Old graphics + great gameplay: a sure buy?

[Mr_Diffrence]

I saw a post on bluesnews where a user said he'd buy a game with old (5+ years) graphics as long as it had Tribes-style gameplay.

If a game came out today with 2002-2003 graphics (or even just 'functional' graphics) but fun gameplay would you buy it?

[avatar_58]

I believe thats what No More Heroes was essentially. It had shit graphics, yet the gameplay was strangely addictive. I personally don't really give a rats ass. I prefer developers to do the best with what they are given, but if a game doesn't have top of the line graphics I really don't mind.

After all until recently (say 2005) I was always like 5-10 years behind on the latest and greatest PC games. So I didn't care if I had to play NOLF in 640x480 with low details. I still enjoyed it.

[MAT]

Depends on the genre I guess. I've no problem with older (2D, low res) RPGs, although I'm usually annoyed by many of the older FPSs' or even RTSs' graphics when I play them years after. So, except for some really great games, no, I wouldn't buy that old games now.

[Nihilanth]

If the gameplay was groundbreaking, say Deus Ex level and more, I'd buy such a game even if it came with 1993 graphics.

[Fjallraven]

Belive it or not, but I voted yes. I like some old games, like Vietcong, Mafia or Max Payne. All those games have great gameplay and the graphics aren't exactly top-notch.

Before I got my new graphics-card, I had to play TF2 and portal on the lowest resolution and the lowest quality setting, but I didn't care. I enyojed those games.

As long as the games are good, I don't care about the graphics so much. Sure it can be fun to have good graphics, but it isn't compulsory.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

The problem lies with the fact that video's and pictures rarely delve into whether or not a game is fun. Graphics matter to all of us, they are our first impression of the game.

We can all agree that duke 3d was a fun game, but its not like it is still flying off the shelf. There are a whole new generation of gamers who have yet to experience the wonders of Mr. Nukem.

[avatar_58]

Belive it or not, but I voted yes. I like some old games, like Vietcong, Mafia or Max Payne. All those games have great gameplay and the graphics aren't exactly top-notch.



Before I got my new graphics-card, I had to play TF2 and portal on the lowest resolution and the lowest quality setting, but I didn't care. I enyojed those games.



As long as the games are good, I don't care about the graphics so much. Sure it can be fun to have good graphics, but it isn't compulsory.


http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2501239

[Taril]

Hell yes. If i can get it to work on my modern computer. Easily
I still play Thief 1,2, System Shock 2, Duke Nukem 3d, Half-life 1 etc..

[Fjallraven]

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=2501239

AHH, my ears!

And what has that got to do with anything? I didn't like Duke3D's gameplay. I even played it with the Hi-res pack. That pack made it look a lot better. And still i didn't like it.

EDIT: It turned out that my headphones was turned up very high, so that was why the "objection" sound was so loud.

[Kev_Boy]

There's really absolutely no reason you should have one, and not the other. They're linked together in such a strong way that improving one can automatically improve the other.

Functional graphics i.e. Max Payne level for a game that came out today would be fine, but Half Life graphics would be where the limit lay for me. Afterall, it's incredibly shortsighted and uninformed to say graphics don't matter.

[MAT]

Belive it or not, but I voted yes.

OMG I can't believe you.

[TBZ]

Considering I just bought StarCraft, I voted Yes

[Wamplet]

Yeap,

I would and have.

Here's some living proof:

I bought System Shock 1 and 2, Outcast, Thief 1 and 2 about a year or 2 ago. :o

I think in some of those cases, it's been 10+

\o

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Wamplet, I believe we are talking about a new release game. Not buying an older good game.

[avatar_58]

If it's your first time ever playing the game, what difference does it make? I only played System Shock 1 and 2 recently as well, and the graphics didn't bother me at all.

The way I see it it's better to have nicer crisp graphics of course, but it's not the end of the world if a game doesn't. Good graphics can make an already good game into a better one, but they cannot save a shitty game.

[X-Vector]

Of course I would, on the whole 'old' graphics > current graphics as far as I'm concerned.

