The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I consider myself a true gamer. Although I am only of the fickle age of 14, I feel myself as a gamer. Some of my earliest memories are of playing Super Mario on the NES.
Over the last couple of years I've watched gaming grow and grow in popularity, especially since the release of the Playstation 1. I've also watched the games get more and more detailed, as in graphics and sound etc. It is no coincidence that these 2 have happened at the same time. People see life-like graphics as 'cool' and 'cutting edge', and any games with the best graphics are bound to sell a lot more. The game could be a pile of rubbish and it would still sell bucket loads because of its looks.
A game with 'cutesy' graphics like, say, Super Monkey Ball however will get instantly stereotyped as a 'kids' game by anybody taking a glance over it's back cover, even though it would take one genius of a kid to finish it. If Monkey Ball had life like monkeys and you had to roll through haunted houses the same people who before thought it was for kids would probably consider spending some cash on it.
Back when games were games and Atari ruled supreme these kinds of judgements couldn't be made until the game had been plated on, because games didn't have much variation in the graphics. The backgrounds were all black and, save a few walls, all you could've made your judgement on was the main character (a couple of well placed pixels) and possibly a 'baddie' (a few more, less well placed, pixels)
Graphics have become like a mask for game play. Games like the Fifa series, most other EA franchises and numerous racing games use the best graphics to hide the fact that the game is god damn awful and plays about as well as an out of tune guitar.
Puzzle games have deteriorated in popularity too. Classic games like Tetris have never made the jump to 3D properly. The same goes for a lot of platform games, like Sonic, which has never hit its former heights from 2D, which is really a shame for gamers. The younger generations will never be able to taste the joy of reaching the last boss on Sonic 3, they'll never be able to drink from the cup of glory that is beating your high score on Tetris, or any other classic gaming moments like that (well unless they have a Game Boy Advance, but that is a different matter).
Good graphics don't necessarily mean bad game play though Grand Theft Auto 3 proved that. Although it had some of the best graphics available, it still upheld some of the best game play around and offered brilliant replay value, even months after you still bought it. It has now made it as one of the best games of all time, and anyone who has played the game will know why.
GTA3 also makes a mockery of another one of the rules that I mentioned before. GTA1 was one of the best 2D games ever, and even amongst the great graphics of the PS1 it still held its ground.
Good graphics doesn't always mean bad game play, but some games use the graphics to sell bucket loads while leaving out the game play. Agree Boys/Girls?
Over the last couple of years I've watched gaming grow and grow in popularity, especially since the release of the Playstation 1. I've also watched the games get more and more detailed, as in graphics and sound etc. It is no coincidence that these 2 have happened at the same time. People see life-like graphics as 'cool' and 'cutting edge', and any games with the best graphics are bound to sell a lot more. The game could be a pile of rubbish and it would still sell bucket loads because of its looks.
A game with 'cutesy' graphics like, say, Super Monkey Ball however will get instantly stereotyped as a 'kids' game by anybody taking a glance over it's back cover, even though it would take one genius of a kid to finish it. If Monkey Ball had life like monkeys and you had to roll through haunted houses the same people who before thought it was for kids would probably consider spending some cash on it.
Back when games were games and Atari ruled supreme these kinds of judgements couldn't be made until the game had been plated on, because games didn't have much variation in the graphics. The backgrounds were all black and, save a few walls, all you could've made your judgement on was the main character (a couple of well placed pixels) and possibly a 'baddie' (a few more, less well placed, pixels)
Graphics have become like a mask for game play. Games like the Fifa series, most other EA franchises and numerous racing games use the best graphics to hide the fact that the game is god damn awful and plays about as well as an out of tune guitar.
Puzzle games have deteriorated in popularity too. Classic games like Tetris have never made the jump to 3D properly. The same goes for a lot of platform games, like Sonic, which has never hit its former heights from 2D, which is really a shame for gamers. The younger generations will never be able to taste the joy of reaching the last boss on Sonic 3, they'll never be able to drink from the cup of glory that is beating your high score on Tetris, or any other classic gaming moments like that (well unless they have a Game Boy Advance, but that is a different matter).
Good graphics don't necessarily mean bad game play though Grand Theft Auto 3 proved that. Although it had some of the best graphics available, it still upheld some of the best game play around and offered brilliant replay value, even months after you still bought it. It has now made it as one of the best games of all time, and anyone who has played the game will know why.
GTA3 also makes a mockery of another one of the rules that I mentioned before. GTA1 was one of the best 2D games ever, and even amongst the great graphics of the PS1 it still held its ground.
Good graphics doesn't always mean bad game play, but some games use the graphics to sell bucket loads while leaving out the game play. Agree Boys/Girls?
Uncle Albert wrote:
> Good topic Matt, keep 'em coming. ;)
I will now that I am back from costa del skeggy
> Good topic Matt, keep 'em coming. ;)
I will now that I am back from costa del skeggy
Strafex wrote:
> But not all developers are talented enough to give the best of all
> worlds.
Too right. And then we've got the situation where little-known developers are making games that have great graphics and gameplay (for me, a classic example is Giant: Citizen Kabuto on the PC), releasing them, and then being faced with pathetically-poor sales, which is really quite sad.
Good topic Matt, keep 'em coming. ;)
> But not all developers are talented enough to give the best of all
> worlds.
