Author Topic: "I don't care how it looks...how does it play?" (Read 4623 times)

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?

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #1 on:** October 21, 2003, 05:04:04 PM »

If this Star Wars game was Rebel Strike, then it looks AND plays great.

The foot missions are repetitive, but the flying missions are simply unmatched in the genre.

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #2 on:** October 21, 2003, 05:04:41 PM »

Gameplay over graphics has always been a standard I follow...and nothing will ever get me to change it

Pale · « **Reply #3 on:** October 21, 2003, 05:12:15 PM »

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.

Infernal Monkey · « **Reply #4 on:** October 21, 2003, 06:36:50 PM »

Yup, it seems many developers tend to focus on the graphics more now. But that's because they can. 3D can make rubbish seem cool. People will buy it if it looks good, regardless of gameplay. WOAH, IT'S PUSHING A HEAP OF POLYGONS AND USING EFFECTS I KNOW BY NAME, BUT HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO! I JUST LIKE TO THINK I KNOW WHAT I'M GOING ON ABOUT! WOAH! DOA VOLLEYBALL LOOKS SO COOL! I'LL BUY SIX COPIES, THANKS!

*Goes back to Wonderboy Dragons Trap on Master System*
I get yer' gameplay right here! *Points to a bucket of gameplay*

Gup · « **Reply #5 on:** October 21, 2003, 07:11:36 PM »

I bought both Resident Evil and Metroid Prime to show off the GameCube's power, not the gameplay. I didn't enjoy MP that much though it was technically amazing and Resident Evil, I bought because I always liked the series and ofcourse the graphics.

I'm definitely still gameplay over graphics with a couple of exceptions, here and there.

GoldShadow1 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 21, 2003, 07:41:56 PM »

Just out of curiosity, which Star Wars game was that, exactly?

Grey Ninja · « **Reply #7 on:** October 21, 2003, 07:44:00 PM »

Rebel Strike I am sure.

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.

S-U-P-E-R · « **Reply #8 on:** October 21, 2003, 08:11:02 PM »

I found some gameplay inside DOAXVB

Oh god, that statement is going to make me wildly unpopular

KDR_11k · « **Reply #9 on:** October 21, 2003, 09:48:25 PM »

Super: Then squeezing blood out of a stone must be easy for you...

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...

Oldskool · « **Reply #10 on:** October 22, 2003, 03:26:55 AM »

The ISDA needs to launch a gameplay over graphics campain. This would at the very least decrease the number of "Gamecube's kiddie, Xbox has better graphics" store clerks.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #11 on:** October 22, 2003, 06:30:07 AM »

Errrr... The IDSA probably prefers games as they are. Not requiring any creative work, that is.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #12 on:** October 22, 2003, 07:51:52 AM »

Maybe all bad games should come with a "Warning: this game sucks" sticker on the box. Of course that would pretty much kill sales.

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.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #13 on:** October 22, 2003, 09:44:53 AM »

Ian: I call it "First Contact Syndrome": People are easily amazed when they see something the first time. Starfox didn't have that good graphics, but they were 3d and everybody loved them. DKC's rendered sprites look like a pixelated mess, but people were amazed by them.

BTW, does anybody know what was the first 3d-game?

Ian Sane · « **Reply #14 on:** October 22, 2003, 10:21:52 AM »

DKC's sprites, in my opinion, still look great. And they were WAY ahead of anything at the time so I don't think that's a good example. I also thought Star Fox looked like crap when I was a kid. Still I think the first contact idea makes sense.

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.

cubefreak123 · « **Reply #15 on:** October 22, 2003, 10:25:21 AM »

I see it like this. The gameplay is like the cake without the icing, the better the gameplay the sweeter the cake is, the graphics just top it off (aka the icing.)

Uglydot · « **Reply #16 on:** October 22, 2003, 10:45:07 AM »

I remember when this very board was filled with crap about bump mapping. Graphics make people buy games. Stores sell games. I wonder why they always talk about graphics. But yeah, of course we all like was is fun...

Round Eye · « **Reply #17 on:** October 22, 2003, 11:09:19 AM »

IMO, Graphics are good, game play is better. Good graphics plus good game play is the best.

honda_insightful · « **Reply #18 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.)

Grey Ninja · « **Reply #19 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.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #20 on:** October 22, 2003, 09:50:23 PM »

Sure? I could swear Battlezone and Elite both came before that.
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.

BlkPaladin · « **Reply #21 on:** October 22, 2003, 09:52:33 PM »

You mean by accually adding to the game experience then getting in the way. (Cameras the blight of the current generation of games.)

honda_insightful · « **Reply #22 on:** October 23, 2003, 04:58:24 AM »

Elite and Battlezone weren't 3D. They used vectors to *simulate* 3D. That's still considered 2D.

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.

Ian Sane · « **Reply #23 on:** October 23, 2003, 07:33:57 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."

No way in hell it looked PS1 good. The first polygon games didn't even have textures.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #24 on:** October 23, 2003, 09:13:20 AM »

honda: Elite has an enhanced version that fills out the lines, but essentially there's no difference between vector and polygon graphics. Vectors can by definition have any amount of dimensions (even modern systems still calculate their 3d-graphics in vectors and matrices). Vector graphics can be just as 3d as polygons. The only real difference between them is that Polygons are filled out and wireframes (or vectors) aren't (due to processor speed, later versions of Elite fill out the lines). Ah, whatever. Just tell me, would you define this as 3d?
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.

News:

Author Topic: "I don't care how it looks...how does it play?" (Read 4623 times)