The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 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.
;)
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.
;)
Page:
One_winged_angel wrote:
> overated Timesplitters.
Opinion? Void.
> overated Timesplitters.
Opinion? Void.
One_winged_angel wrote:
> snake10 wrote:
> i dont actually care about graphics,as long as its a good game.
>
> Some 2D games, like the old mario's and sonics had more polished
> graphics than the likes of the overated Timesplitters.
Right. That makes no sense at all. Whatsoever.
> snake10 wrote:
> i dont actually care about graphics,as long as its a good game.
>
> Some 2D games, like the old mario's and sonics had more polished
> graphics than the likes of the overated Timesplitters.
Right. That makes no sense at all. Whatsoever.
snake10 wrote:
> i dont actually care about graphics,as long as its a good game.
Some 2D games, like the old mario's and sonics had more polished graphics than the likes of the overated Timesplitters.
> i dont actually care about graphics,as long as its a good game.
Some 2D games, like the old mario's and sonics had more polished graphics than the likes of the overated Timesplitters.
i dont actually care about graphics,as long as its a good game.
Really.
I don't actually know what it is to be honest...
I don't actually know what it is to be honest...
But WoW is a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game and not an RTS.
There's no way to really 'win or lose' it's a big land to explore and if you die you can resurrect etc.
There's no way to really 'win or lose' it's a big land to explore and if you die you can resurrect etc.
I've played the original Warcraft.
I found it so boring and impossibly hard and it looked like a very culty game.
I fear that I just won't catch on to WoW. Or that I'll get pwned every game*.
*Very likely knowing how crap I am at Warcraft. Unlike every other RTS game.
I found it so boring and impossibly hard and it looked like a very culty game.
I fear that I just won't catch on to WoW. Or that I'll get pwned every game*.
*Very likely knowing how crap I am at Warcraft. Unlike every other RTS game.
Live is good.
Still can't bring myself to buy WoW and get into all that mouse-clickyness.
Still can't bring myself to buy WoW and get into all that mouse-clickyness.
Hedfix wrote:
> Yes but the whole point is that number 7 wouldn't have been reached
> if there weren't sequels before it. :)
I was offering the flip-side.
:)
I want Live.
Muuuuuuuuuuuh.
> Yes but the whole point is that number 7 wouldn't have been reached
> if there weren't sequels before it. :)
I was offering the flip-side.
:)
I want Live.
Muuuuuuuuuuuh.
Clazon wrote:
>
> Look at the sequels to FF7...
Yes but the whole point is that number 7 wouldn't have been reached if there weren't sequels before it. :)
>
> Look at the sequels to FF7...
Yes but the whole point is that number 7 wouldn't have been reached if there weren't sequels before it. :)
Page: