|
|
Post by Richard-RN on Jan 24, 2006 21:27:38 GMT -5
As far as graphics are concerned, Justin is right. Though it may not be as apparent in first generation titles, the next generation is still a big step up graphically. Tiger Woods was a really bad game to showcase the 360's graphical prowess, you should instead look to Oblivion or Ghost Recon. The power is there. As far as gameplay is concerned, I agree with you on both fronts Tibris. Nothing that I have seen of the 360 or ps3 revolutionizes or even improves upon the way we play games now. With the rising cost of development, developers are going to start taking less risks and just sticking with the same old formulas we have been playing for the last 5 years. Viva la Revolucion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pilgrim John on Jan 27, 2006 0:22:09 GMT -5
And Viva Cheez!
...Uh, because without it, we'd, uh...
...have nothing to partner our meat with! In our sandwiches, you know? It's amazing just how much cheese and the Revolution have in common.
So, viva cheez!
|
|
*NormalGamer*
Phantom Ganon
"I await the 'new generation' of video gaming." - *NG*
Posts: 912
|
Post by *NormalGamer* on Jan 27, 2006 12:51:39 GMT -5
Regardless, I, IMO, still just want to 'enjoy' playing the games I want to play rather than caring too much how good next-gen graphics are better than current gen graphics. Who ever said anything about not enjoying the games you play? Sure I want to enjoy the games I play, but I definitely wouldn't mind amazing graphics to go along with it.
I can agree on that. In balance, IMO, I also wouldn't mind seeing amazing graphics in games. However, as a gamer, i'm just not gonna 'obsess' over caring which graphcs are better when playing my games(even 'if' one specific type of graphics is truly better than the other.) Or in other words: Even if '3D better than 2D' or 'vice versa', I don't really care much. I just wanna have fun playing the games I want to play, nuff said. That's what i'm saying here. |
|
|
|
Post by TibrisXVII on Jan 27, 2006 21:30:36 GMT -5
I agree. but I also gotta challenge the definition of good graphics. I don't necessarily think a games graphics need to require allot of power to be great. I look at Katamari Damacy for a good example there(I find myself looking to Katamari for alot of examples). The graphics are very simple and blocky, but it is perfect for the game. I don't think Katamari would have been as engaging if they went with an ultra realistic style. I also gotta site the upcoming Okami also for the PS2. Quite frankly, that is one of the most beautiful games I have ever seen judging by the screen shots. And that's comparing it to newer PC games and next gen consoles. It's the artistic style that makes it so beautiful. I would really prefer to play something that looks like that than something with an ultra real style. Obviously, an abstract style like that wouldn't work with every game. But I just feel that when it comes to designing a game you have so much to work with and I think it's kinda sad that so many developers stick almost solely to an ultra realistic style, game after game, without ever branching away. They have the ability to make something that looks even better than reality, an almost unlimited creative outlet, yet they are using it to remake the same thing over and over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard-RN on Jan 27, 2006 22:13:38 GMT -5
Well...I see where you are coming from Tibris. I do disagree somewhat, however. As far as Okami goes, I'm with you all of the way. The game has a gorgeous art style and I am completely wowed every time I see more screens. As far as a game like Katamari goes, however, I would not define those as "good graphics. The same could be said for Animal Crossing and Advance Wars. The game's graphics fit the theme and gameplay perfectly, but as far as being good? I wouldn't say so. They are stylized, no doubt, but when I think "good graphics" games like Twilight Princess, God of War, and Resident Evil 4 come to mind. I guess its just a matter of opinion really. I think that to say something has great graphics it either has to have a great art style or great technical features. Games like Katamari and Animal Crossing don't have either. The graphics fit, but they aren't "good".
|
|
|
|
Post by TibrisXVII on Jan 27, 2006 23:50:03 GMT -5
I disagree, they didn't HAVE to go with the blocky style of Katamari, Namco is certainly capable of doing alot more, even with the PS2, but they chose to do it for artistic reasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard-RN on Jan 28, 2006 1:02:37 GMT -5
Of course they didn't have to. But regardless, the graphics aren't really impressive in any way. They just fit the feel of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by TibrisXVII on Jan 28, 2006 18:15:40 GMT -5
i see your point. In honesty, I'm glad Katamari's graphics where rather simple, I think it would have lost something if they had tried to impress with graphics. Rather, the gameplay itself had to shine and might have been over shadowed by some high end bump mapping particle effecting light sourcing neato pretty pictures.
|
|
