation can be implemented, and without taking a toll on the frame rate. Plus, it isn’t horrible to look at when you play, and none of those frame rate niggles are present.
So what am I saying? I’m saying that developers shouldn’t strive to achieve the impossible. Sure, the standard of graphics does improve as a console ages, much like a fine wine, in the sense that developers get more experienced with the platform they’re working on and can consequently exploit it more. The thing is, when developers do get over-enthusiastic, things can start to get hectic. Stuntman is also a good example, in that it wants to have really good graphics, and because of that the console just can’t handle certain scenes when such a lot is happening in the game. There isn’t anything particularly wrong with it, but amazingly detailed textures often aren’t the answer. The result is a game which is fun to play but the graphical incompetence is really annoying.
Another example which I should talk about is Rez. Rez uses surprisingly simple graphics, but they still look amazing because they’re in a particularly stylish mood, which fits the gameplay. They’re simple, yet effective, but because of it the game doesn’t slow down at all. Rez is designed to be fast and flowing, and that it is.
I remember playing Stunt Race FX on the SNES. Brilliant game, one of the first SNES games to use proper 3D, not ‘Mode 7’ or whatever. Anyway, the game had extremely simple graphics, no textures as such, and much like Mario 64 (in terms of characters) the graphics consisted of coloured planes. But the game was still brilliant in spite of this, and it also looked really nice. Developers trying to add detail which can’t be handled will result in characters which look horrible.
Simplicity isn’t only good in terms of graphics, it can be good for gameplay, controls, sound and more. I eagerly await the UK release of ‘Tekki’ (I can’t remember the UK name) and it’s absolutely massive controller. This will also be a test of simplicity over detail – will all the buttons be to good effect, or is it just developers striving to achieve the unachievable. I’m certain that there will be un-pressed buttons by the time the game is completed.
But what about gameplay? Couldn’t it be said that a game which is just too complex can be daunting? Morrowind. A massive, fairly free-roaming game world which supposedly lets you do what you want. The problem with this game, is that while its fun to walk around and kill things, there is no set task and so you get confused and lost, and the game loses its appeal. The game world is too complex to be interesting. Remember what I said, simplicity is the key.
Controls also should be simple. With the now common place use of use of dual analogue sticks, controls can be made very simple. In fact, Ape Escape on the PSone managed just that. All it used mainly were the two sticks and some shoulder buttons, resulting in some very free flowing gameplay without really complex controls. No aiming or rhubarb, but because analogue gives a very accurate control method it can be utilised. Or whatever.
What I’m saying, is that graphics don’t have to be flash. I don’t see a reason for them to be over the top, super detailed or especially flashy. All they need is a well-rounded look, with bold textures and a steady, nice frame rate. Developers should remember that graphics aren’t the only part of a game, and that concentrating all efforts on that aspect will mean a lack of gameplay or another aspect.
I think the main thing is that simple is still effective. I don’t want any rough-around-the-edges graphics which just don’t work. Graphics which can be ignored, essentially, are what’s needed. No niggles, nothing too fancy, just bold, great graphics. And you know what? Super Mario Sunshine manages that, which is why it looks so lovely. Metal Gear Solid 2 doesn’t have particularly complex textures, but because all the models are nicely detailed and the graphics look proper, it has a really nice look to it. I’m probably just going on about nothing, but if you understand what I mean, I’m sure you’ll agree with me. There’s no point in striving for beautiful graphics and sacrificing the gameplay.
Be simple yet stylish, not complex and clumsy.
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
Looks are everything. It doesn’t matter if a game is awful – if the back of the box looks absolutely gob smacking, people are going to buy it. After all, it doesn’t matter if a game is great in every respect but looks – if it’s got crap graphics it won’t sell for that and that alone. Sure, a prime example of a ‘blonde’ game is Wreckless on the Xbox – it has absolutely fantastic graphics but that’s pretty much all that it is. It's a great looker and is good for a night, but is essentially shallow and dull and worth nothing more than a night. However, as is the case in life, you can get good lookers which have depth. Such as Halo, a prime example of a game which gets everything right.
The key theme which I’m trying to say, though, is that simplicity is the key. Fancy graphics are all good and fine if a console can handle it, but all too often I’m seeing games which strive to be brilliant looking, but fail and look ugly on the basis that they’re setting targets which are too out of reach. I’m not being biased or against any console in particular, but it is a very usual theme to see a PlayStation 2 game which has hi resolution textures and a really high polygon counts, but an aweful frame rate and poor draw distance. This results in a game which just can’t be what it wants to be. You want to know what my theory is? Be simple. Simplicity can be joined with complexity in its own way.
