It’s not unlike me to flip through old gaming magazines strictly for the nostalgia. Yesterday was no different when I picked up an issue of Tips and Tricks published back in 2000. If you do the math, that’s a decade ago. The more things change the more they stay the same unfortunately.
There was one particular article written by Ara Shirinian that compared the graphics of Dead or Alive 2 on Dreamcast and Playstation 2. The article was written to illustrate how minute details in graphics really wouldn’t matter in the future because eventually graphics would be so advanced that gameplay would take precedence. When Ara ended the article by saying, “If one year and 100 MHz (among many other improvements) gives us graphics enhancements this minute, developers may have to actually focus on gameplay and interaction to grab our attention,” it really grabbed my attention. No pun intended. It also, got me thinking about Bayonetta on PS3.
While the original game developers, Platinum Games, aren’t to blame, it’s really sad that the 360 and PS3 versions differ so much gameplay wise. I can only hope that SEGA, SONY or Platinum games find it somehow worth it to right this wrong. It’s really messed up that SEGA can parade around Twitter boasting how great reviews are for Bayonetta knowing that the PS3 version is seriously lacking. When you think about it I suppose it’s not all bad. Maybe because of SEGA’s ‘good enough’ approach to porting a game, the focus of this generation of gaming can move past its obsession with graphics and demand gameplay that leaves one satisfied.
The enjoyment of games comes from gameplay first and foremost. That’s why I am still such a fan of games from the 16-bit and 32-bit eras. Although, a small part of me still can’t get passed feeling like I’m not playing the games I should be playing since I’m not getting trophies or achievements in the process. I miss those days when personal enjoyment was all that matter. I don’t know how many game developer and game publishing eyes will read these words, but please take the time and spend the money needed to allow your games to to be the best they can be given the talent available.
Retro Game of the Week: Project Justice (DC)
Feel free to mute the video. I did. lol
Update: I think I’ve expressed my dislike for what is wrong with Bayonetta on PS3, but I really should give my overall opinion of the game to you guys. Bayonetta is a fun action game and I’m happy that I own it. I just wish it was closer to the 360 version. The game is playable and enjoyable, but the experience could be better and there’s a lot of loading. The PS3 version looks and runs well enough. While the 360 version looks amazing and runs silky smooth. I have to be honest SEGA’s crap port has kind of pushed my attention back to Dante’s Inferno.
I was worried that maybe I should have gone with Darksiders over Bayonetta, but from what I’ve heard about the game, I know it’s not the type of game I want to play right now no matter how nice the character and level designs are. I really do love Joe’s art style though. Now I go to bug SEGA on Twitter to patch the game. I may have given up on a trophy patch for MGS4, but I won’t give up on a patch for Bayonetta.
Brand loyalty shall be your downfall young one!
I agree 100%, gameplay matters the most.
My issue here is the complaint about the PS3 version of Bayonetta. Why is it people only complain when the PS3 version is “inferior”? These same people would taunt if the PS3 version was “superior”. From what I have found, the PS3 version of the game is still good. If you have both consoles, it shouldn’t matter any way, just get the version that appeals to you best.
You are not the only one that is fond of games from previous generations. Games back then focuses more on gameplay and less on silly cuts scenes and graphics.
It’s 2010. No game should load that much. Most of the time when people say a game is better on this console or that one it’s small insignificant differences. That’s not the case with Bayonetta. How do you not even allow the option for a HDD install when every PS3 comes with one? The game should have been delayed on PS3 if it was going to turn out the way it did. Game publishers need to stop relying on the safety net of game patches or leading consumers on because the consumer assumes/has hope that a game will get patched, but never does. SEGA was in it for the money. Period. I’m loosing faith in big game publishers much like I’ve lost faith in Hollywood films. I can promise you I will only take a chance on indie films and indie game developers.
Here is the thing, if they pushed back the PS3 launch, Sony fanboys would bitch about that too. They bitch about any game not made from the ground up for PS3 only.
Personally, I am happy that gamers that for some reason only have PS3 can experience this game. If I were in Sega’s position, I would have left it a 360 exclusive. That is entirely business based though. Like I said, as a gamer, I want everyone to be able to play quality games.
You read the link I sent you about online about how the PS3’s western version will be improved?
Can you confirm if they really did improve Bayonetta on PS3? I thought all that floating around the net was just rumors and speculation.
