Old graphics does not=bad game

[krain]

Time and again I hear people telling me that games suck 'cuz the graphics are less than 32-bit.

When I told people at school that I just bought FF anthology, FF chronicles, and Xenogears (easily 5 of the best rpgs ever), they said those games suck due to their low-bit graphics. I've even met people who totally refused to play totally awesome games like FF4, FF5, and FF6, just because of their 16-bit super nintendo graphics.

I don't care what anyone says, these games are the most *insert cool adjective* EVER

[Sorceress_Fae]

I actually PREFFER 8 and 16 bit graphics. I dunno why, but I do.

[Element_man]

I know. poeple are all like: OMG TEH OLD MEGAMAN SUXZ CUZ TEHY DUN USE TEH GOOD GRAFIX!!!

It's annoying. You can't rate different bitages against each other. You can only discriminate poor graphics in games of the same bitage level.

[lazy man]

I don't see why people play games based on graphics more than gameplay. Then when you mention old school games, they talk on and on about how cool they are. They just made one of the stupidest situations for themselves and they don't seem to care. Sometimes it just makes me want to smack them on the side of their heads.

[Su'Ravan]

i <3 low bit games... i like ff6 and much as or more then ff7

[MC43]

What!? I agree! Gamjes with low quality graphics are usually better than some with great graphics.

Note... XENOGEARS! BEST GAME... EVER!!

[Bizzaro_Exdeath]

OMG I feel sorry for you guys. How can you POSSIBLY play games with such old graphics???!!! I can't stand to look at it. I mean, I play Chrono Trigger for a second, and I HATE IT. HOW CAN YOU LOOK AT IT???!!! I pity you people, you are succumed from the GOOD 21st century games.







































Actually, I LOVE the old games. Heh, I'm not much in new games at all. If you ask me, the best games are Chrono Trigger, Legend of Zelda, Super Metroid, Mario Brothers series, and the old Final Fantasies. Old games rock!!!!! New games.... well, there's too much focus on the graphics. That makes the gameplay, music, storyline, and sense of adventure have to suffer. Though there are still some good 3D games... the BEST are the 2D ones. But the white lettered things I said above, is EXACTLY how one of my friends feel. No matter what, I CANNOT convince him to play games like Chrono Trigger. He likes the Final Fantasy movie... and he like the new Star Wars... THE NEW STAR WARS!!!!!!! What the hell? He's a sucker for graphics. And I would hate if you missed this message.... it would be quite bad for my reputation :) EDIT: I never played Xenogears... is it for super nintendo? PLEASE say it's for Super Nintendo

[Sorceress_Fae]

Are you kidding Bizzaro? I can't tell.

[Bizzaro_Exdeath]

NO I'M NOT KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. highlight the bottom...

[Sorceress_Fae]

Did you kow that if you highlight the smiley face it looks like a frowning face? I found that interesting but maybe I'm weird....er than I thought

[Bizzaro_Exdeath]

Don't worry, I noticed that too. In fact I found it kinda funny, because the frown is more fitting for the scenario of me not wanting to have a bad reputation. hehe.

[BMHadoken]

Well, I wouldn't exactly put FF 1 and 2 in the top ten...or twenty, but I get where you're coming from.

But it also doesnt mean that good graphics=bad game. Would Resident Evil be even close to as good in a 2d format? I think not.

[e-man2001]

in order for a game to be good, all that matters is that the game is fun to play. I really cannot stand people who say things like "I only play games for graphics" I always wanna just have them go look at a picture instead of playing a game then.

I will still sit down and play the old NES games from time to time... Hell I found an old atari at my Grandparents last summer and played Adventure. The great dot graphic is so awesome!!! well... just kidding. But the graphics never mean as much to me as good gameplay. All I ask for in graphics is that I can tell the difference between what I need to kill and not kill on the screen.

Also in most of these "amazing grpahics" games the camera control is so hideous you cant even see what you wannt to when u want to.

[SpaceManSpiff]

in order for a game to be good, all that matters is that the game is fun to play. I really cannot stand people who say things like "I only play games for graphics" I always wanna just have them go look at a picture instead of playing a game then.

