2nd Gen Graphics: How important are they?

dabridge

FalknerReidd
    • 20
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Seen Oct 5, 2010
    Well, it seems that one of the things I like about Crystal is it's unique graphic style. Everytime I see it's graphics, I immediately know what it is, because I played it for endless hours when I was a kid. Now when I look back at Crystal, I love everything about it, even it's "bad" graphics(I really don't think they're bad, but since my fangame attempt has been getting some negative replies because it has GBC graphics, I know a lot of people call it that).

    You see, I really don't think I would be trully happy if there was a remake of G/S in DS, simply because it wouldn't give me the same "I played this a long time ago and I loved it" feeling GBC graphics would.

    How about you? I'm not really sure how important the graphics are to other people, so I'd like to know.
     
    well i love crystal yellow and every gbc game ever idc about graphics it's the story and features that count
     
    Graphics have always mattered a great deal to me. First of all, to start playing a game for the first time it should look visually appealing and attractive. That way, the game would seem interesting for a player, and they would want to play it. If it looked murky and dull, it wouldn't be as attractive as a game with good graphics. Games are kind of similar to websites, in a way. When there's a guide on being a good webmaster, it's usually going to tell you something like: "Looks are EVERYTHING!" Of course, it's not necessarily everything but it does play a huge role into getting more hits on your site. Games are very similar to this, I would say. In reference to spriting, spriters would often create revamps of the old RBYGSC sprites and get them caught up with the DPP look but the same posture. Remember the Wii - many were disappointed about its average graphics that it had to offer. Graphics are obviously important. So yeah, graphics in a game have always played a big role into capturing my interest. If you don't have good graphics, it would just shout out ugh, this isn't a good game.
     
    Fantastic graphics are not vital if the game is good enough to make up for it (like Pokemon Crystal for example, graphics aren't great but it's still playable today).

    However, amazing graphics DO give an extra touch of class to the game, and I think we've yet to see that in a Pokemon game. They're always on-par with current graphics, they never go out of their way to be better.

    One problem I have is outdated systems and such. I won't play R/B, not because of the graphics, but because the menu is hard as **** to navigate and I can't be assed, when I could go and play FR/LG which has a much better system.
    G/S/C is passable though, as it's updated enough to be useful.

    On another note, I just won a Bulbasaur plush in a Skill Tester Machine. Oh Yeah.
     
    To me graphics are an extra, as long as the gameplay and storyline are good I'd still play them. My main 2 examples would be PKMN Silver and Final Fantasy 7 (in which everyone looks like they're made of playdough) they don't have great graphics but that won't ever be what will stop me playing them.
     
    graphics are important in games, but not as important as gameplay and controls.
    cuz u could have a game with great graphics, but so suckish control and gameplay and a bad storyline, like Drawn to Life...
    the most important things you should look for in games from most to least to me are gameplay, controls, storyline (if there is one), sound, and last is graphics.
    i'm going to use Sonic Chronicles: The Dark Brotherhood as an example for this one (cuz it's coming out Tuesday, and i'm getting it!). from what i've seen on the official site, the gameplay and controls looked great. its got an awesome storyline, from what i've read on Nintendo Power. i don't know about sound yet, cuz i never heard any of the music yet. last i looked for was the graphics, and they were great. hand-drawn scenery mixed with 3-d? awesome!
    so, graphics are important, but not as important as what really counts in the games.
    (crud, i ranted again!!!)
     
    I actually prefer G/S/C graphics to the R/S/E graphics. G/S/C had Day/Night, whereas R/S/E had nasty, albeit more colorful graphics.

    I'll take the second gen ones every time.
     
    Not very. In my opinion, graphics don't make the game. It's the gameplay, and almost every Pokemon game has good gameplay. Sure, graphics are important, but definitely not as important as the gameplay.
     
    For me, it depends on the game. I'm fine with the "odd" graphics because the systems weren't as advanced as they are now. Graphics make me enjoy the game more, but that doesn't mean I can't live without them.
     
    dabridge said:
    Well, it seems that one of the things I like about Crystal is it's unique graphic style. Everytime I see it's graphics, I immediately know what it is, because I played it for endless hours when I was a kid. Now when I look back at Crystal, I love everything about it, even it's "bad" graphics(I really don't think they're bad, but since my fangame attempt has been getting some negative replies because it has GBC graphics, I know a lot of people call it that).

    You see, I really don't think I would be trully happy if there was a remake of G/S in DS, simply because it wouldn't give me the same "I played this a long time ago and I loved it" feeling GBC graphics would.

    How about you? I'm not really sure how important the graphics are to other people, so I'd like to know.
    Click to expand...


    Of course its bad graphic what do expect from these old handhelds?
     
