Viewing Thread:
"Weren't Games Better..."

...When there wasn't any pressure to doll them up?

My main example for this case is GoldenEye against recent FPS games.

During the time of GE, there was no pressure to put amazing graphics in, because it wasn't possible. Therefore the game won its merits with good graphics, but great gamplay and design. Nowadays, a new game will have to have impecable graphics and loads of unnecessary gizmos just to get a few 1000 sales.

Look at Tetris, it's certainly the gameplay which won people over there.

;)

...When there wasn't any pressure to doll them up?

My main example for this case is GoldenEye against recent FPS games.

During the time of GE, there was no pressure to put amazing graphics in, because it wasn't possible. Therefore the game won its merits with good graphics, but great gamplay and design. Nowadays, a new game will have to have impecable graphics and loads of unnecessary gizmos just to get a few 1000 sales.

Look at Tetris, it's certainly the gameplay which won people over there.

;)

I dunno about you, but when Goldeneye was first released I thought its graphics were pretty awesome?

But yeah, I suppose you've got a point. Final Fantasy is surely another good example; Final Fantasy VII is one of the greatest games ever made and its visuals were nothing spectacular (apart from the occasional cut-scene or beautifully detailed background). Then zoom forward 3 games and take a look at Final Fantasy X; some of the best graphics I've seen in a PS2 game, but the gameplay and plot? Good, but not Final Fantasy good.

However, to say that concentrating on visuals is a bad thing would be stupid. Providing an equal amount of effort is put into the gameplay the results can be stunning. See Gran Turismo 4, Halo or Far Cry for examples. Perhaps the most potentially brilliant game to feature stunning graphics and deep, involving gameplay will be TES 4: Oblivion (I think that's what it's called)? That is, assuming it manages to hold on to the sense of unlimited exploration and adventure that Morrowind had in abundance.

I agree with you that money should be put in to make a game aesthetically pleasing, but (I think) you also brushed on the point I was making. Surely you should put equal effort into gameplay as well as graphics?

Just because the ability for a game to have better graphics has come about, doesn't mean there aren't good ways of making gameplay better. I mean gameplay ideas are only restrained by how big you want to think (yes, perhaps graphics and the engine will affect it). But essentially gameplay is endless, because no-one has thought of everything, and games are virtual, so there are practically no limits.

Thankfully there are still many games that are more about the gameplay. Have a look at:

Breakdown
Manhunt
The Midway classics range
Men of Valor (online anyway)
TS3
The Hitman series
Fire Blade
Counter-Strike
Def Jam Fight for NY
Wrath Unleashed
Fuzion Frenzy
POKEMON
Serious Sam
Gladius
Gladiator: Sword of Vengance
Morrowind
Deus EX
Freedom Fighters

...and those are just a few.

Hedfix wrote:
> Serious Sam

:'}

T'was a brilliant blitzing game.

Number 2 soon.

I still need to get the Cube one too...

Add to the argument: Sequels.

Like

-Tomb Raider
-Fifas
-FFs

etc.

True to an extent but:

FF7
Halo 2

Halo 2 is arguable.

Look at the sequels to FF7...

Of course there are exceptions, but that's because they've made the engine and gameplay better too.

As I said, new games are far better if the correct effort is put into graphics AND gameplay.

Timesplitters...PES...etc...

Halo 2 can be continually changed online though.

People didn't like various things and the Bungie staff agreed so they overhauled the whole multiplayer.

Speaking of which the multiplayer's great and the campaign mode is easily equal to if not better than the original's single player.