There are 24 articles on this title. You are reading the article ranked and rated #16 by Helium's members.
Results so far:
| Graphics | 16% | 59 votes | Total: 369 votes | |
| Gameplay | 84% | 310 votes |
While video games have only been around a few good decades, they have probably made the highest and most recognized impact on society of any invention in the past century. Although games today boast cutting edge graphics, with clear anti-aliasing, and blinding bloom effects, I find myself, at times, straying away from games such as Halo 3, Crysis, and Bioshock, in favor of a good game of Pac-Man.
It's not that I don't like new games; and it's not like I am a die-hard gamer, being born in 1993, but sometimes you just want to sit down and play something fun, no matter what year it was made in, no matter what special effects it has, and no matter how shiny the lights are. I'm not saying that the games I mention aren't fun, because they are, I'm saying that they lose their touch.
You have to ask yourself one question: What makes the game? Is it the flashing lights, or is it the smile that it puts on your face, the times it makes you laugh, and the fun you have when you play it? In the 70's and 80's, games weren't made by teams of developers, they weren't carefully researched to attend to a certain audience, they weren't carefully designed, and they certainly weren't flawless. They didn't have cutting edge graphics, they didn't have any particular message to send out, they were what they were. They were games.
In those days, you made games because it was fun, you made games because you liked the challenge of being able to create something new. You didn't care about pleasing others, or selling copies. You didn't spend your life savings on one title; in fact, you hardly spent any money at all. You learned through trial and error what worked and what didn't work. And back then, games were extremely fun.
Super Mario Brothers, Pac-Man, Duck Hunt, they were all very fun games. They weren't fun because they were beautiful, in fact, quite the opposite - They were fun because they WEREN'T beautiful; they were fun because some parts didn't really make any sense at all. A yellow circle eating yellow blobs while chasing ghosts? That doesn't make much sense to me. But it makes me laugh. And that's all that matters in a game, to me. I don't need the cunning graphics, I don't need the elaborately designed citadels - all I need is a game that brings a smile to my face.
I think games have strayed away from the real purpose of gaming to have fun. Now, gaming seems more like a day job, than a pleasant release from the worries of society. Graphics don't really mean anything if you have a fun game. A game can be beautiful and still bore you to tears, but likewise, a game can be pixilated and blocky, and still be one of the most fun games you have ever played. Remember, you can't judge a book by its cover, and this goes the same for video games.
Learn more about this author, Adam Mcdaniel.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:
Add your voice
Know something about What makes a great game: Graphics or gameplay??
We want to hear your view.
Write now!
Already a member? Log in.
Featured Partner
The Goldwater Institute was founded in 1988 by a small group of entrepreneurial Arizonans with the blessing of Senato...more
hide