The day has come!

[melfice]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana,Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#E0E0E0"><font size=2 face="Verdana,Tahoma">
Are detailed graphics really needed?
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course they are, but one thing is trying to do a background with only 4 flat boxes, and other thing is doing a "tower of pisa" clone, for the sake of doing it to show it as the background of a Shooter, one thing is "Perfectism", anoher thing is "Profesionalism"

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana,Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#E0E0E0"><font size=2 face="Verdana,Tahoma">
That's what I always say - I'm not spending 200? on a new system to play the same games. Gameplay and story are the two main things in a game, but I already have that for free. So if I'm paying for a new system, it's because I want nice graphics as well. And besides, why all that technology, wasted like that? Graphics aren't essential, but they add to the game.
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>I'd say that Graphics are an essential point in a game, in first instance is what enters by your eyer, and what "seduces" you first. Not obstant, that is evolution in the game scene, and it means that sooner or later, graphics that were considered good will be replaced by others even better.

The point is. Okay, both Dreamcast and Megadrive show graphics. But Dreamcast is able to do things that Megadrive can't, having that powerful calculation capabilities, for example, Use them to do games that can't be shown in a Megadrive. <BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana,Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#E0E0E0"><font size=2 face="Verdana,Tahoma">
You can make an RPG with 2 chars, a scroll plane and no sound, but it'll be much better if it looks like Grandia II, and it'll be able to pump more emotions out of you as you're seeing a beautiful scene while listening to a wonderful soundtrack.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE> Obviously, but you must not forget what is the main reason of a game: Entertain people, then, a nice BGM and impressive graphics help people to "feel" much more the experience, but a point is doing a game designed "Profesionally" and other is designing it "perfectly" (Intended as "uselessly heavily detailed", examples if this is designing the back part of buildings and things that won't be ever seen)

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 09, 2003 08:03 AM: Message edited by: melfice ]</font>

[mrwiseman]

I'm not talking about things that gamers aren't going to see, I'm talking about the ones they ARE going to see. A game with AAA gameplay and PSX graphics is good, but one with AAA gameplay and the best graphics ever is better.

All I'm saying is that I'm not getting a new system without a good reason, and, as I already have great games with unmatched gameplay for the Dreamcast, I'm not getting a new system unless games are great AND have better graphics.

[Nevan]

To me, I think it is the enviroment that has it all. I like an enviroment you can alter and blow up (As in Red Factiona and Red Faction two), not just something that gets built or access to a new area because holy wack Batman you grew a level or ran all over the map for no reason. I mean like an enviroment where you toss a gernade in a bunker and you can step in the hole it makes. That's an enviroment, sure they detailed shading and stuff helps it even more. But still usually it is the graphics that seperates a game from another game. But gameplay is more important than graphics because who gives a damn about seeing the sweetest thing on the planet but if it doesn't have good gameplay the who really cares about it? I sure wouldn't.

[melfice]

That is a technology, but i'm afraid that it is one of the most complex things to do in a 3D environment, deform it at player's will.

[Xellos]

If someone made a game where you're a white dot and enemies are black dots, but it had the best plot ever, I'd pla it over any game! gameplay, plot, and chars come first, IMO

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ April 10, 2003 11:10 PM: Message edited by: Xellos ]</font>

[melfice]

Well, it would be funny, but, I think that you'd like to see the dots the best you could, huh?

[mrwiseman]

I would play it as well, but that would be possible on a Master System, so why buying a GameCube for that? Besides, if I have another game with the same good plot but Shenmue graphics, can you guess which one would I play?

[melfice]

Put the White dot, the Ryo Hazuki Face! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[One Classy Bloke]

Wiseman, you would buy a gamecube to get the sequal, where you play a square against rectangle for one of the most action packed plot ever.

You buy new consoles for new games.

[Xellos]

For me video game importance is:

FUN!
Gameplay
characters
Plot
Sound
Graphics

If a game has shitty sound, but awesome graphics, but a game w/ SNES graphics btu the best musical score ever knwon to man, guess which I'll choose? Graphics mean very little to me, when a game has good graphcis it's cool, but if it had shit graphics but the same gameplay and such, it'd stilll be awesome. Graphics are just extra, IMO. If I can tell the characters apart, the graphics are good enough for me! (The dot example was an extreme semi joke example ;p)