EPTGraphics or Gameplay - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
RyuChus
Canada442 Posts
| ||
|
aimaimaim
Philippines2167 Posts
| ||
|
Tharros
Australia94 Posts
| ||
|
yrba1
United States325 Posts
| ||
|
anilusion
Sweden247 Posts
| ||
|
So no fek
United States3001 Posts
On August 21 2010 08:28 Kennigit wrote: Exactly hahaha. Was typing this out when i saw you already posted it. BW still looks pretty slick, though. And I'm personally of the opinion that 2D is better for certain genres of games, such as fighting and RTS. Still, I'd choose gameplay depending on a few factors. Generally, I don't really care what the graphics look like; I'll still play NES games, Final Fantasy VII, Morrowind, and a bunch of other games that the general "gamer" would bitch and moan about. The only way I'd take graphics over gameplay is if it physically hurts my eyes to play a game. For example, when I first got my GameCube, I was playing SSBB, then went over to my brother's where he had an N64 with SSB. The blurry graphics really hurt my eyes, and I couldn't stand to play it for more than 5-10 minutes at a time. The same with FFVIII, which was always a bit strange to me. I had no problem playing 7 with the blocky graphics, but the blurry full scale bodies really strained my eyes. | ||
|
Zergsassasin
United States23 Posts
Graphics are there to help, but gameplay is what keeps the game interesting | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
| ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
On August 21 2010 08:50 semantics wrote: lol you didn't play ff7 when it first game out did you those graphics where pretty high end for the day esp the cut scenes. I did. everyone was saying how terrible the graphics were. IIRC when ff7 came out it was decided right at the end of the development cycle to shift it over to the ps1. Development for that console at that point was embryonic obviously as it had only been out a few months, so the planned resolution for the game had to be reduced and the model quality scaled down from what it was meant to be on the N64. I seriously remember sitting around with my friends making fun of the terrible blocky graphics. The cut scenes were nice though. | ||
|
GoodWill
Canada149 Posts
On August 21 2010 09:03 yeti wrote: I guess in 1999, Graphics were a big selling point for me. You know, when you can actually see the thing your shooting in Golden Eye instead of enemies being slightly different colored blob of pixels in Doom. But we have reached a graphical plateau for new games, where graphics now longer influence gameplay, and only add to artistry. For old games vs new games, graphics sometimes influence my choice of gaming. It is hard to tell do to the nostalgia effect. But I would choose super smash bro. Brawl over original, just because it looks better. But gameplay and nostalgia are far more important factor for me, when I haul out my N64 just to hear Kirby's taunt over and over again. Other than the handful of competitive games I played over the years. Most games are like an adventure for me, like reading a novel or watching a movie, so artistry (graphics, sound, plot and more) overrides the "gameplay" in most cases. A state-of-the-art 1999 game will look irritating standing beside a 2009 big budget production. | ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
For single player, I value storytelling and artistry very highly and graphics are one major part of that. Bioshock was one of my favorite games ever despite the fact that I didn't even like how it played. I agree with the post above me, although more of my time is spent with competitive games than adventure ones overall. | ||
|
LoveSponge
Australia237 Posts
I'm playing SC2 on pretty low graphics even though i can run it on high/ultra. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4393 Posts
my eyes burn when i try going back to brood war | ||
|
Deleted User 31060
3788 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 31060
3788 Posts
| ||
|
ironchef
Canada1350 Posts
| ||
|
exarchrum
United States491 Posts
| ||
|
araged
Czech Republic189 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On August 21 2010 14:15 ghermination wrote: I did. everyone was saying how terrible the graphics were. IIRC when ff7 came out it was decided right at the end of the development cycle to shift it over to the ps1. Development for that console at that point was embryonic obviously as it had only been out a few months, so the planned resolution for the game had to be reduced and the model quality scaled down from what it was meant to be on the N64. I seriously remember sitting around with my friends making fun of the terrible blocky graphics. The cut scenes were nice though. 3d was pretty new in 97' FF7 was considered state of the art graphics... This is the most dazzling visual experience to date on any console. Film-quality computer-generated cinematics blend seamlessly with pre-rendered background artwork to create the strikingly realistic world of Final Fantasy VII, both beautiful in its grandeur and terrifying in its detail. The overworld and battle sequences are presented in full polygonal splendor with just a touch of texture mapping for good measure. But you haven't seen anything until you witness some of the more powerful magic spells in the game. Massive dragons heed your bidding, dwarfing your gigantic enemies tenfold; an earth titan tears the ground up from beneath your enemies' feet, flinging them aside like toy blocks. Some of these summoning spells cut to over half a dozen different camera angles as the catastrophe unfolds. Meanwhile, a masterfully orchestrated soundtrack - courtesy of veteran composer Nobuo Uematsu - is a major force behind the intense emotion of Final Fantasy VII. The synthesized musical score hearkens Final Fantasy's golden age on the Super Nintendo, consciously staying true to its roots. Yet for all its top-notch graphics and sound, truly the best aspect of Final Fantasy VII is the plot that these peerless aesthetics help weave. http://www.gamespot.com/ps/rpg/finalfantasy7/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review the review is dated 1997 On August 21 2010 16:47 Sunyveil wrote: Actually, I'd go as far as to say Super Mario 64 is better than any of its successors (Sunshine, Galaxy), because the controls are just so smooooooth in that game, and it sticks to the whole mushroom kingdom theme like glue but manages to make it brand new. You claim 64 is better then SMG:2 SMG:2 is what i would consider the best 3d mario. 64 is pretty dam good but i'd say smg:2 is the best it's controls are perfect for it's planet themed gravity mobo jumbo. Anyways you want a good 3d adventure game on the n64 you go to banjo-kazooie, which was less repetitive and frankly had jokes in it and references that are worth while. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On August 21 2010 18:14 araged wrote: Wii sucks balls, I should know it, I own one. There are two worthy games on that system and that it. Not the wii's fault if all you want is FPS and JRPG games. It has plenty of good games. | ||
| ||
