Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Graphics do not make a good game

13 replies to this topic
thenatobourne
  • thenatobourne

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2012

#1

Posted 28 February 2012 - 05:20 PM

ok, i now, the old gta games suck gta 2 or gta 3 and vice city have outdated graphics

but still an epic game

There are various projects like "Vice City Rage" but the original vice city rocks.


Graphics do not make a good game

this post is a griping for the "new gamers"

MrMateczko
  • MrMateczko

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2011
  • Poland

#2

Posted 28 February 2012 - 05:37 PM

If only today's game companies knew this.

For me Vice City has better graphics than San Andreas (PC). Of course vanilla, not with mods.

I don't want today's games to be a series of Quick Time Events and brainless shooting that are easy even on the highest difficulty.

Computers had only 133Mhz processors like 15 years ago, yet the games were far mor fun there, then now.

NewportByChrysler
  • NewportByChrysler

    LC R29

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012

#3

Posted 28 February 2012 - 07:34 PM Edited by NewportByChrysler, 28 February 2012 - 08:55 PM.

Exactly. I must be the only person on Steam who still plays the Renderware GTAs and topdown GTAs. Everyone else is a conformist retard who plays "SKYRIMMMMZZZZZZ" and Source engine games, and Minecraft and Terraria. confused.gif

MrMateczko
  • MrMateczko

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Dec 2011
  • Poland

#4

Posted 28 February 2012 - 07:42 PM

Skyrim isn't actually that bad. It's the people that play it what makes this game look crap.

ccrogers15
  • ccrogers15

    REQUESTED BAN

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 26 Jul 2010

#5

Posted 28 February 2012 - 09:32 PM

I still play Resident evil 2 at least 2 times per month. So point proven.

spaceeinstein
  • spaceeinstein

    巧克力

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2003
  • None

#6

Posted 28 February 2012 - 09:59 PM Edited by spaceeinstein, 28 February 2012 - 10:35 PM.

Graphics alone doesn't make a good game but it definitely does make a game playable. I bet the VAST majority of people who touched GTA do not want to touch any of the top down GTAs (GTA1/2/Advance/Chinatown Wars) due to the graphics. Have you looked at the CW forum? So many people complained that it's not even over-the-shoulder 3D view!

For Vice City, graphics DOES make this game good no matter what your nostalgic brain thinks. PC version players, tell me, at what resolution do you play the game at? If it's above the native 480p resolution, then you already care about the graphics of the game a lot. Compared to III, VC is much more crisp and sharp, cars have dirtier textures, more polygons per model, much more grit in the environment, etc. Graphics contributes to the 80's tropical feeling of Vice City more than you think. Try to imagine playing VC at 240p with 8-bit textures and minimal draw distance while everything else is kept the same. Can you play VC like that?

Mince
  • Mince

    Mnage trois

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2008
  • United-States

#7

Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:02 PM

I agree. It annoys me when I hear people saying "I don't like playing Vice City anymore because it's just a bunch of polygons" or things like that. Just because a game doesn't have "SUPER HIGH DEFINITION 1080P ANTI-ALIASING REFLECTIONS TEXTURES" doesn't make it BAD in any way. This not only applies to Vice City, but many other games out there. Vice City is still one of the best games of the past 10 years.

@spaceeinstein I'll admit I never completed the old top-down games, but I finished Chinatown Wars and thought it was excellent. GTA IV on the go.

thenatobourne
  • thenatobourne

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2012

#8

Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:05 PM

Doom 95, Silent Hill from ps1 and another great games smile.gif

Spuds725
  • Spuds725

    Party Animal

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Sep 2003
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [GTAF]

#9

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:57 PM

Story is as important as graphics IMO--- I played VC first and loved it... But IMO the story wasn't as good as GTA III which I played 2nd

My ranking of GTA stories....

III, LCS, VC, TLOD, TBOGT, SA, IV, VCS

I didn't realize how much story mattered until SA-- in every possible (gameplay) way, SA was an improvement to VC and III but the story still lacked--- and I don't know why CJ didn't take care of his problem earlier in the game---

IMO-- Sam Houser needs to get his hands out of the story and hire real screen writers for the game....

If it weren't for multiplayer in the IV series I'd rate it as a failure-- Niko's character was more irritating then anything--- and somehow we were supposed to care about his cousing and girlfriend.

Here is hoping that V is a new beginning.




spaceeinstein
  • spaceeinstein

    巧克力

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2003
  • None

#10

Posted 05 March 2012 - 07:54 PM Edited by spaceeinstein, 05 March 2012 - 07:57 PM.

Rating LCS better than IV? Your standards are vastly different from mine. IV was on par with III for me, mainly for having a story that actually made more sense and full of satire. Past games miss that!

dansgas1000
  • dansgas1000

    Posts: 1400

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2011
  • None

#11

Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:21 PM

QUOTE (MrMateczko @ Tuesday, Feb 28 2012, 17:37)
If only today's game companies knew this.

For me Vice City has better graphics than San Andreas (PC). Of course vanilla, not with mods.

I don't want today's games to be a series of Quick Time Events and brainless shooting that are easy even on the highest difficulty.

Computers had only 133Mhz processors like 15 years ago, yet the games were far mor fun there, then now.

Yeah the SA draw distance on PS2 is absolute crap! but on vice city its ok :S

thatstupidbug
  • thatstupidbug

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2011

#12

Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:59 PM

it's not about the number of polygons, it's about HOW do you use that polygons.

I played MGS 1 last summer... we was in 2011, the game was made in 1998. Snake had no facial animation, 80% of dialogues was between two static pictures via codec, but that game was damn GOOD. It used every single elements to make an awesome game, because a great story, a superb level desing, a well done gameplay mechanic and a lot of little touches are far more important than a crappy HD graphic.

i don't play gta 1 and london because i don't like the absence of a saving feature, but i have finished GTA 2 and Advance, and i enjoyed every moment.

ChopTheDog.
  • ChopTheDog.

    War. War never changes.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 May 2010
  • None

#13

Posted 06 March 2012 - 04:43 PM

QUOTE (ccrogers15 @ Tuesday, Feb 28 2012, 21:32)
I still play Resident evil 2 at least 2 times per month. So point proven.

Resident evil 2 and 3, Best resident evil's to date, IMO.

I finished Leon's Disc on RE2 and I am currently on Claire's at the final boss, But i only have a pistol and cannot defeat it suicidal.gif

On topic: A game needs to have reasonably good graphics to make out the objects and characters within the game, But if decent graphics need to be taken away in order to develop a good story line and inject the "Fun" factor into it then thats fine by me.

MrDanceWithLance
  • MrDanceWithLance

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012

#14

Posted 02 April 2012 - 12:21 PM

For me, it is not the graphics that matter, it is the storyline and gameplay that matters. GTA III had crappy graphics compared to future GTA titles, yet it was still a pretty enjoyable game to play.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users