Too right. And then we've got the situation where little-known developers are making games that have great graphics and gameplay (for me, a classic example is Giant: Citizen Kabuto on the PC), releasing them, and then being faced with pathetically-poor sales, which is really quite sad.
Good topic Matt, keep 'em coming. ;)
Good graphics are great.
The problem is, sometimes they take priority over more important aspects like framerate, controls, level design, new ideas... etc...
Good graphics don't always mean poor gameplay - I mean, look at games like Perfect Dark and Halo.
But not all devellopers are talented enough to give the best of all worlds.
The problem is, sometimes they take priority over more important aspects like framerate, controls, level design, new ideas... etc...
Good graphics don't always mean poor gameplay - I mean, look at games like Perfect Dark and Halo.
But not all devellopers are talented enough to give the best of all worlds.
I consider myself a true gamer. Although I am only of the fickle age of 14, I feel myself as a gamer. Some of my earliest memories are of playing Super Mario on the NES.
Over the last couple of years I've watched gaming grow and grow in popularity, especially since the release of the Playstation 1. I've also watched the games get more and more detailed, as in graphics and sound etc. It is no coincidence that these 2 have happened at the same time. People see life-like graphics as 'cool' and 'cutting edge', and any games with the best graphics are bound to sell a lot more. The game could be a pile of rubbish and it would still sell bucket loads because of its looks.
A game with 'cutesy' graphics like, say, Super Monkey Ball however will get instantly stereotyped as a 'kids' game by anybody taking a glance over it's back cover, even though it would take one genius of a kid to finish it. If Monkey Ball had life like monkeys and you had to roll through haunted houses the same people who before thought it was for kids would probably consider spending some cash on it.
Back when games were games and Atari ruled supreme these kinds of judgements couldn't be made until the game had been plated on, because games didn't have much variation in the graphics. The backgrounds were all black and, save a few walls, all you could've made your judgement on was the main character (a couple of well placed pixels) and possibly a 'baddie' (a few more, less well placed, pixels)
Graphics have become like a mask for game play. Games like the Fifa series, most other EA franchises and numerous racing games use the best graphics to hide the fact that the game is god damn awful and plays about as well as an out of tune guitar.
Puzzle games have deteriorated in popularity too. Classic games like Tetris have never made the jump to 3D properly. The same goes for a lot of platform games, like Sonic, which has never hit its former heights from 2D, which is really a shame for gamers. The younger generations will never be able to taste the joy of reaching the last boss on Sonic 3, they'll never be able to drink from the cup of glory that is beating your high score on Tetris, or any other classic gaming moments like that (well unless they have a Game Boy Advance, but that is a different matter).
Good graphics don't necessarily mean bad game play though Grand Theft Auto 3 proved that. Although it had some of the best graphics available, it still upheld some of the best game play around and offered brilliant replay value, even months after you still bought it. It has now made it as one of the best games of all time, and anyone who has played the game will know why.
GTA3 also makes a mockery of another one of the rules that I mentioned before. GTA1 was one of the best 2D games ever, and even amongst the great graphics of the PS1 it still held its ground.
Good graphics doesn't always mean bad game play, but some games use the graphics to sell bucket loads while leaving out the game play. Agree Boys/Girls?
Over the last couple of years I've watched gaming grow and grow in popularity, especially since the release of the Playstation 1. I've also watched the games get more and more detailed, as in graphics and sound etc. It is no coincidence that these 2 have happened at the same time. People see life-like graphics as 'cool' and 'cutting edge', and any games with the best graphics are bound to sell a lot more. The game could be a pile of rubbish and it would still sell bucket loads because of its looks.
A game with 'cutesy' graphics like, say, Super Monkey Ball however will get instantly stereotyped as a 'kids' game by anybody taking a glance over it's back cover, even though it would take one genius of a kid to finish it. If Monkey Ball had life like monkeys and you had to roll through haunted houses the same people who before thought it was for kids would probably consider spending some cash on it.
Back when games were games and Atari ruled supreme these kinds of judgements couldn't be made until the game had been plated on, because games didn't have much variation in the graphics. The backgrounds were all black and, save a few walls, all you could've made your judgement on was the main character (a couple of well placed pixels) and possibly a 'baddie' (a few more, less well placed, pixels)
Graphics have become like a mask for game play. Games like the Fifa series, most other EA franchises and numerous racing games use the best graphics to hide the fact that the game is god damn awful and plays about as well as an out of tune guitar.
Puzzle games have deteriorated in popularity too. Classic games like Tetris have never made the jump to 3D properly. The same goes for a lot of platform games, like Sonic, which has never hit its former heights from 2D, which is really a shame for gamers. The younger generations will never be able to taste the joy of reaching the last boss on Sonic 3, they'll never be able to drink from the cup of glory that is beating your high score on Tetris, or any other classic gaming moments like that (well unless they have a Game Boy Advance, but that is a different matter).
Good graphics don't necessarily mean bad game play though Grand Theft Auto 3 proved that. Although it had some of the best graphics available, it still upheld some of the best game play around and offered brilliant replay value, even months after you still bought it. It has now made it as one of the best games of all time, and anyone who has played the game will know why.
GTA3 also makes a mockery of another one of the rules that I mentioned before. GTA1 was one of the best 2D games ever, and even amongst the great graphics of the PS1 it still held its ground.
Good graphics doesn't always mean bad game play, but some games use the graphics to sell bucket loads while leaving out the game play. Agree Boys/Girls?