The best of the best looks pretty old to me. I still see simplistic video games with crude graphics.

I ain''t seeing stuff like I see at Cornell or Pixar yet.

quote: Original post by SnprBoB86
Technology is good if used properly. That''s the bottom line.

I just "stopped" playing GTA Vice City (I am so addicted, I will start playing in about 10 seconds). As much as I loved GTA 1 and 2..... they are NOTHING compared to 3 and Vice City. And that is all thanks to the limitless possibilities of larger, 3d environments and the raw power to process the complex gameplay.

Actually although sure GTA 3 was 3D, i still prefer GTA 2 to 3. I feel that the GTA series was a lot more fun from a top down perspective (yes I know you can change the view in GTA 3). I think it was the cartoony graphics, it removed the game from reality in a way and this is the way I prefer my games. GTA 3 is just getting to realistic, which I believe removes from the fun aspect of the game. Just my opinion.


hobo-jo

quote:
At the same time, all of this all 3D stuff is getting kind of old. As long as they make it feel gamey, like Mario Sunshine and Tony Hawke accomplish, then perhaps there''s still something in it for me to enjoy for time to come.

I agree 100% :D

quote: Original post by Jackyll
was there any real improvement in gameplay from psx to ps2 or xbox? was there anything revolutionary in gameplay? the only thing that helped improve gameplay was faster and steady frame-rates..

People so underestimate the Xbox. Hopefully Fable (Project Ego) by Molyneux will bust it wide open with its use of the hard drive to create a huge persistent world. Xbox Live will foster this huge online community, allowing multiplayer gameplay for many games. Hopefully downloadable content will mean games will have extra levels available.

And do you remember what FPS games were like on the PSX? The system was originally considered not a viable platform for FPS games due to hardware limitations. Medal of Honor proved that wrong but damn it was very limited. Don't think for a moment that the gameplay in sequel (Medal of Honor Frontline) was possible on the PSX (wide open terrain, tons of enemies). And GTA3 on the PSX probably would have been impossible. There was no way that Liberty City would have fit on the PSX's memory. There is so much work that goes into cramming these games into these systems' small memory. Even the almighty PS2 has a relatively small amount of memory which makes it hard to program for. Many games that fit on a PS2 would _never_ fit on a PSX. Just having more memory can open up new types of gameplay.

[edited by - beantas on November 5, 2002 11:00:08 AM]

quote:
People so underestimate the Xbox. Hopefully Fable (Project Ego) by Molyneux will bust it wide open with its use of the hard drive to create a huge persistent world. Xbox Live will foster this huge online community, allowing multiplayer gameplay for many games. Hopefully downloadable content will mean games will have extra levels available.

The Sega Dreamcast has a built in modem, and plenty of really good online multiplayer games...from Quake3 to Phantasy Star Online...but that didn''t save the system.

quote:
Don''t think for a moment that the gameplay in sequel (Medal of Honor Frontline) was possible on the PSX (wide open terrain, tons of enemies). And GTA3 on the PSX probably would have been impossible.

not possable with the exact same graphics...but still very possable...Doom was on the PSX, and it had huge wide open areas with hundreds of enemies onscreen at once...heck, the gameplay of Metal Gear Solid was just about identical to the original NES version...it is completely possable to have a 3D game world with 2D graphics...even the gameplay of GTA3 could have been done on the NES minus 3D graphics...the new technology has only helped to make the graphics possable...but the basic gameplay hasn''t evolved with it.

Take a look at some of the Doom open source projects that are out there...many of them now have mouselook, jumping and most of the other FPS traits that are now commonplace...yet many of these modified versions still work on the same 486 PCs that the original Doom ran on....Heck, the Duke 3D build engine could do room-over-room stuff, and it was 2D basied....The original Quake ran on the first generation Pentium chips with a software renderer and implamented the gameplay in a runtime interpreted scripting language known as Quake-C...The later Quake games run in 3D hardware acceleration with game code implamented with run time .DLL exectueable libraries...all on machines with over 10 times the CPU power as the original Quake had to work with...yet modders in Quake can (and have) made weapons, jumpads, and all the other stuff Quake3 is known for work within the Quake game, with those same Pentium CPUs.

But if your focus is on game graphics, you are going to be unable to see that gameplay has largely been dropped in an effort to promote "better" graphics on newer and "better" hardware.

"Just because you can, doesn''t meen you should"

quote: Original post by MSW
The Sega Dreamcast has a built in modem, and plenty of really good online multiplayer games...from Quake3 to Phantasy Star Online...but that didn't save the system.

1) I didn't say it would save or make a system.
2) XBox live is integrating lots of features that weren't on the Dreamcast: buddy systems, player challenging, ranking, persistent stats, and a purchasing system for buying new content. There's an entire community and front-end built around the entire online experience, rather than the Dreamcast's idea of separate multiplayer games.
3) Sega didn't market its multiplayer aspect well. You can be sure Microsoft will. This can mean more people will be playing than Dreamcast online games which means a better experience for everyone.
4) For XBox Live, Microsoft provides dedicated servers themselves so that developers and publishers don't have to. This means way more games will jump on the bandwagon.

quote:
not possable with the exact same graphics...but still very possable...Doom was on the PSX, and it had huge wide open areas with hundreds of enemies onscreen at once...heck, the gameplay of Metal Gear Solid was just about identical to the original NES version...it is completely possable to have a 3D game world with 2D graphics...even the gameplay of GTA3 could have been done on the NES minus 3D graphics...the new technology has only helped to make the graphics possable...but the basic gameplay hasn't evolved with it.

That's a good point but it's not the same. Some of GTA3's essential gameplay mechanics were in GTA1 and GTA2 but the jump from 2D to 3D changes things drastically in terms of feel, interface, and interaction. You could steal cars and drive around in both. But the 3D aspect in GTA3 made it feel like a different game. Doom and Quake may seem similar in gameplay mechanics but the way things feel, the way things interact totally changes when you move from sprite-based characters to fully animated polygon characters. There's more to gameplay than just abstract gameplay mechanics. It often boils down to how things feel and how they interact. 2D and 2.5D games feel utterly different from how a 3D game feels. And that's usually a big factor in gameplay.

Also, since 3D games offer different viewpoints than 2D games, they differ in the information that is relayed to the player. A big example is GTA3 and GTA1. Since GTA3 is 3D, you only see what's in front of you. It's difficult to see behind you and it can be risky to do so. In GTA1, you can always see both in front and behind. Also, in GTA3, you can see quite far in front of you, and it's easier to plan things ahead of time. In GTA1, the topdown view means you can't see that far ahead and planning has to be a bit more short-term. That right there is a big change in gameplay.

[edited by - beantas on November 5, 2002 2:22:17 PM]

quote: Original post by bishop_pass
The best of the best looks pretty old to me. I still see simplistic video games with crude graphics.

I ain''t seeing stuff like I see at Cornell or Pixar yet.

Pixel shaders will soon lead the way. Thank god for companies like Bungie and id.

quote:
Some of GTA3''s essential gameplay mechanics were in GTA1 and GTA2 but the jump from 2D to 3D changes things drastically in terms of feel, interface, and interaction. You could steal cars and drive around in both. But the 3D aspect in GTA3 made it feel like a different game.

GTA1 was designed to give the player a arcade game like experience...GTA3 was designed more as a RPG....the difference had little to do with technology issues as the games were designed with different focuses in mind..but good points none the less

quote: Original post by MSW
GTA1 was designed to give the player a arcade game like experience...GTA3 was designed more as a RPG....the difference had little to do with technology issues as the games were designed with different focuses in mind..but good points none the less

Much of it had to do with technology issues, namely the jump to 3D. Notice in GTA1, your bullets are relatively slow projectiles which simply shoot in the direction you are facing. That would have been hard to do in third-person 3D so the bullets in GTA3 changed to hitscan weapons which have automatic autoaim. The fact that there is less weapon aiming in GTA3 was influenced by the jump to 3D. A huge gameplay mechanic changed by the technology. Maybe the games were designed with different focuses in mind essentially because of technology issues.

I would like you to elaborate on how GTA3 was more of an RPG than GTA1 and how that affected the game''s look and feel.

quote:
Much of it had to do with technology issues, namely the jump to 3D. Notice in GTA1, your bullets are relatively slow projectiles which simply shoot in the direction you are facing.

just as they are in arcade games like Asteroids...and even fully 3D games like Quake have slower moveing projectiles (rockets, plasma shots, BFG, etc...) this has ZERO to do with technology and has everything to do with game design...slower moveing projectiles allows players and enemies to dodge oncomeing fire...which produces a different gameplay dynamic, requireing different player skills then a direct "point and shoot" approch.

quote:
That would have been hard to do in third-person 3D so the bullets in GTA3 changed to hitscan weapons which have automatic autoaim. The fact that there is less weapon aiming in GTA3 was influenced by the jump to 3D.

Quake, Unreal...heck, just about every 3D game has had slow moveing projectiles.

quote:
A huge gameplay mechanic changed by the technology. Maybe the games were designed with different focuses in mind essentially because of technology issues.

How often was the player allowed to fist fight in GTA1?...GTA3 was a 180 degree turn in the design of the series...the focus in the earlyer GTA games was on arcade like experiences...GTA3 focused much more on the game world...it traded the "shoot and dodge" action arcade like approch for one with a higher focus on story and characters...it made gun battles much more deadly, but introduced fighting to balance combat...it traded the nameless autos of GTA1 for a more detailed realworld approch of autos with names and specific characteristics...GTA1 had a more icon driven approch as the emphesis was on the run-n-gun action...GTA3 was basied much more in the details then the icon like representation of things...it approched the gameworld as a DM/GM would in a roleplaying game, and the game was designed along those lines...GTA1, on the other hand, took some fairly common arcade game mechanics and fit the game world around them...in GTA3 the gameworld is the centerpiece...in GTA1 the give and take of the arcade basied gameplay is the centerpiece.

Technology has NOTHING to do with it...there were lots of fully 3D games on the PSX before GTA1 was released...there have been lots sense then....as PSX developers they had complete axcess to the Sony development kits that others used...But they designed GTA1 with a different focus in mind...they chose the "top-down" viewing angle because it best supported the game they wanted to make...they chose to make the bullits slow moveing because it supported the game design focus they had in mind...the PSX didn''t force them to do this because it couldn''t handle it anyother way...it was and is entirely capable of rendering fully 3D worlds with hitscan bullets, and whatever other gameplay features you want...It can''t duplicate the quantity or quality of graphical features that the PSX2 has...but that has never been the focus of this thread.

quote:
I would like you to elaborate on how GTA3 was more of an RPG than GTA1 and how that affected the game''s look and feel.

GTA3 focused on the gameworld...the little side details...the different ways players could interact with this gameworld outside of the established GTA1 game mechanics were fleshed out...the "give and take" gun battles of GTA1 were replaced by the "give and take" fistcuffs of GTA3...
The game mechanics of character skills, leveling up, magic systems, monsters are RPG cliches...the world of Pen & Paper RPGs is filled with games like GTA3 in which the player takes on the role of a character in a specific detailed gameworld...the developers approched the GTA3 gameworld in much the same way...in the previous GTA game...the gameworld was more of a collection of general ideas in support of the game mechanics...this general collection was solidified and focused upon for GTA3...the game mechanics were developed in support of this gameworld, rather then haveing the gameworld in support of the game mechanics.
The gameworld in GTA3 is baised on mostly pulp entertainment revolveing around crime syndicates and "gansta life"...it isn''t real world "realistic" and doesn''t try to be outside of the gameworld limits it sets for itself...