@Moose
Check it out: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96490-Sony-Agents-Fixing-PS3-Bayonetta-Before-Western-Release
Just being able to play all games doesn’t mean a thing when the gameplay experience does’t match the original creators efforts. I’m with you, Bayonetta should have remained exclusive. SEGA has never officially announced plans for a patch. The only the floating around on the next is some bogus email from SEGA to some random person. I’ll check out that link and read what people had to say. I ran across a thread on Gamespot that I think is pretty good. http://tinyurl.com/yex7bx5
Gameplay does matter the most,however graphics,music,story,and character development are just as important. We gamers always talk about gameplay over graphics, but what we should be talking about and demanding from these game makers is the complete package.
As far Bayonetta is concerned the PS3 version is hot garbage and Sega should be ashamed of themselves. And you are right Michael A. PS3 people only complain when thier version is inferior, just like 360 people brag about thier version being superior. There is no excuse for the garbage ps3 port. No amount of good gameplay is going to save a game that runs like hot diarrhea. Which is why i bought the 360 version that I finished a week ago.
My last point is this, I’m not sure how old you are Michael A. but game companies back in the day bragged about graphics just like they do now, nothing has changed. I love my old videogames just like you, but my favorite videogames were the ones where gameplay, graphics, music, and story came together to form a complete package. Peace!!
I never pay too much attention to music in games. lol I only really notice the music when it annoys me. As far as story, very few games actually have a storyline to talk about. You’re right! Developers should release more games that feel like they’re the complete package. Can you imagine if publishers opted for quality over quantity?
Let me chime in real quick.
The demo’s for each console play identical. It wasn’t until the final PS3 code was released that we saw the loading issue. I think the loading issue is GLARING and there should have been an install option as a fix. Other than the loading, the game is great on the PS3. If you want to get into pixel counting, you will lose me.
Gameplay and story have always been a huge factor whenever I purchase a game, but with this years titles coming out… OMG will it be tough to decide!
It’s definitely going to be hard to decide which games to purchase this year. Now more than ever I am going to need demos, word of mouth and reviews to help me decide.
hey why doesnt the forum work ? is it disabled ?
I think Tor forgot to bring the forums with him when he moved the site to a loud server. I’ll be sure to ask him and get back to you.
Here’s your answer: http://twitter.com/tordavis/status/7617996896
WTF, Torrence? Create what we had before for a forums section. I thought it served a purpose and people were using it. At least put in 3 forums threads:
Next Gen
Old Gen
RPG Talk <— Totally my idea
tiz reminds me of what EA did with the orange box port for the Ps3.
that sux balls, they should have done a better job or kept it as a 360 exclusive.
i saw a couple of vids of bayonetta for ps3, its amazing how much it sux.
I’ve heard so much about the Half-Life series, but I never played any of the games. I feel like I should play through the games at some point.
I don’t mean to put you on the spot, but you really can’t get a feel for a game until you’re looking at it and playing firsthand. I’ll admit I have judge games in the past based on videos alone. Sometimes I end up liking the games and other times I end up with even more dislike or disinterest for them.
i agree qith u on that, u shouldnt base ur opinion on a video or a single demo, i played the dead rising demo and thought it wastn a good game until i played the full version wich i thought it was awesome. but u have to admit, 3-6 second loading just TO PAUSE the game is a real issue, that and a unsteady 15-30 frames per sec.
ABSOLUTELY game play matters most. when i try a game out, its about 70% game play and about 30% graphics id much rather play an ugly fun game than a polished turd.
I love that you said ‘when I try a game out.’ It’s important to play games before critiquing them on how they play. Now I’m all for expressing lack of interest in a game based on plot and how it’s presented in promotional videos. We all, at some point, realize just exactly what genre of games are most appealing to us.
@emk2000
I agree 100%. I keep trying to explain that on the warzone and such. I don’t get the point of being a graphics whore. It seems some fanboys are pixel counters and only care about graphics. You look at graphics. You actually “do” gameplay.
60/40
Gameplay/Graphics for me.
Personally I have a hard time playing through a game that is either shitty gameplay and shitty looking. I will easily admit that it is alot harder to play a game with shitty gameplay over shitty graphics. I think its true in my mind that the better a game looks the more it will emerse you into the story because of how real the game looks. Also when I talk graphics I am putting a heavy amount of that on art style. Art style now of days has been some what lacking in my opinion and seems like rinse and repeat for some games.