I will still sit down and play the old NES games from time to time... Hell I found an old atari at my Grandparents last summer and played Adventure. The great dot graphic is so awesome!!! well... just kidding. But the graphics never mean as much to me as good gameplay. All I ask for in graphics is that I can tell the difference between what I need to kill and not kill on the screen.

Also in most of these "amazing grpahics" games the camera control is so hideous you cant even see what you wannt to when u want to.

I agree with you whole heartedly, i for one was just playing one of the original Mega Man games for NES earlier today. The graphics weren't the best, or anywhere near it, but it was fun.

I personally can't wait for a Mega Man game with good graphics and a good story line... the 64 version just didnt work for me...

[IHateMakingNames]

Ever notice how similar some of the 'oldies' are compared to the 'idiots who only like fancy graphics' are some times? I really think at least half of the people say old graphics are better then newer graphics because some of the 'smart' people think that way, so they just follow and say all new games suck with bad game play.

I found every 3D Zelda better then LttP. Being able to aim in more ways then up, down, left, and right is much better for them. Then combat is better, since you can do back flips, rolls, side step, etc.

Same with Mario. People always say how great the 2Ds are, but I rather play either of the 3D Marios over 2D ones. Platformers are better in 3D. More platforms, more space, more jumping available. 3D is what platformers need.

A lot of great games need 3D as well. All horror games would suck in 2D. You cannot scare some one in 2D nearly as much as you can in 3D. MGS games as well. Crawling around in air vents, sneaking around, poping out and breaking a guards neck then throwing him over board wouldn't be nearly as fun in 2D as it is in 3D. Newer ninja games are much better then the old 2D ninja games. FPS as well.

As for camera control, I've never had a problem with it. I play many 3D games, and rarely die or get fustrated due to bad angling of the camera. I get annoyed with that as much as I get annoyed when an enemy/enemies shot pops out of the side of the small screen in a 2D game when your running and have a small amount of time to avoid it.

I'm not saying old graphics suck, I'm saying new graphics are good.

Oh, and Anthologies/Chronicles suck. There are loading times for the battles, the many, many random battles start slower and play slower. Just get an emulator and play them from the SNES versions.

[MC43]

Honestly for me... It's the music that will make or break a game for me. If the music makes you feel a certain mood during a scene in the game, then the game will last a long time.

I remember when me and my friend first played Halo. When you first saw the flood, me and my friend were scared shitless... I'm serious too! We were shakin' too much to do any good in the game...

That was until he got the shotgun...

[Priest4hire]

I find it a little ironic that the vast majority of games mentioned represent some of the best of PS1 and SNES level graphics. Chrono Trigger was huge for a SNES game and looked it. FF6 pushed the graphical capability of the SNES to the limit. Xenogears was a 2CD PS1 game and so on.

The other thing is how many of these games, all of them in fact, are drawn from the NES/SNES/PS1 route. Which just happens to correspond to the most popular console of each era. I would thus suspect that in the majority of cases these represent games that were originally played when they were new. Or at least games of consoles the gamer in question had at the time. More rare would be the gamer who plays those games, on those platforms, they never had in their youth.

I'm not saying it's all nostalgia, nor am I even trying to suggest everyone on this thread only plays the games/systems of their youth. I do believe there were many great games that were also graphically primitive.

I suppose it's more that I've noticed most gamers will wax poetically about the Final Fantasy of their youth but wouldn't even look at a great RPG like Ultima IV. Unless by chance they played the horribly butchered NES version. But how many would even be willing to expend the slight effort of getting a SMS emu and the ROM? U4 has been released for free distribution after all.

Though when I play some of the old games I can admire them ever for those 'primitive' graphics. Games that pushed the limits of what their systems could do visually still impress me. One should check out Perihelion for one of the coolest intro sequences for a game of that era. It's made even more impressive since it was an Amiga game and came on floppies. Chrono Trigger is still very lush and rich for a SNES game, and those strong visuals are no doubt a big part of its success.

[Ippy]

My sister bought FF origins and I hate that game so much

5 minutes of playing it and I turned on my nintendo and played the original ff1 and I love it even more 'cause it has cute graphics and an addictive sound quality lol :fighter:

[slightly aboveaverage man]

Honestly for me... It's the music that will make or break a game for me. If the music makes you feel a certain mood during a scene in the game, then the game will last a long time.

I remember when me and my friend first played Halo. When you first saw the flood, me and my friend were scared shitless... I'm serious too! We were shakin' too much to do any good in the game...

That was until he got the shotgun...

you didn't happen to do a power point presentation in your school recently did you? in one Communications Tech class?

[krain]

For anybody who thought this thread was meant to say that games with great graphics are bad, YOU ARE WRONG!

I agree that some games just wouldn't work in 2D, such as all the ones mentioned in previous posts.

My main point is that a game is not made by it's graphics.

Some of my favorite games are 3D, such as the entire Armored Core series, FF7, Parasite Eve 2, and GTA3. But by far, my favorite games in at least the FF series have got to be 4-6, because they have totally awesome stories, and 6 has the best music out of any of them.

[MFD]

I personally like the FFI NES graphics better, simply because the characters are cute, and you can do more with them. Fighter-Warrior is no contest, as is Blackbelt-Monk.

[Lockeownzj00]

Actually, if you'll look at this thread, it's all just a bunch of, "yeas" and "totallys!" No one is thinking about it from the other perspective.

Games, just like art, are an aesthetic thing. They are pleasing or not pleasing to the eye, and no matter how much you would like to deny it, a games graphics affect you, case in point, wind waker. A games style can cause someone to refuse it or love it, and you can't simply say that anything old is good.

People who know me know I love old games. I love 16 bit and 8 bit grapichs just as much as you do, but I also love what they're doing with graphics each year. The extreme of either side is not somewhere to be: Your opinion on a game is solely reliant on how good it looks, or your opinion on a game is solely reliant on how nostalgic it looks. I was going to say "solely reliant on graphics," but that itself is fine. It's the people who base it on how flashy it is who are stupid.

[Deathosaurus Wrecks]

I love 16 bit graphics, i think the Super Nintento is the best console to ever graced our planet. Right now, I'm very much enjoying Ragnarok, because they know the beauty and wonderment that is sprite graphics.

the only modern game that i've played and have actualy been impressed by the graphics has been FF: Crystal Chronicals. the level of detail in that game is just sick.

[Smashlink]

I consider myself in favor of neither schools, so I'll shall make...points...good...things...
Anyway, Most of this is covered here (http://www.nuklearpower.com/oldvsnew.php). Anyway, the only reason a 3d game could be bad is if the main feature was the graphics. Good games like the latest Legend of Zelda games(see above) are MADE good, but only indirectly, by the third-dimensional graphics. Without them, players might not have been able to climb, swim, and explore as rich as an environment as they can.

2D games aren't essentially good, or essentially bad, neither are 3D games.

[krain]

Originally posted by Smashlink
2D games aren't essentially good, or essentially bad, neither are 3D games.
Thank you for making that point clear.

I wanted to say something like that but couldn't think of a way to word it good.

And I apologize if any of my posts were miscontrued to such a point that people believed I didn't like new games that featured good graphics just because they had good graphics.

[Magic E-Mail Chicken]

Is it just me, or do games get to be less long or fun as the graphics get better.
EX: final fantasy VIII was 4 discs and Final Fantasy X was only one.

[BMHadoken]

FF 8 was 4 Cd's, FF10 was 1 DVD...big difference...

[krain]

The reason FFX was only one disc and FFVIII was four is really quite simple: PS2 discs hold a helluvalot more information than PS1 discs.

Yes, 8 was longer, but 10 took a lot longer to master everything.
And yes 10 was less fun than 8 'cuz it was much, MUCH too linear, and easier to actually complete the story (just not all the mini-quests)

Besides, you can't really compare game length by #of discs, I mean look at 7, it had three, but was clearly longer than 8, 9, or 10. It took more discs in 8 and 9 because the better graphics took up more disc space.

[Magic E-Mail Chicken]

My point. the graphics are eating up all of the other game qualities. by the time the game is made, a tone of great ideas have been cut out in order to make a release date.

