Page 1 of 1
Kinda Annoying
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:38 pm
by Felix
I, for one, cannot understand game developers. Most of them think that graphics is where it's at. They think that making it look pretty will cover up any flaws and also make it sell well.
I think they're wrong. In my opinion, most games like that are as shallow as a celebrity, just a bunch of glamor but no depth.
Now, don't get me wrong, It's wonderful to have a game with both good graphic and good gameplay, but I seem to find myself enjoying NES and SNES games much more than today's.
I wish that they would spend more time concentrating on gameplay instead of makeup, ya know?
Who feels the same?
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:50 pm
by Raiden no Kishi
I think they ought to value them both equally.
I personally prefer gameplay, but if a game has bad graphics (for the system mind you), then I don't really want to play it, unless it just has awesome gameplay.
Rai
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:53 pm
by Warrior 4 Jesus
Most definetly I agree! That's what I've been trying to tell everyone! Oh Halo, Halo 2, Halflife 2! Who cares all they have is graphics! That's why I go for the bargain bin quality gameplay games like the Thief series and Worms.
Yes, I think gameplay is often rejected these days in favour of graphics and many people disagree but I say, "Better gameplay for all!" Or something.
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 7:59 pm
by Felix
worms...now there's a game I love...
See, perfect example, One of my favorite games, yet definitely lacking in the graphics department.
8-bit games are the foundation of todays games...respect them.
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:04 pm
by indyrocker
ya true dat duck hunt rules all for mindless entertainment the nintendo ds so far has some deacent games such as mario 64 ds its got all the stuff thet the origanal had plus more!
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:12 pm
by Felix
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that games with good graphics are crappy, just that usually, the games with worse graphics have more though put into gameplay, and thus are more fun to play.
PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 8:25 pm
by PrincessZelda
Yeah, I agree.
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 6:16 am
by Raptor
I totally agree with you. I spend more money on buying NES-SNES games than new consoles. But Nintendo DS is nice cause there is a good balance between graphics and gameplay.
I never had fun on anny new game than with old games like : battle city, ice hockey, kirby super star, wayne gretzky's 3d hockey, looney tunes b-ball.
Those were the good days.
I'm pulling an old school video game contest during the holidays. Way to bring up those good games.
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 6:40 am
by Felix
Old-school contest? Sounds like a blast.
Wish I could join you
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 6:41 am
by Felix
Old-school contest? Sounds like a blast.
Wish I could join you
PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:14 am
by cbwing0
I agree with you that gamplay is more important than graphics; however, I do not agree that older games are better than what we have today.
For every great game that you remember from your childhood, there were probably 5 that were complete garbage; however, no one remembers the bad games, so we get the mistaken impression that 8- and 16-bit games were all golden. They also didn't have any more thought put into them. If anything they had less, because there are quite a few old games with horrible bugs that render the games unplayable.
The power of newer systems allows developers to create games that are more comlpex than older titles, giving them tremendous potential to create better games. A perfect example of this is Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. The original title was a simple platformer. The next-gen version includes complex combat, puzzles, 3-d environments, and amazing acrobatics. Only a thoroughly myopic nostalgia could lead one to call the older game better than the newer one.
Of course remakes of old games don't always go that well, but it is a good example of how videogames have improved since the 8- and 16-bit days.