Take Super Mario 64 – a game on a very low-spec system, which has terrible textures. In fact, the textures aren’t that at all – more planes of colour and yes, in some places which may go from dark green to dark brown. The thing is, with simple textures, you can get great draw distance, a smooth frame rate and most importantly some brilliant effects. Mario 64 has very simple graphics, but because of this it does look very nice – it doesn’t slow down when there are lots of enemies on screen or when there is a particularly action-packed section. The thing is, because it’s such a great game, the graphics aren’t much of a problem. Because they aren’t annoyingly ugly, you tend not to notice them and just have fun. That’s the thing – if the graphics are ugly they get in the way of the gameplay.
The same can be said for Mario Sunshine. Technically, the textures are not very good. They’re low resolution, not very detailed and compared to, say, the grass on Halo (looks fantastic!), they’re very last-generation. However, as I said, this means that everything from great water effects to silky smooth character animation can be implemented, and without taking a toll on the frame rate. Plus, it isn’t horrible to look at when you play, and none of those frame rate niggles are present.
So what am I saying? I’m saying that developers shouldn’t strive to achieve the impossible. Sure, the standard of graphics does improve as a console ages, much like a fine wine, in the sense that developers get more experienced with the platform they’re working on and can consequently exploit it more. The thing is, when developers do get over-enthusiastic, things can start to get hectic. Stuntman is also a good example, in that it wants to have really good graphics, and because of that the console just can’t handle certain scenes when such a lot is happening in the game. There isn’t anything particularly wrong with it, but amazingly detailed textures often aren’t the answer. The result is a game which is fun to play but the graphical incompetence is really annoying.
Another example which I should talk about is Rez. Rez uses surprisingly simple graphics, but they still look amazing because they’re in a particularly stylish mood, which fits the gameplay. They’re simple, yet effective, but because of it the game doesn’t slow down at all. Rez is designed to be fast and flowing, and that it is.
I remember playing Stunt Race FX on the SNES. Brilliant game, one of the first SNES games to use proper 3D, not ‘Mode 7’ or whatever. Anyway, the game had extremely simple graphics, no textures as such, and much like Mario 64 (in terms of characters) the graphics consisted of coloured planes. But the game was still brilliant in spite of this, and it also looked really nice. Developers trying to add detail which can’t be handled will result in characters which look horrible.
Simplicity isn’t only good in terms of graphics, it can be good for gameplay, controls, sound and more. I eagerly await the UK release of ‘Tekki’ (I can’t remember the UK name) and it’s absolutely massive controller. This will also be a test of simplicity over detail – will all the buttons be to good effect, or is it just developers striving to achieve the unachievable. I’m certain that there will be un-pressed buttons by the time the game is completed.
But what about gameplay? Couldn’t it be said that a game which is just too complex can be daunting? Morrowind. A massive, fairly free-roaming game world which supposedly lets you do what you want. The problem with this game, is that while its fun to walk around and kill things, there is no set task and so you get confused and lost, and the game loses its appeal. The game world is too complex to be interesting. Remember what I said, simplicity is the key.
Controls also should be simple. With the now common place use of use of dual analogue sticks, controls can be made very simple. In fact, Ape Escape on the PSone managed just that. All it used mainly were the two sticks and some shoulder buttons, resulting in some very free flowing gameplay without really complex controls. No aiming or rhubarb, but because analogue gives a very accurate control method it can be utilised. Or whatever.
What I’m saying, is that graphics don’t have to be flash. I don’t see a reason for them to be over the top, super detailed or especially flashy. All they need is a well-rounded look, with bold textures and a steady, nice frame rate. Developers should remember that graphics aren’t the only part of a game, and that concentrating all efforts on that aspect will mean a lack of gameplay or another aspect.
I think the main thing is that simple is still effective. I don’t want any rough-around-the-edges graphics which just don’t work. Graphics which can be ignored, essentially, are what’s needed. No niggles, nothing too fancy, just bold, great graphics. And you know what? Super Mario Sunshine manages that, which is why it looks so lovely. Metal Gear Solid 2 doesn’t have particularly complex textures, but because all the models are nicely detailed and the graphics look proper, it has a really nice look to it. I’m probably just going on about nothing, but if you understand what I mean, I’m sure you’ll agree with me. There’s no point in striving for beautiful graphics and sacrificing the gameplay.
Be simple yet stylish, not complex and clumsy.
The key theme which I’m trying to say, though, is that simplicity is the key. Fancy graphics are all good and fine if a console can handle it, but all too often I’m seeing games which strive to be brilliant looking, but fail and look ugly on the basis that they’re setting targets which are too out of reach. I’m not being biased or against any console in particular, but it is a very usual theme to see a PlayStation 2 game which has hi resolution textures and a really high polygon counts, but an aweful frame rate and poor draw distance. This results in a game which just can’t be what it wants to be. You want to know what my theory is? Be simple. Simplicity can be joined with complexity in its own way.