    I definitely see your point, dabridge. The classic nature of the Gold, Silver, and Crystal graphics is surely awesome. I still would like a remake with effort, time, and ability to put into it. I mean... lets say we got a remake. "OMG WE GOT WHAT WE WANTED!" And they did a halfass job on the graphics and such, would I like it? Probably, due to the nostalgia of GSC, but I wouldn't like it as potentially with good graphics.

    Graphics play a strong role in a game for me, like Raikazu, I'd like it to be visually appealing and excellently designed, etc. To me, it's a top three concern or priority. I don't want an ugly game, or mediocre everything done without heart. So yeah, graphics are important to me. Would I still love any Pocket Monster game regardless of graphics? Yes. Would I like it as much? No. The look and appeal of the games are important to me, just like the new Platinum sprites. I hated the look of Diamond & Pearl's, yet Pt yet the bar up there to my satisfaction. :>
     
    In my opinion the battle sprites in pokemon crystal, the animations are MILESS better than emerald or dp because at least in crystal the pokemon ACTAUALLY MOVED like for example the chikorita swung its leaf around its head. In emerald and dp MOST not all, just bounced up and down. Crystal FTW!
     
    Last edited:
    flaps said:
    In my opinion the battle sprites in pokemon crystal, the animations are MILESS better then emerald or dp because at leat in emerald the pokemon ACTAUALLY MOVED like for example the chikorita swung its leaf around its head. In emerald and dp MOST not all, just bounced up and down. Crystal FTW!
    Click to expand...
    I have to agree with the animation of Pocket Monsters.

    Crystal sprites variously contained at least three to six, sometimes seven, frames. While today they merely contain two, but with a lot of movement, flare, and flash. I like Platinum's, but still. That has to be one of the major Crystal graphics I still enjoy and like to this day.
     
    I for one prefer older graphics. Especially the G/S/C graphics. They brought new life to the world of Pokemon. Personally I think that most people want a remake of G/S/C for the graphics. I mean, why want another one? It wouldn't bring any new Pokemon out, maybe the maps would change but the rest would remain the same. Much like Platinum did to D/P.
     
    flaps said:
    In my opinion the battle sprites in pokemon crystal, the animations are MILESS better then emerald or dp because at leat in emerald the pokemon ACTAUALLY MOVED like for example the chikorita swung its leaf around its head. In emerald and dp MOST not all, just bounced up and down. Crystal FTW!
    Click to expand...
    I agree, the "modern" animated sprites are pathetic. In Emerald and DPPt, all they do is bounce around. It looks like Game Freak has some kind of obsession with stretching images.
     
    Good graphics are a nice thing to have, but not at the sacrafice of gameplay, and overall appeal level. Honestly, I don't think D/P/P are really that good of games. I play them, and enjoy certain things about them, but they'll never in a million years match the fun that I had playing the original games, R/B/Y and G/S/C. It doesn't help that the majority of the new Pokemon available in those games are some of the most ridiculous and unimaginative designs ever created. I still can't get over how lame Bronzor is, among others.

    If they really do make a G/S/C remake, then use the old graphics, not the new stuff (especially not the D/P/P graphics). It kinda defeats the whole purpose of a remake, since the majority of people (well, at least in my case) want to buy a remake to play it for all of the old elements it brought that made it so much fun, including the older graphics. I'd still buy it, even if they did use the new graphics, but I'd enjoy it more with the older graphics.
     
    Game Play is all that matters, and storyline, unless it is an NES game.
    If graphics mattered to me, I wouldn't play Blue version still.
     
    In my opinion I don't care for gaphics, but I do like crystals pokemon graphics because they are so cool how they move! lol
    Anyway, I go after the story more, because you need a decent story line in games first then graphics. xD
     
    I like better "old" games

    dabridge said:
    Well, it seems that one of the things I like about Crystal is it's unique graphic style. Everytime I see it's graphics, I immediately know what it is, because I played it for endless hours when I was a kid. Now when I look back at Crystal, I love everything about it, even it's "bad" graphics(I really don't think they're bad, but since my fangame attempt has been getting some negative replies because it has GBC graphics, I know a lot of people call it that).

    You see, I really don't think I would be trully happy if there was a remake of G/S in DS, simply because it wouldn't give me the same "I played this a long time ago and I loved it" feeling GBC graphics would.

    How about you? I'm not really sure how important the graphics are to other people, so I'd like to know.
    Click to expand...

    I like better "old" games with lower graphics. They don't have graphic, so the programer who design them spent most of his time to make the game more interesting. furthermore, if you see an old game, it must be good (cause it survived till today)
    getting a new shiny game is a risk. you don't know if it's any good, and most probably that the company spent most of their time and money to make the game('s trailer) look exciting.

    i like games like diablo 2, starcraft, lufia 2, c&c, pokemon, etc...the most important thing in a game is the gaming.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top