The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
dont you just hate the boring old same topics day-in day-out! well here you go, something I did a long time ago that everyone should like to read:
SCREENSHOTS.have fun.
If anyone looked closely at the Nintendo news this week you may have noticed that Robocop has been confirmed for the GC, I was intrigued and clicked on the link and saw the first screen shoots of a game that has been in development since 1998, these screenshots were amazing..they were simply the best I have ever seen of an in game shoot.
Many of the pictures you see nowadays in magazines are of the video kind are part of the promo and not within the actual game. These Robocop pictures were stunning pictures of ingame action...
...but as graphics get better and better, as resolution gets better and better, as vector based pixels get smaller and smaller what is the outcome for the rest of the game??
I dont want to have a game with just '''the best graphics'''
I want a game with the best gameplay, the best ideas and the most original format, but then nearly all formats have been tested in games, I suppose what hasn't been done is RPG/First Person/Shooter??
(But then again what kind of a game would that be?)
I dont like the screenshots in magazines, they give you something to look at, they give you something to talk about but they dont give the reader the right information!
Take Nintendo Official Magazine for instance:
'The images show that Conkers Bad Fur Day looks set to be one of the biggest games of the year'
How the hell can this be told from screenshots when I know for definate that NOM haven't tested a copy!?!
People are talking about MGS2 and how amazing it is going to be? What are they going on? Screenshots and a little promo movie.
People should need to play the game to be excited.
Im not going to stop looking at screenshots but next time you look at the photos in a magazine just think about where they have come from.
Thanks
er-no
SCREENSHOTS.have fun.
If anyone looked closely at the Nintendo news this week you may have noticed that Robocop has been confirmed for the GC, I was intrigued and clicked on the link and saw the first screen shoots of a game that has been in development since 1998, these screenshots were amazing..they were simply the best I have ever seen of an in game shoot.
Many of the pictures you see nowadays in magazines are of the video kind are part of the promo and not within the actual game. These Robocop pictures were stunning pictures of ingame action...
...but as graphics get better and better, as resolution gets better and better, as vector based pixels get smaller and smaller what is the outcome for the rest of the game??
I dont want to have a game with just '''the best graphics'''
I want a game with the best gameplay, the best ideas and the most original format, but then nearly all formats have been tested in games, I suppose what hasn't been done is RPG/First Person/Shooter??
(But then again what kind of a game would that be?)
I dont like the screenshots in magazines, they give you something to look at, they give you something to talk about but they dont give the reader the right information!
Take Nintendo Official Magazine for instance:
'The images show that Conkers Bad Fur Day looks set to be one of the biggest games of the year'
How the hell can this be told from screenshots when I know for definate that NOM haven't tested a copy!?!
People are talking about MGS2 and how amazing it is going to be? What are they going on? Screenshots and a little promo movie.
People should need to play the game to be excited.
Im not going to stop looking at screenshots but next time you look at the photos in a magazine just think about where they have come from.
Thanks
er-no
Page:
i didnt say that the graphics are the only thing i buy games for, i agree that they are least important, im just trying to say that, in some genres, ut can help if the graphics are good.
I think priority goes to playability, the the conrols, then the story, (some classics have absolutely no stroyline, eg tetris), then the graphics.
I think priority goes to playability, the the conrols, then the story, (some classics have absolutely no stroyline, eg tetris), then the graphics.
Graphics help the game but I would never buy a game because of the graphics, what you going to do sit there and press pause and look at the screen and say:
'oh those bricks are so well rendered I am glad I brought this game'
I THINK NOT.
'oh those bricks are so well rendered I am glad I brought this game'
I THINK NOT.
In my small minded opinion graphics are the weakest part of a game for me, sure they make it look good but Tomb Raider IV looked good so can the game companys please stop relying on graphics to make there games sell!
People say that graphics dont count, and i agree dont get me wrong. Look at some classics that have head the most basic graphics. Tetris is a prime example, Bomberman and the original mariokart spring to mind as well.
BUT
If games genres such as FPS and Driving games, dont the graphics help the game a long alot?