In the end art style is very underrated.
Ahhh…now I see why you don’t like the classics!
This is getting very tiring. This whole thing about the looks of one version over the other or the the game play is this or that. With the progression of the gaming consoles and the power that they both have today it shouldn’t be going on. I could understand if this was the Genius days, but it is not. These game companies should be ashamed of themselves for putting out games like that. They are suppose to be at the top of their game at that level.
The whole game play thing is get on my nerves. Each generation of consoles is designed to give a better experience than the last, visually and game play. When the companies hype there games, they talk about both not just one. You cats that try separate them are missing it. That shit is crazy. V-I-D-E-O-G-A-M-E why aren’t you getting it. Don’t support poop.
I don’t think anyone who replied to this post is trying to separate the two. When it comes to new games I’m pretty sure it’s safe to say we all expect a certain level of quality. In that regard it’s up the the gameplay and story to make the experience complete.
EAD, come on give me a break with that. Why is so hard for you to understand that it is a careful balance of all attributes that make a game great. This the most subjective thing here.
A lot of games are great, but when all attributes come together cohesively the game surpasses great into a category called epic.
Unless you gamed in the 70’s and 80’s, you’ll never understand. Mega Man 1 has great graphics. I bet all you PS1 generation cats would disagree with that statement and that’s why you have yet to mature in this hobby.
Hell, I remember when Contra was the fucking bomb back in the day! I remember running over to a friends house after school and play for HOURS. Good times long gone now.
Yes Mr. Davis, I was born in 1972, You gave a example of Pac-Man on the Atari. I had a OdysseyII. That was the shittiest gaming system of all time. Nothing good.
Atari2600 and Intellivision…’nuff said.
I think you fail to realize graphics and gameplay are not mutually exclusive. I believe good graphics can enhance gameplay as well as the overall experience. Graphics doesn’t redeem poor gameplay, like gameplay can redeem poor graphics. But they have their place, and devs must consider both.
However, when making a purchase decision, graphics can have a large impact. The evolution of gaming has been measured against graphics since the beginning. It is the most salient feature of the game. It is the easiest to objectify and measure. It can do more than gameplay in selling the game.
I’m not pixel counter, but I’m a graphics whore – I’ll buy a game I won’t normally play, like Final Fantasy, for the graphics. If I have 6 games I want to buy new, but only have a budget for three (like I do for Q1 2010), graphics may be the criterion for my decision. That is my preference, and it doesn’t make me any less qualified to enjoy and play these games.
“Mature” in gaming? Is that an oxymoron? What you are my friend is a gaming elitist…for no good reason other than the love of your own opinion. Love what you do though!
torrence think he is the grandfather of games
old gamers allways think that way.
You don’t have to be an old gamer to appreciate the classics.
@snskid
I agree. There is so much ignorance in here due to people not understanding video gaming history and/or methodology of development. Luckily I no longer bother with them. If they want to continue playing games that are all “shine” and no substance, more power to them. Besides, graphics are relative and subjective any way. What looks great to some will not to others.
“graphics are relative and subjective any way. What looks great to some will not to others.”
only for noobs, u cant look at a game like a full power crysis and say, “it looks ok”.
now if we were talking about a really bland looking game then thats another story.
graphics and gameplay like any other element are very important, no matter what console they are from, that includes the nes and older.
“only for noobs…”
Wow, really?
Besides you are not getting my point. There are people out there that do not like how Crysis looks. There are people out that that don’t like how a lot of games look. It is their opinion. Views on graphics are all opinion, ergo there is no right or wrong view. If you are talking from the pixel counting approach, I don’t have anything to say because I don’t give pixel counters and pixel counting any attention. It is pointless to me.
oh u were talking about graphic styles, thats a different story.
Sheikh Yerbouti
“I think you fail to realize graphics and gameplay are not mutually exclusive. I believe good graphics can enhance gameplay as well as the overall experience. Graphics doesn’t redeem poor gameplay, like gameplay can redeem poor graphics. But they have their place, and devs must consider both.”
