Post by: honda_insightful on October 21, 2003, 05:01:33 PM
That's what I told the sales guy at gamestop today. He was telling me all about the latest and greatest Star Wars game, and after his soliloquy, I said point blank, "I don't care how it looks...how does it play?" He just went "Duh...I haven't played it yet."
I'm so tired of games that look pretty but play like crap.
We need to get the emphasis (and sales critters) back on the actual gameplay. i.e Is it fun?
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 21, 2003, 05:04:04 PM
The foot missions are repetitive, but the flying missions are simply unmatched in the genre.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 21, 2003, 05:04:41 PM
Post by: Pale on October 21, 2003, 05:12:15 PM
Post by: Infernal Monkey on October 21, 2003, 06:36:50 PM
*Goes back to Wonderboy Dragons Trap on Master System*
I get yer' gameplay right here! *Points to a bucket of gameplay*
Post by: Gup on October 21, 2003, 07:11:36 PM
I'm definitely still gameplay over graphics with a couple of exceptions, here and there.
Post by: GoldShadow1 on October 21, 2003, 07:41:56 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on October 21, 2003, 07:44:00 PM
honda, I have played al of Factor 5's Star Wars games, and I can say with complete confidence (although I haven't played it), that the game is worth your money. Just go and buy it.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on October 21, 2003, 08:11:02 PM
Oh god, that statement is going to make me wildly unpopular
Post by: KDR_11k on October 21, 2003, 09:48:25 PM
honda: You know, I asked myself the exact same question after reading the first few reviews on XIII. Now I know the gameplay is light-stealth-style and probably sucks. Still, people are hyped up for it...
Post by: Oldskool on October 22, 2003, 03:26:55 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on October 22, 2003, 06:30:07 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 22, 2003, 07:51:52 AM
I've always been a gameplay over graphics guy but I do think that graphics (as well as the whole presentation) are still important. When I play Super Mario Sunshine I'm pretty disappointed that Gamecube launch titles like Luigi's Mansion and Pikmin look better. That's just unacceptable. There's no good reason why that game's graphics are as plain as they are. Gameplay just doesn't exist in a vacuum. It needs a good setting for it. However I can still enjoy a good game with bad graphics much MUCH more then a game like Star Fox Adventures which has amazing graphics but is a total chore to play.
One thing I find weird is that a lot of graphic whores today first started off with the Playstation which has really grainy and jaggy graphics. I have yet to see a PS1 game that doesn't look like total sh!t. You'd figure that the Playstation fans would value gameplay more than anyone. Hell the whole 32/64 bit generation in general looked pretty crappy compared to the smooth 2D sprites of the 16 bit generation. At the time I felt that we were taking a step back graphically to move forward in gameplay design.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 22, 2003, 09:44:53 AM
BTW, does anybody know what was the first 3d-game?
Post by: Ian Sane on October 22, 2003, 10:21:52 AM
As for the first 3D game that's kind of hard to determine since we don't have a definition of what a 3D game is. The early vector games could be considered 3D. In terms of first game to have polygons I'm not sure. I think it may have been Virtua Racing or a racing game that came out shortly before that influenced VR. I'm pretty sure however the first polygon console game was Star Fox.
Post by: cubefreak123 on October 22, 2003, 10:25:21 AM
Post by: Uglydot on October 22, 2003, 10:45:07 AM
Post by: Round Eye on October 22, 2003, 11:09:19 AM
Post by: honda_insightful on October 22, 2003, 04:01:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PaleZer0
I follow it to, but at the same time, while i'm thouroughly enjoying Skies of Arcadia....I keep thinking to myself..damn this would be sweet if the graphics were of this generations standards.
I don't understand why everyone keeps saying that. I thought the Dreamcast's 128-bit graphics looked pretty darned good. Certainly comparable to Final Fantasy 10 or Dark Cloud 2 on the PS2.
And yeah it was Rebel Strike. After I got home last night I started reading reviews at atariage.com, and I discovered that the game is not all that great. At least not something I'd be interested in playing.
(Please... no "you're an idiot, the game is great"-style replies. I've already made up my mind to wait 'til the price hits $20.)
Post by: Grey Ninja on October 22, 2003, 05:48:08 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
BTW, does anybody know what was the first 3d-game?
Alone in the Dark.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 22, 2003, 09:50:23 PM
Let's define 3d games as '3d graphics not using "mode 7" and 3d gameplay'. Of course, the 3d should be important to the gameplay.
Post by: BlkPaladin on October 22, 2003, 09:52:33 PM
Post by: honda_insightful on October 23, 2003, 04:58:24 AM
The first game to create a 3D world (using polygons) was an old arcade game around 1983. It was comparable to a PS1 in graphics quality. Sorry, don't remember the name of the arcade game, but I can look it up if you really want to know.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 23, 2003, 07:33:57 AM
No way in hell it looked PS1 good. The first polygon games didn't even have textures.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 23, 2003, 09:13:20 AM
The first game with filled out polygons I ever saw was Cyborg 2000 for the C64 but I have no idea how old it is.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 23, 2003, 09:16:03 AM