Take Project IGI, or Goldeneye as a couple of examples, dont the graphics help you get immersed in the game world? If you can actually see differences in the "bad guys" faces, it makes you yhink of them as individuals, makes the game more immersive, more believable. Ok, people are going to start shouting Doom! and Wolfenstein! at me now. When they first came out they did have amazing graphics, you try playing one of those now and i suspect you wont be able to for long because you will end up going back to the more modern games in you collection.
Driving games now. How many of you have played MSR or GP3? If you have you'll know what i mean. The feeling you get when you're driving along at 100mph, and you suddeny recognise Big Ben or the houses of parliament or whatever had a profound effect on me I can tell you. Also for GP3 realism is definately needed, and having good graphics, so you can recognise the track you are driving on from the telly all adds to the experience.
Please dont get me wrong, i know the graphics arent the be-all and end-all of the game, but they do help. Yes it does annoy me when magazines put all the screen shots in and try and tell you tghat from watching someone else play the games they can tell its going to be great. How does that work? From watching someone else play you cant know how intuitive the controls are. Thats why when i read games mags i only read the previews when they have actually played the game, rather than gone to some launch, watched someone else play the game and picked up a couple of screenshots.
BUT
If games genres such as FPS and Driving games, dont the graphics help the game a long alot?
Take Project IGI, or Goldeneye as a couple of examples, dont the graphics help you get immersed in the game world? If you can actually see differences in the "bad guys" faces, it makes you yhink of them as individuals, makes the game more immersive, more believable. Ok, people are going to start shouting Doom! and Wolfenstein! at me now. When they first came out they did have amazing graphics, you try playing one of those now and i suspect you wont be able to for long because you will end up going back to the more modern games in you collection.
Driving games now. How many of you have played MSR or GP3? If you have you'll know what i mean. The feeling you get when you're driving along at 100mph, and you suddeny recognise Big Ben or the houses of parliament or whatever had a profound effect on me I can tell you. Also for GP3 realism is definately needed, and having good graphics, so you can recognise the track you are driving on from the telly all adds to the experience.
Please dont get me wrong, i know the graphics arent the be-all and end-all of the game, but they do help. Yes it does annoy me when magazines put all the screen shots in and try and tell you tghat from watching someone else play the games they can tell its going to be great. How does that work? From watching someone else play you cant know how intuitive the controls are. Thats why when i read games mags i only read the previews when they have actually played the game, rather than gone to some launch, watched someone else play the game and picked up a couple of screenshots.
yes, I'm not too keen on the overuse of screen shots in game review/previews. No matter how many there are, it always seems that their surveys suggest that people want more screenshots. Well it's less work for the reviewers I suppose, but do you relly need more than a couple of screenshots to see how the game is going to look? No you don't. Unless of course, you want a couple of thousand so you can see more or less how the entire game is going to look.
I think the reason why some people favour so many screenshots is that it's the nearest they can get to playing the game. As games basically involve audio and visual interaction, the nearest you can get to playing it is to look at still shots of in game action. After subscribing to ONM (or is it NOM?) a while ago, I'm now sick of screenshots, and I'm just interested in reading about the game.
After all, it's not the graphics that count, is it?
I think the reason why some people favour so many screenshots is that it's the nearest they can get to playing the game. As games basically involve audio and visual interaction, the nearest you can get to playing it is to look at still shots of in game action. After subscribing to ONM (or is it NOM?) a while ago, I'm now sick of screenshots, and I'm just interested in reading about the game.
After all, it's not the graphics that count, is it?
That is the reason why I am not jumping up and down everytime I see new screenshots for MGS2, they are only screenshots and 4 of the 6 that were in a magazine I looked at weren't even screenshots but part of the intro to the game! I think screenshots like those for Mario128 are good as they are all ingame and nothing is hidden from the persons eye. There aren't many games which haven't been hyped with the magazines and internets use of screenshots. They would put a picture and make a quote like:
'Just look at the atmosphere around Turok, this game looks set to be amazing!'
How the hell can they tell from a screenshot what the game will play like? This magazine hadn't even played the turok and they actually started to give it a decent preview, this lead to them giving it a massive score because they didn't want to make fools of themselves.
Be careful with screenshots people, sure they look nice ('dont the screenshots of GTA3 look amazing!!') and make you think of the rest of the game graphically but just think of the rest of the game which is hidden behind the screenshot, the gameplay, the lastibility, the music etc...