You sir could not have been more right! There are those in this thread that seem to think graphics bring nothing to the table which is blasphemy. I think some of you forget to remember that gameplay is a widely used term but is also as important as ones on point of view. Saying graphics doesn’t make a game is silly, it’s like saying you don’t want your G35 (Infiniti) looking nice and that you’d much rather it ride like a beauty and look like shit. Seriously lets all be a little serious here. We’d all rather have sparkling Ferrari’s in mint condition, we all settle. Gamers settle for that middle ground compromise. Because there is no surreal game that reaches the pinnacle plateau where graphics and gameplay is at it’s highest peak. And so when we see the next step up towards that unreachable goal we jump at it. It’s the same thing that happened when Mario 64 came out. The game blew people away before they even touched it. I remember helping my moms with christmas shopping staring at the kiosk with Mario 64 on and playing that first level for about an hour and a half until i was paged to the register! I literally had a fight midway through my play through because the other kiosks controller died and the already well formed line behind me had just doubled and i was hogging it up. Next example is Out Run and Space Harrier. Man i remember first seeing that and was like W……T……..F…..! Are you kidding me, again i didn’t even have to touch the game when i seen that i was like i need them to survive!
On to my point which is graphics have always been a litmus test one where there is really no gray area you either pass or you fail. Now you can pass with flying colors or fail harder than Justin Timberlake when he cornrowed his hair, but end result you pass/fail. This litmus test has been in effect since gaming got off of Zork. Graphics are important to a game almost all of you say graphics and it rolls off on the keyboard as if its just how shiny characters look and how detailed the rock is in the foreground. It’s so much more, graphics when it comes to games entails:
Rendering
Imagery (art and styles)
Shading
Texture Mapping
Animation
Geometry (surfaces)
There’s more but i don’t need to list them all the point is Graphics are more important and more broad than alot of you interpret. Graphics are the raw representation of every game and one which can manipulate an image or animation in an any number of ways to any number of people and by that definition it IS subjective as everything else in life is BUT there are medians for everything to be scaled to.
On the contrary gameplay this so upheld term is basically what the player can do. Not very constructive in the description department but nonetheless it’s all it is. Your ability to interact. This includes Game Mechanics as well. Now lets see these two concepts where at one point I’d say since the days of asteroids weren’t always synonymous but that has changed. Changed to where now they’re inseparable, separating the two creates an unbalance experience for most gamers and throws off that level of interaction on face value that gamers have gotten used to. I would like to hear from everyone the last shitty graphical game they ever played that they absolutely loved because the gameplay was that superb…. Now there are some exceptions to the rule case and point games like Lumines and Diner Dash, which in all fairness are different but a games a game and still to my point they don’t look like shit.
Another thing you simply CANNOT do is compare graphics from generations past to current. It’s like comparing sports players in different era’s and decades. Possibilities and technology handicap that comparison and in no way can a fair one be made. Let’s be real Tor yes Mega Man 1 was classic i still remember Ice man and that annoying stage with those fucking random moving blocks you had to jump on BUT come on. We really gonna go back to a point where Fraggle Rock, Goonies, Duck Tales, Bon Jovi’s shot through the heart and Magic V.S Byrd was the pinnacle of entertainment? Seriously we can’t begin to ask newer gamers to look back at a game in the 80’s and say hey didn’t that look fucking amazing back then? Especially when they’re sitting in front of Uncharted 2 and Mass Effect quality games. For it’s time Mega Man looked awesome other than that there are no standards today by which you would even compare that game to, it would be trounced. And so we move on…
I still don’t see the appeal in Mario 64. I think I just don’t like Super Mario bros. games in 3D.
I don’t think anyone expects new gamers to be blown away by old school games. The whole point is that those games were fun to play even if the graphics are nowhere near as spectacular as the graphics of today. All the crap that most people point out like screen tearing are things I don’t even notice. If you read the title of this post it reads gameplay matters most. Not graphics don’t matter at all. From your point of view it sounds like you won’t play anything that isn’t ‘beautiful’ by your standards.
Honestly what does a car have to do with video games?
I understand what your initial post was about the point of my post was to address those who seem to be throwing graphics under the buss like they play absolutely no part in the overall experience of a game. When you hear people and I’ve heard it hear on the bitbag and on the warzone. Most notably when i hear graphics don’t matter. Then you have people stating that graphics are all subjective and opinionated like gameplay isn’t. The point of my post was to point out that out of the majority of people who posted he hit the nail on the head in that in today’s gaming that both have their place in determining how good a game and the experience you receive from said game is.
Further on the whole 80’s references and shit is just done. I had those games and yeah i have easy access at this very moment to go and play the arcade version of Ms. Pacman and Galaga (combo arcade coin-op). I have fond memories of that era but it’s so over. hearing people gasp over the “good ole days” where graphics weren’t nothing but 2D sprites and all we had was gameplay. Bullocks! Everyone adored those damn 2D sprites in Galaxian. Back then all that shit was new i would be amazed by just their movements. Back then that looked presentable and it passed because the standards were being made. Again stating that games back then were fun even though they don’t look as good as games now is pointless. Why are we comparing two era’s with such glaring differences? Was it not awesome enough playing Metroid for the first time back then? I still think looking back at that era and trying to put anything in a direct comparison even your experiences with those games is just a disservice. One of my all time favorite games was Revenge of Shinobi on genesis. You think that game looks great now? Guess what it did back then.
Trust when shit came out in the form a cartridge people rejected it ummmm E.T rings a bell. I believe Tor went over this in retrovison but the Pac man for the 2600 was just straight shit. Didn’t look good and played even worse. Ever played Superman on the 64? Or Paperboy? Games looked like shit and played just as poor. To each his own, but i still think comparing the way things were back then to now is relatively foolish. Things are so different technology wise i mean damn even the device we play the games on are vastly superior. You make it sound like we played games back then and agreed that “yeah this looks like ass but it’s just so much fun”. Seriously i don’t know when you started gaming but i know personally back then just seeing those repeated animations and hearing those little beeps worked for me because it was something new and there was nothing else like it. It gave people a place to let imaginations run wild. I don’t know where in my post it sounded as if i only play “beautiful” games but i’ll say it again when was the last time you brought a “horrible” or even a “bad” graphical game and loved the gameplay. The car was used as an example to put things in perspective using something else. Oh and yeah you didn’t like Mario 64 but i think Mario 64 sold more than any other game during it’s time, that speaks big considering 64 itself was outsold by the competition.
Graphics are ONE aspect of gaming, just like sound and controls. My thing is that most people (mainly fanboys) try and put graphics above all else. Then, they try to argue what has the “best” graphics. Both are silly because GamePlay trumps all other aspects of gaming. Gameplay is what the users actually Plays. You don’t play graphics. You look at them. This is why I say a game with “bad” graphics with great gameplay is far superior to a game with “great” graphics and even “solid” gameplay (let alone “bad”). Gameplay needs to be the focus. This Gen, it is not. That is due to gamers, not game makers. Most of the “best” games this gen have done nothing new gameplay wise, or are actually just mediocre in that department. Yet, because they have “gweight gwafix”, they are seen as legendary. It is foolish.
Oh, and this is not direct right at you, in fact a lot of what you said makes sense. You are saying they are all intertwined. I can respect that view. It’s just that Gameplay (what the gamers actually does and interact with) is far more important than how the game looks. If I were a graphics whore, I would just play JRPGs (like FFXIII) for cutscenes and site back and actually “play” very little.
Good that we can talk sensible. I completely agree with your point, yes the interaction in the game SHOULD be the focal point. Games like Bionic Commando and Wheelman which i must confess Bionic looked great they clearly lacked in the gameplay department. Seriously everything that went down outside of being inside the vehicle in wheelman was taint. Yes those interactions and mechanics should absolutely define ultimately what your game is about, im glad you see my view of it.
One thing you have to remember though most games period have always “borrowed” or mimicked gameplay from other establishments. I think it’s important to reward those who do innovate and step forward and evolve but to also recognize those that enhance what may not be defined as new. Take Shadow Complex, i think that is a phenomenal game that plays awesome. What does that game do new? Nothing really it’s like a cross between Metroid and contra but it works for me an I applaud Epic for doing something really different than the usual Unreal, Gears ordeal. Seriously thats all they put out last decade.
Most games in the past several years that really look like shite probably play the same way too.
You know I honestly think I am one of the few people left who actually likes playing retro games on a regular basis. Maybe it’s because I didn’t play over half of them when I was younger? Oh well, I am going to keep on playing them no matter how many advances technology makes.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I’m an 80’s baby im not exactly old, lol. So there are titles i didn’t get to play until later that were out before i was born, like Zork, Galaxian and Pitfall. It’s one thing to respect that generation and another to completely disregard the advances that has been made since. I personally know someone who only plays Everquest till this very day. Refuses to get off and move on, but what ever floats his boat. In the end it’s all personal preference.