N64 games don't make my eyes bleed... Ocarina of Time is still just as fun now, so is Super Mario 64...
Both of which are very attractive games. You're missing the point entirely.
But both of which if they were released today would be considered to look outdated, yet would be more enjoyable to play than most other games around.
The art on the Sistene Chapel would be considered an old fashioned approach to art if a modern artist did it, and yet it's still more beautiful than many modern artist's work.
Technical advancements mean nothing for how a game can look. NES games can be beautiful.
Technical advancements open up more possibilities, but good artistry is good artistry regardless of the limitations of the medium.
This is why I find it so unfortunate that there are so few beautiful looking games on Wii. It's absolutely not because it's not capable.
Exactly. The Wii is more than capable of producing beautiful games, from the smallest, simplest use of visuals (Art Style games, Wii Sports) right through to the relatively complex work of a Mario game, the Wii has games that have "good graphics."
N64 games don't make my eyes bleed... Ocarina of Time is still just as fun now, so is Super Mario 64...
Both of which are very attractive games. You're missing the point entirely.
But both of which if they were released today would be considered to look outdated, yet would be more enjoyable to play than most other games around.
The art on the Sistene Chapel would be considered an old fashioned approach to art if a modern artist did it, and yet it's still more beautiful than many modern artist's work.
Technical advancements mean nothing for how a game can look. NES games can be beautiful.
Well I mean if it's not a deliberate attempt to make a game look old fashioned, and rather that for whatever reason that was the best that the developers could achieve on the console that those games appear on. So as an example let's pretend the N64 is a current generation console, competing against the PS3 and 360 and Ocarina of Time and Super Mario 64 have just come out. It would appear that the visuals are far behind the competition, but that's the best that the N64 could achieve. I wouldn't dislike those games just because they appear to have inferior visuals to games on the other consoles. Those games would still be great despite looking outdated visually, because they would just be so fun to play.
Technical advancements mean nothing for how a game can look. NES games can be beautiful.
Technical advancements open up more possibilities, but good artistry is good artistry regardless of the limitations of the medium.
This is why I find it so unfortunate that there are so few beautiful looking games on Wii. It's absolutely not because it's not capable.
Exactly. The Wii is more than capable of producing beautiful games, from the smallest, simplest use of visuals (Art Style games, Wii Sports) right through to the relatively complex work of a Mario game, the Wii has games that have "good graphics."
I totally agree with that. There are plenty of games that look good on the Wii. I love my Wii and I love the games on it and a lot of the games look as good as games on the other consoles. But even if a game just doesn't look as good as it probably could for whatever reason, to me, if it's still fun, that's the most important thing.
Well I mean if it's not a deliberate attempt to make a game look old fashioned, and rather that for whatever reason that was the best that the developers could achieve on the console that those games appear on. So as an example let's pretend the N64 is a current generation console, competing against the PS3 and 360 and Ocarina of Time and Super Mario 64 have just come out. It would appear that the visuals are far behind the competition, but that's the best that the N64 could achieve. I wouldn't dislike those games just because they appear to have inferior visuals to games on the other consoles. Those games would still be great despite looking outdated visually, because they would just be so fun to play.
You're really not following. Zelda Ocarina of Time and Mario 64 are good looking games; technology and power are irrelevant. Degas was able to paint pretty pictures of ballerinas without the aid of Photoshop. Of course you're not going to dislike these games based on their visuals - they have good artistic direction.
You need to play a game that has broken aesthetics before you try and claim that graphics don't affect your enjoyment of a game. I'm going to bet you haven't done that.
I think both graphics and gameplay are important. However I like to use this analogy when describing them.
A game is like a cake. The gameplay is the cake itself and the graphics is like the icing and frosting on the cake (aside from maybe a few other toppings)
You can have four kinds of cakes here:
1. A good cake with great toppings (i.e. good gameplay and graphics): The cake looks and tastes good so the taster is satisfied with it until the last bite 2. A good cake with no toppings (i.e. good gameplay and bad graphics): The cake doesn't look good, so some people may turn away from it, while a couple may try it anyway and still like it 3. A bad cake with great toppings (lousy gameplay and good graphics): This cake may look good at first, but that first bite may not be so tasty. 4. A bad cake with bad toppings (lousy gameplay and graphics): I don't think many people are even gonna try this cake.
This analogy shows that both gameplay and graphics are important, though gameplay may be more important. Graphics is good for the first impressions while the gameplay makes those impressions last.
Btw, aren't you hungry for some cake?
Current games: Everything on Switch
Switch Friend Code: SW-5075-7879-0008 | My Nintendo: LzWinky
Well I mean if it's not a deliberate attempt to make a game look old fashioned, and rather that for whatever reason that was the best that the developers could achieve on the console that those games appear on. So as an example let's pretend the N64 is a current generation console, competing against the PS3 and 360 and Ocarina of Time and Super Mario 64 have just come out. It would appear that the visuals are far behind the competition, but that's the best that the N64 could achieve. I wouldn't dislike those games just because they appear to have inferior visuals to games on the other consoles. Those games would still be great despite looking outdated visually, because they would just be so fun to play.