[ChaosMage]

As someone pointed out earlier, I have to agree with Brian. Graphics are cool. Graphics can make things better in a game. The problem occurs when graphics are placed above gameplay, and you end up with a great looking game that playing is like gouging your eyeballs out with a school cafeteria spoon. Handle. I like good looking games. Infact, you could probably say that I'm more picky about graphics than most videophiles I know (I have an incredible eye for detail), but I'll still go back and play some of the sprite games that had really bad graphics even for their time cuz they were fun to play (Evo for example). In my mind, the purpose of graphics is two fold: It is to create atmosphere, and to allow for detail. Graphics are a necessity in a game: Look at Mario Sunshine or Mario 64. Without their incredible graphics, the game wouldn't be as fun because you couldn't insert as many details, little things that are important to see so you understand your goal. Conversely, a game like Halo where it looks fantastic but plays like a broken record, thats not fulfilling the purpse of graphics.

I'm done spewing now.

[Priest4hire]

What is it with picking on Halo's few repetitive levels? Halo having some repetition towards the end of the game hardly constitutes "plays like a broken record" by any stretch. Why not use Wreckless or Tomb Raider or some game that actually has weak gameplay?

One thing to remember is that it isn't just that graphics have improved, but games have become bigger and more complex. The amount of sheer artwork has gone way up over what was needed for a 16bit game. There is probably more animation in one chapter of Ninja Gaiden than in an entire SNES game. The nature of gameplay, control, and presentation is far more complex now that it was back then. The additional complexity means that more things can go wrong. It also means that it takes longer and requires more work to make a good game.

[Daer-San]

As long as game is good other wise i dont care much about graphic... Okay cool graphic is always a good bonus but not needed...

[Smashlink]

Exactly. That is the whole point of this thread, I think.

[Patricoo]

My favoirte game of all time is Breath of Fire III. And that has sprites! Cool magic effects but besides that...

[darkt0aster]

I'd have to agree with the topic of this thread. Excluding the PC, It seems I have yet to find a really good video game (in my opinion) made after the SNES era*

Games are like cars. Graphics are like extra cupholders. If the car as a whole is awesome and you want to drive it as much as you can and enjoy doing so, who cares about the cupholders? They're nice to have at times, but hardly a neccecity.

I've also noticed that most game series going 3d has kinda made me have a continuously lower opinion of the subsequent releases. A few of thes would be Zelda, Mario (however, RPG was cool), Sonic, Donkey Kong...I could go on for awhile, but I wont.

and on a quasi-unrelated note: halo sucks. I dont see what people see in this game that makes it be worthy of purchase. The best thing to come out of that game is the needler, the plasma grenades, and the series Red Vs Blue (http://www.redvsblue.com/)...NOTHING ELSE
(unless you count creating mold for WHAT NOT TO DO in fps multiplayer)

[Priest4hire]

Games are like cars. Graphics are like extra cupholders. If the car as a whole is awesome and you want to drive it as much as you can and enjoy doing so, who cares about the cupholders? They're nice to have at times, but hardly a neccecity.

That's a really weird comparison. I have a car without any cup holders. Are you saying my car is like a game without graphics? And graphics are 'handy at times' but 'hardly a necessity'? You play most your games with the TV or monitor off then? Seeing as how the graphics aren't important or anything.

As far as I know only one genre has no graphics. And that would be text adventures. All other genres, even Rogue-likes with ASCII graphics, have some kind of graphics. To compare something so central to gaming to a cup holder is absurd.

Graphics in games roughly equates to cinematography + camera & film technology + visual effects in movies. The game?s world design would equate with set design and the character designs with costume design.

[CelesJessa]

I personally believe the necessity of graphics depends on what game it is.

Take Final Fantasy 6:
Not that great of graphics, but an awesome gamer never-the-less. Besides, could you see Kefka cackling like he does in FFX-quality graphics? Nope, it would just be weird and out-of-place.

Now take Final Fantasy 10:
While graphics are less important than the story, this game needed it's 3D graphics. Could you see Tidus and co sliding down the chains in SNES graphics? Would Sin seem as destructive if he was just making little 16-bit towns rumble back and forth, maybe a crack in the ground or two. (sure they would be destroyed afterwords, but you couldn't watch the destruction first-hand)

For a non RPG, take Metal Gear:
The graphics are pretty much NEEDED for this game. You need the 3D to be able to sneak around as well as you can, to be able to crawl through and around things. The newer Metal Gears would just be crap and unplayable if they didn't have the graphics that are needed for that game. Imagine trying to get the same feel for Metal Gear Solid with SNES graphics... not gonna happen, right?

And graphics do make some games more enjoyable, I like being about to participate in cool fights in The Legend of Zelda, with all of the cool moves, and being able to get up on roofs and such with the hookshot.
And the "woah" effect of Ganon would be lower if he was just a sprite instead of this huge, dark, towering beast who is weilding axes that are bigger than Link's whole body.


So the importance in graphics all depends on the specific game. If the game has SNES graphics, the game has to be programmed so it is able to function on a 2D plane, no nifty sliding-down-chains-sceens or peeking around corners. But you can focus on the great story more. And puzzle-games (or puzzles in dungeons, like from Lufia) are fairly easier in SNES-like graphics.
With better graphics, you have to make sure you don't just rely on the pretty pictures to make the game enjoyable. And it's harder to just get a good chuckle from the goofy gestures of the people, since they're realistic, not just little sprites.

[Loyal]

Ah, good ol' 8/16 bit. How could anyone have forsaken thee?

Shakespear-esque corny stuff aside, I still have my SNES (Putting Civilization on there was simply brilliant, as was Sim City).

I would still have my NES, but when I moved, those stupid U-Haul or whatever people lost it! *Sobs* Fortunately, I now have an emulator, complete with a LOT of games.

[Jagos]

I just recently beat River City Ransom. Yes, there's something to love for the ol' 8 bit graphix that have fun over the 128 bit brethren of today...

I still have fun with Castlevania nowadays but sheesh... why do I need real graphics all the time?

[darkt0aster]

That's a really weird comparison. I have a car without any cup holders. Are you saying my car is like a game without graphics? And graphics are 'handy at times' but 'hardly a necessity'? You play most your games with the TV or monitor off then? Seeing as how the graphics aren't important or anything.


when I said 'cupholders' previously, I was talking about the built-in kind only.

you dont always need regular car cupholders to hold drinks in your car.
(you could use any of these instead: between the legs, a cardboard fast food drive-thru cup holder, a passenger holding it, using a seatbelt, etc)

assuming there is some method of storing drinks in each car...

built-in cars' cupholders (good graphics) can hold drinks well and positively contribute to the overall experience of the car (video game) in a small way.

The other things that can hold drinks (non-modern graphics) are generally improvised and usually not as good-looking or conventional as the built-in cupholders. They can work just as good, better than, or worse than the built-in ones.

either way, whatever drink holder (graphics) you use only plays a small part in how you enjoy your car (video game). If the engine or any other major part of the car (game mechanics) is 'broken', the type of cupholder you have is relatively insignifigant.

And by the same token (and as I mentioned earlier) If the car as a whole is nice, you'd want to drive it and enjoy it, regardless of something as small as how good your cupholders are.

Also: sometimes the built in cupholders interfere with things like the gearshift, or dont hold the size of beverage you prefer and can be a hinderance to your driving experience.

I hope this makes some sense

[Magic E-Mail Chicken]

Nice metaphor.
Realy, i like graphics when they dont shorten things into what is more like a movie and less like a game. Metroid Prime was an exelent game and it had great graphics. I dont like games that i can beat in a week. If i buy a game, i want to get something worth my money.

[StormRider]

Being that this is a forum for a sprite comic and most of the visitors here are 'old-school' gamers, I doubt anyone's going to argue with you. Simply put, good graphics are a great addition, but they're just that; an addition. They are no substitute for a good story or engaging gameplay. But that doesn't mean graphics should be overlooked, or that a game with good graphics is obviously covering up for some serious flaw. What made LoZ: Ocarina of Time such a legendary game was its combination of all three of these elements.

[Magic E-Mail Chicken]

Yeah, your right, mabye i should find different examples.
I agree, graphics are only one element, now movies can have all the effects they want because they are only wached, not played. I find sprite games fun because of there simplicity and they are almost comical.

[froofmyster]

So here you guys are, complaining about how people diss games with low bit graphics, but here you are; doing the exactly the same thing only with high-bit graphics! A good game has a good story and system. Those are the building blocks of a good game!

FF VI, for example, has 2D graphics, a fun, fast paced battle system, an awesome story, and all the jobs are taken care of. Perfect.

FF X has high-quality3D graphics, a slow battle system that allows you to thouroughly plan ahead, an inrigruing story, and characters that start as their own jobs but over time, they become more versatile. eg.: At first, I could say that Tidus was nothing more than a fighter. After a while on the sphere grid; he learnt his forst White Spell, Therefore making him a knight. A little later, he learnt Kimarhi's Lancet ability, making him a knight w/ blue magic. I myself love FF X.

My favorite FF game is FF 7. Why? Because of the Materia System and the Characters (go Sephiroth!). The graphics kinda suck, but I don't let it get to me.

[VirgoSHaka]

I agree with you. I don't let bad graphics bother me but bad plot, gameplay and lack of originality and continuity do bother. BUT, I actually expect games from a certain period to have graphics in accordance to the technology available. An example of a game that bothers me because of not following that rule is Morrowind. DAMN FUGLY GRAPHICS.

[The Tortured one]

I'd have to agree with the topic of this thread. Excluding the PC, It seems I have yet to find a really good video game (in my opinion) made after the SNES era*

You really must not be looking hard enough then. Either that or you aproach new games with such bias that you never even give it a chance. I was like you, i vowed never to play another 3d game after Donkey Kong 64 and Earthworm Jim 64 ruined two of a my favorite series. And then on a whim I rented Jak II...

Games are like cars. Graphics are like extra cupholders. If the car as a whole is awesome and you want to drive it as much as you can and enjoy doing so, who cares about the cupholders? They're nice to have at times, but hardly a neccecity.

thats kind of a bad analogy. Do you only play text-based games? No of course not, you play vintage 16-bit games, but games with beautiful graphics nonetheless. Oddly enough I seem to remember back in the day people griping about FF6 relying too heavily on graphics while longing nostalgically for the days of their NES. So by what you're saying is that all graphics are equal, but some are more equal than others. Because I doubt Crono Trigger and FF6 would have been the same experience if they used Atari 2600-era blocks and blips.

IMO graphics is like special effects in movies. Some movies use over the top special effects correctly, and it turns out to be a badass movie (Terminator 2, X-men 2, and Spiderman spring to mind) some movies rely too heavily on special effects and it ruins the movie (Alien Ressurection and Spawn) and some movies don't even need special effects to be a good movie (Pi ruled) and some use special effects well, but not over the top, making for a realistic, but still awesome experience nonetheless (war movies like "We were Soldiers" and "Saving Private Ryan")

compare the power felt in the D-day scenes from the movies "Longest day" to "Saving Private Ryan." Longest Day was a great movie in its own right, but its D-day scene involved people running full sprint up the side of a relatively clear beach with the occasional man stumbling over shot. Saving Private Ryan showed D-day for what it was; scared men leaving their boats, getting mowed down in the water, fighting and paying blood for every inch of beach, gore that 3 seconds ago was your best friend, Camera styling that made you feel like YOU were in fact a soldier storming Normandy. In a nutshell, so intense that it made D-day vets, who hadnt even given thought to that day for nearly 60 years run out of the movie theater crying hysterically. NOW tell me that special effects are useless.

You want another example? King Kong at the time was considered such an intense horror movie that it was banned for a number of years. Now lets conduct a mini-poll here; which is more intense and scarier, King Kong, or Gothika. Oh, and all you people who think you're proving something by being macho and saying "ohhh, Gothika didn't scare me at all" you're not proving much to me. Besides, its not about how much you claim Gothika itself scared you, but how much scarier it is (and how much more likely you are to be scared by it) than King Kong

[Ingonyama]

I agree with the people who say that the graphics depend on the game, rather than the other way around. Hi-bit or lo-bit, it doesn't really matter to me. My favorite game at the moment is FFX, mostly because it's the only game I have that actually has both a good story AND the job class system to fiddle with. But I dearly love Chrono Trigger and FF4 is growing on me (obscene difficuylty notwithstanding).

But my absolute favorite old-school game...is A Link To The Past for SNES. ;_; Miss that game SO much.

[Bizzaro_Exdeath]

So here you guys are, complaining about how people diss games with low bit graphics, but here you are; doing the exactly the same thing only with high-bit graphics! A good game has a good story and system. Those are the building blocks of a good game!

Um... actually most people are saying that they don't care about graphics. Not that good graphics are bad.

But now, you people have to realize this... graphics are like commercials. EVERYBODY will say they don't get affected by commercials. Go onto the streets, ask anybody that passes by, and they will say that they don't get affected by commercials, and only buy products that are convinent for them. But the sad truth is, whether you like it or not, commercials DO affect you. There is no denying that, is plays around with your subconscious mind, especialy when you see it 15 times a day. They can very easily have an affect on you without you knowing.

Take McDonalds for example... you can hear that song of theirs every day so many times. Though you think "that's such a gay song", it can be stuck in your head all day. And then when you're thinking of that song, McDonalds come to your mind, and will affect your decision next time you are deciding between McDonalds and Harveys.

Like it or not, graphics have an affect on you. Though you say "this game sucks, it has amazing graphics, but terrible gameplay", the eye effect could addict you in a little way. Graphics is like a drug. Even if you are very strong against it, it will still affect you a tiny bit. Subconsciously.

I remember I bough FFXI. When I did, I then realized I don't have the technical requirements. So I lent it to my friend to see how it was played. After looking at that box with scenes on it all the time, I really wanted to play it. I played at his house, and it was kinda boring, but I still wanted it after seeing that box. So I bough a graphics card, and I played it. I played it for like a month, having NO excitement whatsoever. So I quit. And that's when graphics, and commercials joined forces to become a MONSTROUS force, hard to substain. I started seeing those FFXI commercials, and even though they looked so stupid to me, it still tempts me to this day to install FFXI. And it's not even that good of a commercial. It just subconsciously tempts me, and as long as I'm aware that I subconsciously want to install it, I will be able to fight that temptation. Because if I don't I may re-install it, and bore myself with that boring game some more.

[Loyal]

Damn, another good metaphor...

Aaaanyway, I finally managed to find a SNES emulator so I can NOW PLAY FF3, FF5, AND CHRONO TRIGGER!! GO ME!!

[darkt0aster]

You really must not be looking hard enough then. Either that or you aproach new games with such bias that you never even give it a chance. I was like you, i vowed never to play another 3d game after Donkey Kong 64 and Earthworm Jim 64 ruined two of a my favorite series. And then on a whim I rented Jak II...

I'm not saying that I absolutely despise every 'modern' game I try. I give every game a chance and can even be mildly amused by the new games I rent periodically...but I hardly find any games that I know if I purchase, I'll want to come back maybe 5-10 years later to play and enjoy. With the tight budget of a college-bound person, I simply refuse to throw down $30-$50 for a game I'll play once or twice through and then let it gather dust. Replay value is key for me. Even if its a go-through-and-beat-it-and-be-done type of game, I come back for the memorable gameplay or moments that captivated me when I first played. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some wierd nostalgia guy shut in his basement forever wishing the downfall of next gen systems. I look forward to new games as much as the next guy, but a game must prove itself to me time and time again before I consider it a great game.

thats kind of a bad analogy. Do you only play text-based games? No of course not, you play vintage 16-bit games, but games with beautiful graphics nonetheless. Oddly enough I seem to remember back in the day people griping about FF6 relying too heavily on graphics while longing nostalgically for the days of their NES. So by what you're saying is that all graphics are equal, but some are more equal than others. Because I doubt Crono Trigger and FF6 would have been the same experience if they used Atari 2600-era blocks and blips.

still, I stand by my opinion that graphics using the bleeding edge technology of today are nice at times (there are some horribly overdone exceptions, as mentioned before.) but I still give the majority of my videogaming attention to any game that I enjoy, regardless of graphics.
Funny thing...I still play Zork (I really shouldn't have to explain what this is.) and I own an Atari that sees somewhat regular use (pitfall, oh yeah). And I can truthfully say that if a great game, such as FF6 or CT's graphics were done atari style, but all other features and gameplay mechanics were kept exactly how they were, (availibility, ease of use, etc), I'd enjoy it just as much.

Okay, and maybe the car cupholder metaphor thing was stretching it a bit...I'll stop with that now.

Take McDonalds for example... you can hear that song of theirs every day so many times. Though you think "that's such a gay song", it can be stuck in your head all day. And then when you're thinking of that song, McDonalds come to your mind, and will affect your decision next time you are deciding between McDonalds and Harveys.
Like it or not, graphics have an affect on you. Though you say "this game sucks, it has amazing graphics, but terrible gameplay", the eye effect could addict you in a little way. Graphics is like a drug. Even if you are very strong against it, it will still affect you a tiny bit. Subconsciously.

I hate to be condecending, but I pray that nobody's mind is so weak to think that a cool ad jingle implies an equally cool product.
Graphics aren't much different in this case. For example, I almost returned Wild Arms 3 to Blockbuster because of its HORRENDOUS (I cant stress this enough) world map location finding system...but it wasn't the graphics that kept me from returning the game, it was the gripping storyline, the game mechanics (not to mention a tad bit of help from an online FAQ so the location finding system was less difficult) and many other elements that not only made me return it on time, but rent it twice more.
I'd try to shoot back a modification that metaphor, but I'm giving those up for awhile

Speaking of Zork (yeah i know it was about 1/2 a page up, but still...) I bet a vast majority of those who posted on this thread know what I'm talking about. Games like that endure. Great games endure, and not just because of their graphics. It takes more than that for someone to remember or even go so far as to keep a game for 20 or more years past its original release date.

And now I'll stop typing before this gets way too long.

[Lockeownzj00]

New games that improve on old games refute the old ones.

First there was circus atari. Then there was mario. mario > circus atari, rendering circus atari obsolete. You can try be as retro as you want, and you may fully enjoy the games--but when a new game simply improves on an old formula, you can't just deny it. Eventually you will get tired of playing all your old games and realize, like every other form of entertainment, you will want new things. Then you will be sad that you missed out on the games everyone was playing at the time.

The good thing about games is that since most people who are halfway serious about it play only the good ones, then it's ok to go with the norm. This isn't clothes, this is like movies. Good movies are watched, good games are played.

Have you played Zork? Half the wannabe retros talk about how great zork was and mention how they played it 'for a little.' No, that's not playing Zork, sorry.

[MasterOfMagic]

I hate to be condecending, but I pray that nobody's mind is so weak to think that a cool ad jingle implies an equally cool product.
He didn't mean it like that(I hope). I think he meant that the jingle will get you thinking about Mcdonalds subconsiously the next time you are hungry, naturally making you want something from McDonalds.

I say that graphics are essential to a video game, but good graphics aren't nessacery for a good video game. I have had times where a game with bad graphics detracted from the game itself. I'm not talking sprites, I mean glichy graphics that make it hard to tell what is going on.

[The Tortured one]

I said it before i'll say it again. People become disillusioned when they compare the best of yesterday to the mediocre of today. of the 700+ nintendo games only about 75 of them are worth remembering.

let's recall some crap from yester year. we'll start off with super pitfall. Anyone who has ever played the monstrous crap that was super pitfall knows where this is going. There is no story, no backround, no name for your character. All you know is that you start off standing there with 99 bullets to your gun and thats it. Good luck figuring out what the hell you needed to do, because the game give you NO indication as to what and where you needed to do. And if by some freak chance you managed to figure out that you needed to save your animal friend and go to the secret dungeon to rescue your girlfriend, guess what the ending was? if you said "the moment you rescue your girlfriend the game resets and you start over from the beginning" then you were right.

thats how I recall my nintendo days. mixed in with greats like SMBS3 were games like super pitfall that balanced it out. And the balance continues today. there are some truly great games for the Ps2, mixed in with some crap games.

and as time grinds on, people forget about the crap of yesterday and are unaware of the good stuff of today. Thats why all this mess about "the old days were the best days" is going around, not just in video games, but everywhere you look in society

[Mirai Gen]

I'm going to go out on a limb here...

I've recently aquired this theory: Games are like boy/girlfriends. You go through alot of them, most of the time they look nice but really lack substance, some of them have very deep parts that you really overlooked when you had them, and some of them are just perfect for what you want. The depth of this perfection is really what counts, and it's not really perfection, but more of a perfect acclimation to your tastes. You'll love it all the same, but it's nice if it could look great at the same time, ne?