Take Super Mario 64 – a game on a very low-spec system, which has terrible textures. In fact, the textures aren’t that at all – more planes of colour and yes, in some places which may go from dark green to dark brown. The thing is, with simple textures, you can get great draw distance, a smooth frame rate and most importantly some brilliant effects. Mario 64 has very simple graphics, but because of this it does look very nice – it doesn’t slow down when there are lots of enemies on screen or when there is a particularly action-packed section. The thing is, because it’s such a great game, the graphics aren’t much of a problem. Because they aren’t annoyingly ugly, you tend not to notice them and just have fun. That’s the thing – if the graphics are ugly they get in the way of the gameplay.
The same can be said for Mario Sunshine. Technically, the textures are not very good. They’re low resolution, not very detailed and compared to, say, the grass on Halo (looks fantastic!), they’re very last-generation. However, as I said, this means that everything from great water effects to silky smooth character animation can be implemented, and without taking a toll on the frame rate. Plus, it isn’t horrible to look at when you play, and none of those frame rate niggles are present.
So what am I saying? I’m saying that developers shouldn’t strive to achieve the impossible. Sure, the standard of graphics does improve as a console ages, much like a fine wine, in the sense that developers get more experienced with the platform they’re working on and can consequently exploit it more. The thing is, when developers do get over-enthusiastic, things can start to get hectic. Stuntman is also a good example, in that it wants to have really good graphics, and because of that the console just can’t handle certain scenes when such a lot is happening in the game. There isn’t anything particularly wrong with it, but amazingly detailed textures often aren’t the answer. The result is a game which is fun to play but the graphical incompetence is really annoying.
Another example which I should talk about is Rez. Rez uses surprisingly simple graphics, but they still look amazing because they’re in a particularly stylish mood, which fits the gameplay. They’re simple, yet effective, but because of it the game doesn’t slow down at all. Rez is designed to be fast and flowing, and that it is.
I remember playing Stunt Race FX on the SNES. Brilliant game, one of the first SNES games to use proper 3D, not ‘Mode 7’ or whatever. Anyway, the game had extremely simple graphics, no textures as such, and much like Mario 64 (in terms of characters) the graphics consisted of coloured planes. But the game was still brilliant in spite of this, and it also looked really nice. Developers trying to add detail which can’t be handled will result in characters which look horrible.
Simplicity isn’t only good in terms of graphics, it can be good for gameplay, controls, sound and more. I eagerly await the UK release of ‘Tekki’ (I can’t remember the UK name) and it’s absolutely massive controller. This will also be a test of simplicity over detail – will all the buttons be to good effect, or is it just developers striving to achieve the unachievable. I’m certain that there will be un-pressed buttons by the time the game is completed.
But what about gameplay? Couldn’t it be said that a game which is just too complex can be daunting? Morrowind. A massive, fairly free-roaming game world which supposedly lets you do what you want. The problem with this game, is that while its fun to walk around and kill things, there is no set task and so you get confused and lost, and the game loses its appeal. The game world is too complex to be interesting. Remember what I said, simplicity is the key.
Controls also should be simple. With the now common place use of use of dual analogue sticks, controls can be made very simple. In fact, Ape Escape on the PSone managed just that. All it used mainly were the two sticks and some shoulder buttons, resulting in some very free flowing gameplay without really complex controls. No aiming or rhubarb, but because analogue gives a very accurate control method it can be utilised. Or whatever.
What I’m saying, is that graphics don’t have to be flash. I don’t see a reason for them to be over the top, super detailed or especially flashy. All they need is a well-rounded look, with bold textures and a steady, nice frame rate. Developers should remember that graphics aren’t the only part of a game, and that concentrating all efforts on that aspect will mean a lack of gameplay or another aspect.
I think the main thing is that simple is still effective. I don’t want any rough-around-the-edges graphics which just don’t work. Graphics which can be ignored, essentially, are what’s needed. No niggles, nothing too fancy, just bold, great graphics. And you know what? Super Mario Sunshine manages that, which is why it looks so lovely. Metal Gear Solid 2 doesn’t have particularly complex textures, but because all the models are nicely detailed and the graphics look proper, it has a really nice look to it. I’m probably just going on about nothing, but if you understand what I mean, I’m sure you’ll agree with me. There’s no point in striving for beautiful graphics and sacrificing the gameplay.
Be simple yet stylish, not complex and clumsy.