Been playing some Unreal and UT recently and those games still look more than OK to me, even though they're closer to ten than five years old.

[Damien_Azreal]

I saw a post on bluesnews where a user said he'd buy a game with old (5+ years) graphics as long as it had Tribes-style gameplay.

If a game came out today with 2002-2003 graphics (or even just 'functional' graphics) but fun gameplay would you buy it?


Easily. I would.

Even if the game came out long before that.... I still play games long before 2002. Before 3D graphics were the standard.

[Mountain Man]

Vote: Absolutely. Great gameplay never becomes obsolete.

[Jiminator]

I enjoyed gothic3, just finished gothic and am playing gothic2, so the answer is yes.... :)

[Kev_Boy]

Vote: Absolutely. Great gameplay never becomes obsolete.

Now I'll debate that, how can say...
Doom without even the ability to have a room above a room rival today's FPS game-play? :)

[Mountain Man]

Now I'll debate that, how can say...
Doom without even the ability to have a room above a room rival today's FPS game-play? :)
Wrong question. Right question: Is Doom still fun to play despite this technical limitation? Answer: Yes.

[avatar_58]

Now I'll debate that, how can say...
Doom without even the ability to have a room above a room rival today's FPS game-play? :)

I don't understand what you mean by this - why would a game made in the 90's have to compete with all the advancements made with today's technology? Is Doom still fun? Yes of course it is.

[Water12356]

Vote: Absolutely. Great gameplay never becomes obsolete.

Agreed. The word we are searching for is, "Fun". If a game is fun, graphics dont matter much!

[Damien_Azreal]

Now I'll debate that, how can say...
Doom without even the ability to have a room above a room rival today's FPS game-play? :)

Wrong question. Right question: Is Doom still fun to play despite this technical limitation? Answer: Yes.

I don't understand what you mean by this - why would a game made in the 90's have to compete with all the advancements made with today's technology? Is Doom still fun? Yes of course it is.

I agree with MM and avatar.

Doom's technical limitations didn't hinder it's gameplay at all, it was and still is a very fun shooter.

[Hudson]

My favorite games of all time look like complete crap by todays standards, so.. yeah :)

[Nihilanth]

I think this thread is a bit misleading. Most people say "yes" to the poll adding they still play older games. That actually seems like people don't answer "would you buy a newly released game if it has poor graphics and great gameplay" question but their own "do you still enjoy older games despite their aged graphics".

I kinda agree with Kev_Boy. He is not saying that DOOM has to be competetive with todays shooters in order to be fun. He says that if a new game had poor tech base, it would hold the gameplay back.

It's a different thing that he actually confuses poor tech with poor graphics. Having DOOM-level graphics in a 2008 game wouldn't mean that game had to have DOOM limitations.

[Sang]

That, of course, depends on your merit of what "good gameplay" is but if there was a game out there (hint: there are) with 5 years old graphics but really fun to play then I wouldn't hesitate to buy them.

Wouldn't even have trouble buying some 1998 games (though unfortunately most are hard to find by now).

edit: upon reading Nihilanth's post - I'd still buy a game released today if it looked like, say, Morrowind :D ;)

[Hudson]

If Shock2 or Deus Ex came out right now, today.. I would still love them to death. So yeah.

[Ras]

I buy old games all the time, and my main concern is if I can get them to work rather than what they look like. That said, I'd rather developers of new games shoot for the sky with every aspect of the game. A crap game with good graphics is still crap, but a good game won't be hurt if the graphics are good as well.

Still, I play games that aren't top-of-the-line all the time. Phoenix Wright has graphics I enjoy, but they're nothing that couldn't have been done a long time ago. If the gameplay is as good as we hope, DNF can have Far Cry graphics and be alright. But, who wouldn't want it to be the best looking FPS on the market, if for bragging rights alone?

[Hudson]

Screw bragging rights, it's been 11 years ;)

[ShadeEX]

Afterall, it's incredibly shortsighted and uninformed to say graphics don't matter.

I have to disagree with that statement..