Watch out people, next time you look at a screenshot and think 'wow' think what else is behind it.
Thanks for reading
er-no
'Just look at the atmosphere around Turok, this game looks set to be amazing!'
How the hell can they tell from a screenshot what the game will play like? This magazine hadn't even played the turok and they actually started to give it a decent preview, this lead to them giving it a massive score because they didn't want to make fools of themselves.
Be careful with screenshots people, sure they look nice ('dont the screenshots of GTA3 look amazing!!') and make you think of the rest of the game graphically but just think of the rest of the game which is hidden behind the screenshot, the gameplay, the lastibility, the music etc...
Watch out people, next time you look at a screenshot and think 'wow' think what else is behind it.
Thanks for reading
er-no
screenshots tell you nbothing about a game. Except maybe, they show you one of the arenas etc. available for play. Yes, most screen shots are of ingame action, but the only true screenshots are those in a review AFTER the game is released. Preview screenshots could change dramatically before we get to play it. It's a hard concept to grasp, but you can't find out anything about a game without playing it! If er-no hadn't posted this message, I would never of thought of it like that either! Well done er-no
dont you just hate the boring old same topics day-in day-out! well here you go, something I did a long time ago that everyone should like to read:
SCREENSHOTS.have fun.
If anyone looked closely at the Nintendo news this week you may have noticed that Robocop has been confirmed for the GC, I was intrigued and clicked on the link and saw the first screen shoots of a game that has been in development since 1998, these screenshots were amazing..they were simply the best I have ever seen of an in game shoot.
Many of the pictures you see nowadays in magazines are of the video kind are part of the promo and not within the actual game. These Robocop pictures were stunning pictures of ingame action...
...but as graphics get better and better, as resolution gets better and better, as vector based pixels get smaller and smaller what is the outcome for the rest of the game??
I dont want to have a game with just '''the best graphics'''
I want a game with the best gameplay, the best ideas and the most original format, but then nearly all formats have been tested in games, I suppose what hasn't been done is RPG/First Person/Shooter??
(But then again what kind of a game would that be?)
I dont like the screenshots in magazines, they give you something to look at, they give you something to talk about but they dont give the reader the right information!
Take Nintendo Official Magazine for instance:
'The images show that Conkers Bad Fur Day looks set to be one of the biggest games of the year'
How the hell can this be told from screenshots when I know for definate that NOM haven't tested a copy!?!
People are talking about MGS2 and how amazing it is going to be? What are they going on? Screenshots and a little promo movie.
People should need to play the game to be excited.
Im not going to stop looking at screenshots but next time you look at the photos in a magazine just think about where they have come from.
Thanks
er-no
SCREENSHOTS.have fun.
If anyone looked closely at the Nintendo news this week you may have noticed that Robocop has been confirmed for the GC, I was intrigued and clicked on the link and saw the first screen shoots of a game that has been in development since 1998, these screenshots were amazing..they were simply the best I have ever seen of an in game shoot.
Many of the pictures you see nowadays in magazines are of the video kind are part of the promo and not within the actual game. These Robocop pictures were stunning pictures of ingame action...
...but as graphics get better and better, as resolution gets better and better, as vector based pixels get smaller and smaller what is the outcome for the rest of the game??
I dont want to have a game with just '''the best graphics'''
I want a game with the best gameplay, the best ideas and the most original format, but then nearly all formats have been tested in games, I suppose what hasn't been done is RPG/First Person/Shooter??
(But then again what kind of a game would that be?)
I dont like the screenshots in magazines, they give you something to look at, they give you something to talk about but they dont give the reader the right information!
Take Nintendo Official Magazine for instance:
'The images show that Conkers Bad Fur Day looks set to be one of the biggest games of the year'
How the hell can this be told from screenshots when I know for definate that NOM haven't tested a copy!?!
People are talking about MGS2 and how amazing it is going to be? What are they going on? Screenshots and a little promo movie.
People should need to play the game to be excited.
Im not going to stop looking at screenshots but next time you look at the photos in a magazine just think about where they have come from.
Thanks
er-no
Page: