The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Graphics do make a game, no game will get 10/10 or 96+ if they dont have good graphics.
But they only count for about 5% so the gameplay is better.
But they only count for about 5% so the gameplay is better.
hello :P
Carrier Command looks shi*e, but still plays superbly.
Good points, but do graphics really matter at all? Well, to an extent yes, but they certainly aren't the be-all-and-end-all of games. Shenmue had stunning graphics and sounds, yet under its skin the game was completely linear and idle.
Sonic
Sonic
this topic is soooooooooooo boring goodbye
Stuff like Space Invaders don't have bad graphics.
Games like the new Capcom 3D fighter do.
Bad visuals can really wreck a game, but ones that are just 'alright' are fine, as long as the gameplay is good.
I mean, I'm no gfx wh0re, but sometimes if there's blocks everywhere and the framerate makes it less video game and more slide show, it can render something unplayable.
Games like the new Capcom 3D fighter do.
Bad visuals can really wreck a game, but ones that are just 'alright' are fine, as long as the gameplay is good.
I mean, I'm no gfx wh0re, but sometimes if there's blocks everywhere and the framerate makes it less video game and more slide show, it can render something unplayable.
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.