I don't consider myself shortsighted and uninformed.. Graphics are an added bonus for me in a game and nothing more than that.

Without good gameplay a game does nothing for me.. Graphics dosn't sway me one bit towoards a purchase..

Sure I do admit that good graphics are nice (hell I'll even say when a game looks good), but without gameplay graphics is nothing more than a living picture for me..

So absultely yes I will buy old games no matter what graphics will look like.. Infact I even enjoy some text-adventures that dosn't have any graphics at all..

[Nihilanth]

So absultely yes I will buy old games no matter what graphics will look like..

And here's what I've been talking about. This is NOT the point of the thread.

[Phayzon]

My rough feelings on this in 3 minutes in MSPaint

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/9812/gameplayiw9.th.png (http://img182.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gameplayiw9.png)

Somewhere between Doom/Duke3D and UT is perfect

[LeadBullet]

I'm confused that Wolf3D somehow is marked as the highest in game play on that graph. It makes the graph look like it is suggesting that the shittier the graphics the better the game play must be.

The funny thing though these days is that high end graphics actually tend to turn me off. It seems like games are rehashed, have no soul and lack of originality and they are using graphics more than ever to try to make up for it.

I just want games that are fun and visually interesting regardless of the resolutio of the textures.

[vcatkiller]

And here's what I've been talking about. This is NOT the point of the thread.

Precisely. If I walked into EBGames today and a publisher had released a brand spanking new game just a few days ago that used, for example, Unreal tech 1 level graphics, would I buy it? Personally, I'd apply the same technique I apply to any new game I see that catches my interest - I'd try to find a demo first and see if I enjoy it. If I enjoy the game, it gets my cash. If not, it doesn't matter how marvelous a game's graphic engine can get.

Actually the more I think about it, the better an older tech would work, as long as the art direction is good. Means it'll happily work on my aging system with no hiccups. :D

This is not a question about how much you enjoy old games. I love them too, but just forget them for a second and think what would happen if a new IP with an old engine was released today.

[Mountain Man]

I kinda agree with Kev_Boy. He is not saying that DOOM has to be competetive with todays shooters in order to be fun. He says that if a new game had poor tech base, it would hold the gameplay back.
It might hold the gameplay back in terms of what the designers can do, but that doesn't mean the game would be any less fun to play. Case in point, one of my all-time favorites: Airborne Ranger (http://www.lemon64.com/?mainurl=http%3A//www.lemon64.com/games/details.php%3FID%3D74) for the Commodore 64. Was the game design restrained by technical limitations? Yes. Is the game still as much fun to play as a newly released, state-of-the-art title? In my opinion, yes.

[Mountain Man]

This is not a question about how much you enjoy old games. I love them too, but just forget them for a second and think what would happen if a new IP with an old engine was released today.
I think you're missing the point. The fact that many of us happily buy and play older games means that we wouldn't have a problem if a new IP featured "dated" graphics.

[Sang]

Personally, I'd apply the same technique I apply to any new game I see that catches my interest - I'd try to find a demo first and see if I enjoy it. If I enjoy the game, it gets my cash. If not, it doesn't matter how marvelous a game's graphic engine can get.

Of course that's what you'd do when searching for good gameplay! That's obvious. It's the graphics whores that buy stuff automatically just for the graphics, but you can't judge gameplay by screenshots.

That said even though I am a gameplay-guy, sometimes I buy games if there is no demo available (and if I read some info on it). Then we have a hit or miss situation, though in recent past I can think of only one particular "miss" for me which was Call of Cthulhu.

My rough feelings on this in 3 minutes in MSPaint

Wha - Wolf3D's gameplay was basic shooting at 5 or so enemies in identical looking levels over and over again, I really don't see how it can possibly be at the top. It was a huge borefest for me and I'd definitely place Doom 3 higher on the graph. What makes Doom 3 worse than Quake, for example?

I also don't see why you've got Doom and Duke3D on the same place even though there is a huge difference - graphics, tech and gameplay-wise - between the two.