You're really not following. Zelda Ocarina of Time and Mario 64 are good looking games; technology and power are irrelevant. Degas was able to paint pretty pictures of ballerinas without the aid of Photoshop. Of course you're not going to dislike these games based on their visuals - they have good artistic direction.
You need to play a game that has broken aesthetics before you try and claim that graphics don't affect your enjoyment of a game. I'm going to bet you haven't done that.
If a game has good gameplay, then the main thing is that the visuals are clear enough so that you can accurately tell what is going on in the game. As long as that is achieved, I don't care what the actual visuals of the game look like. I could design all the characters, etc. for a game and still enjoy it if somebody could implement my designs in a game that has enjoyable gameplay, despite me being a terrible drawer. It wouldn't be a choice of artistic direction, it wouldn't look appealing in any way, it'd be ugly... but as long as you can distinguish what is what and my bad drawings don't result in you not being able to navigate the game easily, I really couldn't care how bad it looks.
I think both graphics and gameplay are important. However I like to use this analogy when describing them.
A game is like a cake. The gameplay is the cake itself and the graphics is like the icing and frosting on the cake (aside from maybe a few other toppings)
You can have four kinds of cakes here:
1. A good cake with great toppings (i.e. good gameplay and graphics): The cake looks and tastes good so the taster is satisfied with it until the last bite 2. A good cake with no toppings (i.e. good gameplay and bad graphics): The cake doesn't look good, so some people may turn away from it, while a couple may try it anyway and still like it 3. A bad cake with great toppings (lousy gameplay and good graphics): This cake may look good at first, but that first bite may not be so tasty. 4. A bad cake with bad toppings (lousy gameplay and graphics): I don't think many people are even gonna try this cake.
This analogy shows that both gameplay and graphics are important, though gameplay may be more important. Graphics is good for the first impressions while the gameplay makes those impressions last.
Well I mean if it's not a deliberate attempt to make a game look old fashioned, and rather that for whatever reason that was the best that the developers could achieve on the console that those games appear on. So as an example let's pretend the N64 is a current generation console, competing against the PS3 and 360 and Ocarina of Time and Super Mario 64 have just come out. It would appear that the visuals are far behind the competition, but that's the best that the N64 could achieve. I wouldn't dislike those games just because they appear to have inferior visuals to games on the other consoles. Those games would still be great despite looking outdated visually, because they would just be so fun to play.
You're really not following. Zelda Ocarina of Time and Mario 64 are good looking games; technology and power are irrelevant. Degas was able to paint pretty pictures of ballerinas without the aid of Photoshop. Of course you're not going to dislike these games based on their visuals - they have good artistic direction.
You need to play a game that has broken aesthetics before you try and claim that graphics don't affect your enjoyment of a game. I'm going to bet you haven't done that.
If a game has good gameplay, then the main thing is that the visuals are clear enough so that you can accurately tell what is going on in the game. As long as that is achieved, I don't care what the actual visuals of the game look like. I could design all the characters, etc. for a game and still enjoy it if somebody could implement my designs in a game that has enjoyable gameplay, despite me being a terrible drawer. It wouldn't be a choice of artistic direction, it wouldn't look appealing in any way, it'd be ugly... but as long as you can distinguish what is what and my bad drawings don't result in you not being able to navigate the game easily, I really couldn't care how bad it looks.
You just described "good graphics."
So there you go. You do want good graphics in your games. Eureka moment for you, good sir.
Sony will be Sony and Nintendo will be Nintendo. In other words, Crappy will be crappy and good will be good. Just kidding though, Vita looks pretty cool, but not comparable to the 3DS.
Sony will be Sony and Nintendo will be Nintendo. In other words, Crappy will be crappy and good will be good. Just kidding though, Vita looks pretty cool, but not comparable to the 3DS.
3DS FTW. As a Nintendo gamer, I'm not sure if I want the Vita to do well or not. I don't want it to do well at the expense of the 3DS, but I wouldn't mind the 3DS and the Vita doing well at the expense of Apple and their App shop. If the day comes that Nintendo and Sony either copy Apple or stop making handhelds completely and the only options out there are small, downloadable games that only have a touch screen as the sole input, I'll consider handheld gaming dead.
Professional game reviewers break down games and consider gameplay, visuals, and sound separate elements.
What good does this do? When I wanna to know about a game, I don't want to know that it's sound is 10/10 while gameplay is 7/10. I want to know how everything that is incorporated into the game makes me want to play it. Games are about experiences, same with books, films etc, and I want to know what the game leaves with people, rather than individual stuff.
i could have worded that better.
QUEEN OF SASS
It's like, I just love a cowboy
You know
I'm just like, I just, I know, it's bad
But I'm just like
Can I just like, hang off the back of your horse
And can you go a little faster?!
Forums
Topic: Is the PS Vita in trouble?
Posts 181 to 198 of 198
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.