«

[zezaekrael]

Hello!

First let me say that I have been enjoying the site for a short time now. I have read many wonderful reviews and I find it invigorating to see that there are people out there willing to take the time to write these game reviews. You are all deserving of congratulations of the highest order.

As a news writer I find that I am often called upon to make reports on topics that do not interest me at all. Other times I find myself wrapped up deeply in the material I am covering. Either way I have learned that it is important to be objective and impartial. I try to report with neutrality in mind and do so with the understanding that comparative statements should be just that . . . comparable.

With this in mind I think I would like to point out constructively that we should all try to remember that the vast majority of these games were designed at a time when computers had nowhere near the capability they do now.

Most of these games were written, as games are now, for machines of "middling" capability. Thus even if the first pentium computers were just becoming available at the time a game was designed and marketed, it was likely only written to work on an old 486 machine so the broadest market would be able to purchase the game.

Keeping that in mind, it's important to note that many reviews seem to compare the graphics, sound and other features of these older games against a scale of today's capability. What we see now as "shoddy graphics" would likely at the time of the game's writing and marketing have been very good or even awe-inspiring.

Again, please do not take my comments personally or consider them to be critical. I am only pointing this out to help others remain objective, rather than subjective.

Thanks an keep up the terrific work!!!!

Zez

[BeefontheBone]

In editing the reviews I keep coming across phrases like "The graphics were good at the time, but aren't very impressive by today's standards" - I can see where you're coming from here but I think it's an inevitable comparison which will be made by anyone who plays the game, as the graphics (and sound) are generally the aspects of a game which age the quickest. A few reviews (like the one for EcoQuest IIRC) do praise the graphics quite highly.

I think it's fine to make some sort of comparison with today, so long as it's not a heavy criticism and is tempered with some comparison with the game's contemporaries.

EDIT: Isn't this a Site Comment or Suggestion ?

[The Niles]

*-moved to comments and suggestions-*


Hi zezaekrael,

Right you are impartiality is important but there are a few things to note. This is a site by fans of computer games for fans of computer games. It is made, for the most part, by amateurs. Mostly we are reviewing games we already know very well and like.
Also not all critique on lack of graphics and features can be excused by saying "the average computer of the time could not have handled it", hardly any of the games on abandonia are nearly flawless examples of gaming history.

On the whole I deffinitly see a rise in the quality of reviews over the last several months (those months in which I have not wrote a review myself oddly enough). There is always room for improvement of course and I welcome the feedback even though I do not completely agree with it.

The Picard

[Havell]

I think that graphics comments are a good thing, because people who read the reviews want to know how good the game is and if it's worth playing now, not 10 years ago.

[Tom Henrik]

I always try to compare the game to the time it was made.


Which always leads to "interesting" discussions with Kosta..


"AARGH! MY EYES!! The game suck, look at it! CGA graphics! This game doesn't deserve such a high mark. Lower the score."
"Uhm... Kosta... The game was made in 1983.. the fact that it HAS graphics is a BIG plus! This feature alone should RAISE the score!"


And so on... :P

[BeefontheBone]

like elite - ugly as sin now, but the wireframes were incredible at the time.

[Sebatianos]

But we must no forget, that there were some old games that really had excelent graphic - which still looks good now (example - Sinbad and the Throne of the Falcon - the first game that came to mind). So there are games that looked good back then, look old now, but the graphics are still nice to look at - the same goes for the sound. I try to compare the games with such games from the past - and try to see if a game can still hold ground with today's games or not. Off course I don't compare them to 4 CDs big games with extremely pumped up graphics. But compare this games with freeware online graphic games and you'll see that many old games were much better (even if the new freeware edition is actually just a remake of the original game).

[marko river]

Originally posted by Tom Henrik@Apr 15 2005, 01:44 PM

"AARGH! MY EYES!! The game suck, look at it! CGA graphics! This game doesn't deserve such a high mark. Lower the score."
"Uhm... Kosta... The game was made in 1983.. the fact that it HAS graphics is a BIG plus! This feature alone should RAISE the score!"

Somehow i know what you are talking about :bleh:

I don't see the reason why old CGA games shouldn't be on the site.

In my oppinion, i don't that it is very much important to discuss graphics in older games. Still, you need to say something, but i think that the most important thing in the games is FUN!!!!!!

If the most important measurement of the games are graphics, well, than start looking for some new demos and animations where art is the major thing.
BUT PEOPLE, GAMES ARE USED TO PLAY!!!!!!

I'm also one of those "game had good graphics when it was published" guys if the game was really like that. It is useful to know, since it gives you the info on the game standards in the certain year, or the info on setting the new standards.
After all, this is site for old games, i think it should have some game history.

[Unknown Hero]

I think you've gone a little bit !

I think that graphics should be commented in the way which explains how the game looks not something like: "The graphics were good at the time, but aren't very impressive by today's standards". If you want to explain how the game looks like, you didn't say anything with this (I know there are screenshots, but those ones can be taken from the best parts of the game).

So you say clearly: "Graphics are old CGA, but I liked it the way it is. Because if graphics are better, the game will lose its preciousness."
It should sound simillar to this above.