I realize that the graph is personal opinion but you really should elaborate on it, because really all you've drawn in there is "wolf3d is bettar gaemplay than half-life!!!".

[Dogy]

It depends a LOT on the genre. I'm replacing the word graphics with technology because it appears that tech is adding to BOTH graphics and gameplay.

For hack and slashes, pure NO. Tech is slowly allowing the huge huge battles that were only able to be seen in the movies. Now, there are numerous hack n' slashes with hundreds of troops on the screen at once, the king of them all being Viking: Battle for Asgard. (Please ignore GameSpot's 5.0 rating, everyone in the user forums are in agreement that the review is utter bullshit.)

Screens of it:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/077/942960_20080318_screen005.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/077/942960_20080318_screen018.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/016/942960_20080117_screen003.jpg

For shooters, again, pure NO. Tech is slowly allowing fully destructible environments, which add a LOT to the atmosphere of a shooter. The king of this feat is obviously Stranglehold.

Screens:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/233/928104_20070822_screen003.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2007/233/928104_20070822_screen004.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/059/928104_20060301_screen004.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/059/928104_20060301_screen003.jpg

RPGs and RTSs tend to rely more on art style than being tech-driven. Unless, of course, you want to show thousands and thousands of troops on the battlefield at once, a'la Medieval 2: Total War.

Screens:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/312/reviews/931592_20061109_screen003.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/310/reviews/931592_20061107_screen003.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2006/310/reviews/931592_20061107_screen002.jpg

Driving games are apples and oranges within the genre itself. You have the boring and lame realistic racers such as Forza 2, GT, and PGR which rely on hyper-realistic car models in order to keep the player interested.

Then there are the racers that use tech to add to the OH SHIT factor.

The king being Burnout: Paradise.

Screens:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/022/reviews/933706_20080123_screen002.jpg
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/022/reviews/933706_20080123_screen063.jpg

[Komb.at]

Sudoku

'nuff said

[Hudson]

Yeah, I still love Tetris :o

[Superczar]

Depending on the game type/gameplay, yeah I would. BUT NOT F***ING TRIBES! That game SUCKED ASS!!! :mryuck:

I would love to see RTS games go back to the Red Alert 2 / Sudden Strike 2D days - I think they looked a lot better IMHO. I remember firing up Generals and Emperor: Battle For Dune and thinking they looked like shit...

And frankly I don't think the Baldur's Gate engine got used nearly enough - there could have been a ton of great AD&D games made on it and I would have loved that... the game looked much better than newer RPG's I think...

[Dopefish7590]

Duke Nukem, 'nuff said.

[Sang]

I remember firing up Generals and Emperor: Battle For Dune and thinking they looked like shit...

Of course - they were among the first RTS's to be in 3D. But the tech wasn't there yet so even though it was 3D you could only have low-poly models. But compare that to more recent 3D RTS games.

[djc23]

Actually the more I think about it, the better an older tech would work, as long as the art direction is good.
That is a good point right there. I have always found it is the art direction, not the tech, that has the biggest impact on if a game looks good.

On to the question though: undoubtedly yes. I remember when Strife came out using the Doom engine, then several years past it's use by date, and I bought it with no reservations because the demo was so fun.

[Jiminator]

btw, look at darwinia, simple graphics, miniscule game, fun as hell to play.

graphics are not the requirement, creativity is.

[Hudson]

Indeed, just look at Kingdom of Loathing

p.s. Tribes kicked ass you suck super :dopefish:

[Wamplet]

After actually reading the last part of the first post, I'd say that graphics mean something when i buy something. I don't normally buy a new game if it looks like it's a few years older than what a new release should look like to me. There are exceptions, but for the most part, it's not like I'm going out and buying those Delta Force games or Big Rigs. Unless the game is supposed to be fairly simple, I generally believe if the graphics are not decent enough I won't bother playing it. Especially if it's full price, like 50 gold.

In either case, this same prejudice has led me to not playing games that i am playing now. :o

[superevilcube]

As long as the game is fun I don't care too much about graphics.

[John]

Heh, I wonder what Yatta would say. :D ;)

Ofcourse I would. Number one example: Fire Pro Returns. A recently released Japanese wrestling game, but it uses an oldschool 2d look. I mostly play it for the MMA/ultimate fighting matches though. :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qteTOwDb3BY&feature=related Ofcourse the quality of the video itself is crap, the game looks great and plays smooth.

[Phayzon]

Wha - Wolf3D's gameplay was basic shooting at 5 or so enemies in identical looking levels over and over again, I really don't see how it can possibly be at the top. It was a huge borefest for me

Well true I shouldve sloped that down a little bit. Wolf3D wasnt the "perfect game", but its definetly better than some of the latter games on my graph.

What makes Doom 3 worse than Quake, for example?

Quake, unlike Doom3, was fun.

I also don't see why you've got Doom and Duke3D on the same place even though there is a huge difference - graphics, tech and gameplay-wise - between the two.

Both are godlike fun to play. I realize graphics are a bit different and tech is very different but both were about the same gameplay fun factor.

really all you've drawn in there is "wolf3d is bettar gaemplay than half-life!!!".

Well, it is. Honestly I wanted to put HL below UT3.

[Thief]

Release Thief IV with the Dark Engine build of Thief II and I'd be there as soon as the doors open.

[Daveman]

Quake, unlike Doom3, was fun.

Honestly I wanted to put HL below UT3.

Thanks for the info, much appreciated.

[Reaper]

Quake, unlike Doom3, was fun.

Well, it is. Honestly I wanted to put HL below UT3.

Thanks for the info, much appreciated.
Yeah, it's clearly not reflective of what most people would think. Quake was fun!? HL below UT3?

HL was good. Quake was not. Oh, and just so I'm not sounding like an ass: that is my opinion.

[Karthik]

Depending on the game type/gameplay, yeah I would. BUT NOT F***ING TRIBES! That game SUCKED ASS!!! :mryuck:

I would love to see RTS games go back to the Red Alert 2 / Sudden Strike 2D days - I think they looked a lot better IMHO. I remember firing up Generals and Emperor: Battle For Dune and thinking they looked like shit...

And frankly I don't think the Baldur's Gate engine got used nearly enough - there could have been a ton of great AD&D games made on it and I would have loved that... the game looked much better than newer RPG's I think...
That's true. I'm starting to think that it has something to do with the colours they use. I mean Warcraft 3 uses a lower tech engine yet it looks much better than C&C Generals.

[psyborg]

I don't mind playing games on limited or simple tech as long as they have a good art direction. Technical limitations aside; Rez, No More Heroes, WindWaker, Jet Set Radio etc etc will always look badass due to their respective art styles.

Basically a game just needs to be visually pleasing to me, not necessarily cutting edge technology(but cutting edge graphics are always a plus).

[Mountain Man]

That's true. I'm starting to think that it has something to do with the colours they use. I mean Warcraft 3 uses a lower tech engine yet it looks much better than C&C Generals.
It's all in the art direction, I think. C&C Generals tried for a more realistic look which can be harder to pull off with limited tech while WarCraft 3 was more whimsical, like a cartoon. Plus, Blizzard just has some top-notch artists working for them.

[Wamplet]

Release Thief IV with the Dark Engine build of Thief II and I'd be there as soon as the doors open.

I'd make an exception for that game. Same goes for Tribes.


Actually, i think they made a new tribes or one on that engine they license or are going to. I need to follow up on that one.

[Denz]

I saw a post on bluesnews where a user said he'd buy a game with old (5+ years) graphics as long as it had Tribes-style gameplay.

If a game came out today with 2002-2003 graphics (or even just 'functional' graphics) but fun gameplay would you buy it?

YES;,:

[Fjallraven]

Look at Penumbra. The graphics weren't that good, and it turned out to be the best horror-game ever. According to me anyway, other magazines have given it around 7/10 grades.

[SonnyBonds]

It might hold the gameplay back in terms of what the designers can do, but that doesn't mean the game would be any less fun to play. Case in point, one of my all-time favorites: Airborne Ranger (http://www.lemon64.com/?mainurl=http%3A//www.lemon64.com/games/details.php%3FID%3D74) for the Commodore 64. Was the game design restrained by technical limitations? Yes. Is the game still as much fun to play as a newly released, state-of-the-art title? In my opinion, yes.

I'd say the same for one of my all time favourites, also for the C64 - Last Ninja (1&2)... still tons of fun to play.

[Reaper]

Actually, i think they made a new tribes or one on that engine they license or are going to. I need to follow up on that one.
Well there is that new Tribes-like game by ex Tribes devs, Garage Games. It's called Fallen Empires: Legion (http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=750).

[Boo Boo Juice]

I don't mind playing old games. My fondest gaming memories are from older games. I still love Duke Nukem. I'm currently playing Final Fantasy VII on PS1. I just recently finished Metal Gear Solid on PS1 as well. Every so often I will hop on Doom on XBLA. I still love the SNES days. To be honest, in my mind, Legend of Zelda and Final Fantasy VI (or III, whichever you prefer to call it) on SNES are two of my favorite games and I still play them every so often to this day.

I always get criticized by some of my friends because I still enjoy these old games. They always say, "I can't go back to that game." I ask why and they just say, "Because the graphics just look terrible now." Then I ask them, "but it was fun right? how do the graphics make the fun factor disappear?". I never understood the logic...

[MAT]

They always say, "I can't go back to that game." I ask why and they just say, "Because the graphics just look terrible now." Then I ask them, "but it was fun right? how do the graphics make the fun factor disappear?". I never understood the logic...

The adaptation to something old and ugly is hard no matter how fun it might be. It's like watching an old VCD in 2008 despite the fact you can watch that movie on blueray or something. It doesn't change the fact the movie was brilliant; it's just uglier and more annoying.

[Cipher]

Never mind.

[NutWrench]

NOLF 1, Deus Ex and Giants: Citizen Kabuto are three of my favorite games. A great story, interactivity and gameplay can easily make up for poor graphics.

[Wamplet]

Well there is that new Tribes-like game by ex Tribes devs, Garage Games. It's called Fallen Empires: Legion (http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=750).

Oh yeah, it's coming back to me. I think it has to run through a browser?

I remember that being a turn off. :o

[Reaper]

Oh yeah, it's coming back to me. I think it has to run through a browser?

I remember that being a turn off. :o
I'm pretty certain that you only need the browser for the lobby. You can run the game full screen if you wish.

[Hudson]

NOLF 1, Deus Ex and Giants: Citizen Kabuto are three of my favorite games. A great story, interactivity and gameplay can easily make up for poor graphics.

Just look at Psychonauts

[ShadeEX]

I have to disagree with that statement..

I don't consider myself shortsighted and uninformed.. Graphics are an added bonus for me in a game and nothing more than that.

Without good gameplay a game does nothing for me.. Graphics dosn't sway me one bit towoards a purchase..

Sure I do admit that good graphics are nice (hell I'll even say when a game looks good), but without gameplay graphics is nothing more than a living picture for me..

So absultely yes I will buy old games no matter what graphics will look like.. Infact I even enjoy some text-adventures that dosn't have any graphics at all..

And here's what I've been talking about. This is NOT the point of the thread.

:doh: Damn it I forgot to write "That also applies to new games"

[Sang]

NOLF 1, Deus Ex and Giants: Citizen Kabuto are three of my favorite games. A great story, interactivity and gameplay can easily make up for poor graphics.

Deus Ex has poor graphics? Some levels have areas that still look very good in this day and age (at least to me)

[X-Vector]

NOLF, Giants and Psychonauts are all games that still look good as well.

Imaginative and varied design over graphics checklists any day.

[Taril]

Not to mention the Homeworld games. I personally still think Homeworld 1 and Homeworld Cataclysm look great and i still play them.

[Esslan]

I answered Yes but it depends on the game. For me personally graphics are quite important actually. But that doesn't mean that they have to be technically advanced in the graphics's department.

If a games has a kick ass graphical design it doesn't matter how many polys, pixels or colors they use. To some extent that is. I still think some of the SNES games looks and plays great but i cant play a NES game for more than 5 min before i get bored and i think its because of the graphics to be honest. I still think Quake 2 is one the nicest looking fps's I ever played.

Another example to mention is Knytt Stories. If that wasnt a freeware game I wouldent hesitate a heartbeat to pay for it. That game both plays an looks great despite it uses "low tech" graphics. But thats just me of course.

[Cipher]

Not to mention the Homeworld games. I personally still think Homeworld 1 and Homeworld Cataclysm look great and i still play them.

And Homeworld 2 had better graphics but sucked.

[Daveman]

Uh, no, Homeworld 2 was fantastic. And it's still fantastic. It's one of the only games that doesn't get removed from my hard drive, ever.

[Malgon]

I know it's not really the same thing, but I'm recently going through games that are 5 years plus, and while I'm liking the visuals, the gameplay is exciting, and that's what's keeping me interested in playing. If a game was to come out with 5 year old graphics, but with solid gameplay mechanics, then yeah, I think there's a good chance that I would buy it.

[ADM]

Oh definitely. It's all about the gameplay (and story as well for Single Player games) for me.

I love graphics but more of a tech demo sort of thing, if a game has great graphics and terrible gameplay then I couldn't get less.

[Xolair]

I'd say that graphics DO matter quite a lot to me. If a game only has great gameplay but incredibly ugly visuals, it's not too intriguing. But if it manages to have both, it's a perfect combo by then. You sadly don't always get it, most games nowadays are nothing but surface and lacky re-playability. :(

[Nacho]

There are some games that have great gameplay and I can just barely play due to the graphics. Though for the most part most old games are great fun to play despite sometimes having crude graphics and I think it's because developers had to be more "artistic" with the graphics so while on the technical side they don't hold up well the look and feel remain making it more than just playable.

That's my problem with games now a days, they are great by a technical stand point but in five years time I doubt I'll enjoy the games as much as I do now due to the art style of the graphics just not holding up.

To me there are two things a game needs to stand the test of time:
1) Great gameplay
2) A good art style that will still impress 5 years down the road, not a game that just has millions of polygons.

(I'd word this post better but I have to get back to work in about 5 seconds)

[avatar_58]

To me there are two things a game needs to stand the test of time:
1) Great gameplay
2) A good art style that will still impress 5 years down the road, not a game that just has millions of polygons.

To stand the test of time for new players though - if I enjoyed a game back in the day then I'll enjoy it years later. For instance most old sierra games look like cow shit. Doesn't bother me. I just replayed FFVII and theres literally nuff said right there - as their models look like donkey kong.

[steauengeglase]

Depending on the game type/gameplay, yeah I would. BUT NOT F***ING TRIBES! That game SUCKED ASS!!! :mryuck:


Go back in time a little. Dig out an old computer and an average video card of the time. Now unplug your cable/dsl and set up a dial-up connection or if you really want to go all out, get ISDN. Then fire up GameSpy, (before it was just another marketing tool) and you'll know the awesomeness that was Tribes. Huge, expansive levels that seemed to go on forever. Just you, your team and an enemy base. No hick-ups.

Yeah, the glasses may be rose tinted, but the view was fine.

Anyway, sorry to jump on an old post, it is late and I can't sleep. So yeah, gameplay over graphics any day. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of old games that should remain unplayed, but when something it done right it really doesn't matter how it is executed, as long as it is fun. Now I'm going to go back to Oregon Trail.

[Superczar]

Sorry steauengeglase, I remember buying the game after it had been out awhile thinking "Hell was very popular" and then when I sat down and started playing I was like "WTF, this game sucks!" :doh:

Maybe I should dig it out and give it a second chance. I did grab a free copy of Tribes 2, so I should check them out again...

[Babe]

I will buy any game that has great gameplay and even 1999 + graphics. Example Quake 3, Half Life etc, Clive Barker's Undying. I wouldn't buy a game that is just pretty graphics and little gameplay, example - Unreal II The Awakening.