After reading a couple of recent game reviews and chatting with my friend Tony Warriner, it struck me that many of today’s games are developed with the ephasis the wrong way round.<\/p>\n
When reviews say that a game looks fantastic but that the gameplay is weak, badly implemented or too easy, the only explanation I can think of is that the graphics must have come before the gameplay. With publishers constantly pushing for technical innovation, some developers must be creating their rendering engine, deciding on a graphical style and thinking about the effects and physics they can put into the game and doing so as a greater priority than developing the gameplay.<\/p>\n
If the gameplay is created after the visuals, it’s going to be severly restricting what the designers are able to come up with, which ultimately makes the gameplay experience very dissatisfying. So we end up with games that look fantastic but play badly, or at best are mediocre.<\/p>\n
I find it incredibly ironic that with such games their best feature is actually their biggest handicap.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
After reading a couple of recent game reviews and chatting with my friend Tony Warriner, it struck me that many of today’s games are developed with the ephasis the wrong way round. When reviews say that a game looks fantastic but that the gameplay is weak, badly implemented or too easy, the only explanation I … <\/p>\n